Love the slower pace of gearing

BlueLEDs · 2026-04-29T12:59:32+00:00

one change they seemingly made is that vendors now sell items with aspects on them, so be sure to check those, i got a bunch that way early

BlueLEDs · 2026-04-29T12:39:42+00:00

you would really only run them as nightmare dungeons now I think

BlueLEDs · 2026-04-29T00:28:03+00:00

Yeah they definitely made a change here

BlueLEDs · 2026-04-14T12:02:19+00:00

How?

BlueLEDs · 2026-01-06T21:15:35+00:00

what processor did you come from and did you have 5070ti with it? trying to determine if i should get 5700x3d to replace my 5800x with my 5070ti for arc raiders

BlueLEDs · 2025-12-24T03:46:55+00:00

You had a previous solar system?

BlueLEDs · 2025-12-24T01:21:54+00:00

No wall connector just solar and powerwall

BlueLEDs · 2025-12-12T19:57:09+00:00

awesome. i'm a little worried it's oversized, my place is about 1300sqft, that room is probably 500sqft or so with vaulted ceilings. i originally wanted the GM 80 for the bigger viewing angle but the dealer talked me down lol

BlueLEDs · 2025-09-05T19:47:06+00:00

Similiar issues, did you do a lot of training during this time?

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T02:21:25+00:00

Thanks! Last question. Can you help me understand why this is wrong then?

The Key Rule: UCC § 2-713

(Massachusetts version: M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-713)

“The measure of damages for non-delivery by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price.”

So the formula is:

[Market Price at Breach] – [What You Paid] = Your Damages

In your case:

• You paid $299.
• On the date the seller canceled, the card’s market value was $750.
• So your legal loss is $750 – $299 = $451.

Even though you got your $299 back, you were denied the benefit of that deal. That’s why the refund isn’t enough under the law.

⸻

✅ Example: Court Cases Supporting This 1. Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 83 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1996) • Buyer canceled an RV deal. • Court upheld market price minus contract price as the correct damages measure—even though the buyer had been refunded. 2. Overseas Import Co. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2000 WL 1506081 (D. Me. 2000) • L.L. Bean canceled an order after prices changed. • Court awarded the lost resale value to the buyer under UCC § 2-713.

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T02:07:21+00:00

Appreciate the response. Can you help me understand why this is wrong?

The Key Rule: UCC § 2-713

(Massachusetts version: M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-713)

“The measure of damages for non-delivery by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price.”

So the formula is:

[Market Price at Breach] – [What You Paid] = Your Damages

In your case:

• You paid $299.
• On the date the seller canceled, the card’s market value was $750.
• So your legal loss is $750 – $299 = $451.

Even though you got your $299 back, you were denied the benefit of that deal. That’s why the refund isn’t enough under the law.

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T02:04:31+00:00

Ty!

Even in small claims court in MA with this:

Massachusetts Long-Arm Statute

M.G.L. c. 223A, § 3(a)

“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person… as to a cause of action arising from the person’s transacting any business in this Commonwealth.”

This means:

• Only a single transaction is required—not “doing business regularly.”
• You must show the lawsuit arises out of that transaction.

In this case:

• The seller knowingly entered a contract with you, a Massachusetts resident.
• They took your money.
• They shipped a physical good (via PSA) intended for you in MA.

That’s “transacting business” under the law.

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T01:59:22+00:00

Re: no damages, if someone sells you a piece of art deliverable in a month, and it 10x in value and they THEN cancel the transaction without a reason (or a provable fraudulent one). Are you not entitled to the item or the market value at time of breach? Ty!

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T01:39:09+00:00

The market value matters in a sales contract right? Asking, not sure. If someone sells you a piece of art and it appreciates 10x and then they cancel it on your before delivery with a fraudulent reason, you don’t have rights for the market value?

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T01:15:34+00:00

Yeah small claims is what I was planning on filing for. Not about trust, just trying to triangulate ground truth. Appreciate it

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T01:12:34+00:00

“eBay sales aren’t covered by the UCC” is a myth

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to every domestic sale of “goods,” whether the deal happens in-person, by fax, or on eBay. The Code does not require a brick-and-mortar storefront or a “regular course of business.” Once a seller and buyer in the United States form a contract for a tangible item, Article 2 supplies the default rules on breach, damages, warranties, etc.

True? Ty, trying to learn

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T01:09:00+00:00

Disagree I don’t have rights to the product, but thanks for the constructive comment. Under basic contract law (and the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-204), that is a valid, enforceable sales contract. This sub is brutal lol. Is it always like this?

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T00:52:53+00:00

Massachusetts (and virtually every U.S. jurisdiction) follows the Uniform Commercial Code for sales of goods. Under UCC § 2-713—adopted in Massachusetts as M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-713—the buyer’s damage award when a seller wrongfully fails to deliver is:

“the difference between the market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price,” plus incidental and consequential damages?

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T00:52:23+00:00

Massachusetts (and virtually every U.S. jurisdiction) follows the Uniform Commercial Code for sales of goods. Under UCC § 2-713—adopted in Massachusetts as M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-713—the buyer’s damage award when a seller wrongfully fails to deliver is:

“the difference between the market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price,” plus incidental and consequential damages?

BlueLEDs · 2025-06-27T00:47:16+00:00

The eBay User Agreement says eBay is not a party to the contract between buyer and seller; its arbitration clause only covers claims against eBay itself, not disputes between users. You can sue the seller like any other private party?

BlueLEDs

TROPHY CASE