Legally speaking, however, the situation is far from a vanilla as it's been put. Without rehashing the spirit of previous posts... when a buyer has been denied receipt of his product beyond a reasonable time, there are consequential and incidental damages that arise legally. Outlaws and his/her supporters has stated in somewhat brutal tones this principle: that once performance of a contract has been delayed the buyer is entitled to either 1) a revoking of the original contract (return of his deposit), 2) adequate assurance that the contract will be performed within a reasonable amount of time (reasonable can be measured by what is reasonable in prior contracts dealings with the parties, similar contracts with others similarly situated, trade practice, etc.) or 3) performance of the contract plus incidental or consequential damages that arose from the failure of the breaching party to perform on time. This is just straight contract law via the Uniform Commercial Code.
Now sure we can say that greatness takes time and that the Davisound handmade product will be well worth the wait, BUT, while all this waiting is going on, Outlaws is missing two things: his right to enjoy his/her $1000 plus the lack of the ability to use the "alleged" preamp. Depending on Outlaws's commercial involvement in music this could be bigger than just a reasonable wait as the absence of his preamp would prevent, for example, his/her ability to raise prices to reflect the quality of the new preamp. Further (and quite obvious) there are a whole host of other preamps in this price range that he/she could have if Davisound didn't have his/her money.
More than just the contract stuff mentioned above, any time a merchant (or any party) makes a promise and the receiver of that promise relies on that promise to his/her detriment (e.g. an expenditure of money or some other tangible economic loss) the person who made the promise is legally liable for at least the amount of that economic loss. That is, Davisound is legally liable for any economic expenditure that Outlaws makes in reliance of Davisound's promise that "it'll be finished in another month (or stated period of time).
Further there's another legal theory that is at play, fraud. If overpromising is a pattern or way of operating for a particular business then fraud (in the inducement) is another possible legal theory making that business in even deeper waters from just the contract and promissory estoppel theories mentioned above. People have talked about the scummy lawyers, but truth is a lawyer may be needed if something doesn't give soon. Can you possibly imagine the consequences that we'd be in if every business operated like this? Sure, it may be an isolated incident, but that's what the law is here for... to make sure that people who get into business do not do so at the economic peril or others and against longstanding legal and public policy principles. If Davisound wants to get in the handcrafted audio business it needs to either state no timeline when it solicits orders or hire enough people to effeciently handle orders on time.
Just a little tidbit from your resident scum.
Es.
