[QUOTE=TBROCKS;7923126]
This would piss me off. Are you kidding me? The woman has disappeared with thousands of your dollars. The only nudge she needs is into court of law.[/QUOTE]
Iâd not be too critical of the ânudgeâ terminology. Iâve experienced some pretty good ânudgesâ in my day.
One could also ask, âwhat should the maker do?â The OP has no business relationship with the maker. The maker answered the OPs inquiry which they really didnât have to do as they are not responsible to the buyer prior to delivery (and then only to the extent of their warranty) but to the seller who placed the order.*
The OP is pretty much limited to dealing with seller. If the maker is willing, she could go forward with the purchase as a âfactory directâ sale. My guess is the maker is pretty well screwed, too, in this.
As to where suit might filed, this is a matter for the jurisdictional rules where the OP lives. In general, to be subject to the jurisdiction of a State a person must be âpresent,â either physically or constructively. Some states are quite liberal and any âdoing businessâ there (soliciting orders, regular sales, delivering goods, etc.) will do. Others are more conservative and require more than just a âcasual saleâ or âpassing presenceâ before a defendant is subject to their jurisdiction.
The OP is in a bad place and likely will end up âeatingâ the loss. Suit would be appropriate but the odds of collecting are not good. Making a complaint to the her State AG is a good idea. So would a complaint with the BBB where the seller lives.
G.
*This is technically called âprivity of contract.â This might change if the maker received payment, full or partial, from the seller.