100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Break it, buy it? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 01/27/13 08:40 PM
|
|
That being the case...anybody could walk in and 'accidentally drop' a number of items and argue that they were cheaply made and refuse to pay for them on the grounds of it 'being the shopkeepers fault' for selling cheap stuff, and putting it in a place where it can be handled by the public. How unfair is that argument?...not to mention being out of pocket for the retailer. Not true at all. We are talking about a ring, which is a piece of jewelry. How many rings do you know will fall apart if you drop them? You can't expect to compare that to a person dropping an expensive vase. But even the vase case may have to go to court. The shop keeper might want more for the vase than it would cost to replace it. The customer should not have to pay retail price for it, only the replacement value. Then, if that is the case, it would have to go to court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About the ring its aoubvious. Did not have to pay. Was already repaired with glue like you said or it was fabricated like that "unsure of glue situation" ya know. But your friend seems to be passive customers have to put their foot down and not get shafted. Pick your battles,stand your ground when you're right.just don't go taking advantage of merchants. My friend was confused because she is an international student here, so she did not really know what rules normally applied here in the States. I agree that if you damage something, you ought to take responsibilities. Though law and common sense often only describe a general principle. There are different situations that might need further examinations.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the customer should not have to pay full retail asking price for the items broken either. The replacement value is all they are liable for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$14.00 is pittance to argue about principle, but i would be peeved too if somebody came into my shop, broke a $14.00 item, and then proceeded to argue about paying for it because it was 'cheaply made'...i'm guessing there's a principle somewhere in there too ;-) 14 dollar is definitely very small amount of money to worry about. Just happened to overhear this story and wonder about what y'all think. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 01/27/13 08:48 PM
|
|
If I were to place one of my paintings in a gallery and the gallery is burned down, they may not pay me anything for my loss unless they had insurance.
If they had insurance they may only pay replacement value for the painting. If I could not prove that I always sell my paintings on a regular basis for a certain price I would only be paid for the price of the frame and the canvas and paint and maybe minimal amount for labor -- replacement value or less, for the painting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a thing about personal responsibility. If you handle something and your break it who is liable? Example of this, just recently there was a story in the news about some writer who broke a million dollar classic race car and got sued for the $144,000 to rebuild the engine. He blew the engine up racing the car on a track. Now the driver could have tried to say, "hey, I paid for rental time on the car and it broke but since I paid to borrow it no way!" Well pretty much all states in this country don't see it that way. The driver was heard over revving the engine and he blew it up pushing it harder than it was designed for. There is no rev limiter in classic race cars. And the $144,000? Well, the car was a hand built performance car with a custom engine. You are not going to Auto Zone and buying the engine for that particular car. It has to be fabricated. Most stores have the "break it buy it" policy on their wall on a sign but it is a law in a lot of states too to protect retailers from "careless" customers. There is a pet store I know if where a kid opened a bag of dog treats and was handing them out to people's dogs but the store manager made the mother pay for the dog treats. She argued to the police she didn't open the bag, her kid did. Well, her kid, her responsibility! She risked being arrested for shoplifting over a bag of dog treats. Yes, Petco allows people to bring their dogs in. And on one last note, although this does not apply directly, there was a REALLY fat man in Oregon who decided to take a seat right at a buffet table and proceeded to make a pig of himself. When asked to leave he refused. When the police arrived he challenged them to make him move which considering this man was fat like Jabba the Hut, man handling him was out of the question. Well, the police brought in a tow truck, dropped a harness around him and dragged him out the door where he was met by a stun gun and a lot of angry police officers forcing him into a van to take him to jail. He was sued for the food he ate, the damage he done in that restaurant in the course of his removal (the chair ate it bad and he suddenly had a death grip on the buffet table when he realized the rope around him was attached to a truck) as well as a fee for being towed out! So it is not unusual for retailers to want to protect themselves. Each case is different. If you are in a china shop and you break something like that, you should probably pay for it. China is known to be breakable. A ring, should be able to withstand being dropped unless it is a fragile glass or some other strange material. If it is, then the shop keeper should not be putting it out and allowing people to handle it. Most shop keepers will keep fragile items behind a glass case. If someone drops a hammer on a glass case and breaks it, they should probably pay for the damage but the shop keep may have to take him to court if they don't agree on the cost of the damage between them. As for the race car, it should have been insured. Most states have no fault insurance, but some don't. Actually that is not true about renting cars. We are talking an exotic track car. And it was a private party arrangement. There is no such thing as RACE CAR INSURANCE. Example, say I rent a 1,000,000 Veryon and I drive it around for a couple of days. My insurance covers only so much. Now if someone hits me, they are at fault if I am just driving it around. If I wreck it doing over 100? CANCELED AND NOT BEING COVERED! Most insurance policies have some kind of Negligence clause in it. Now say I take the same car on a race track and go crazy with it pushing it to see how far it can go and I blow it up? Now here is where things get real funny, I took it off of the streets and I used the vehicle for something other than transportation. The exception is that there are insurance companies who will make ridiculous policies but they COST A BUNDLE TO USE! the reason is RISK! Race car drivers are taking a HUGE chance at killing themselves as well as others. Likewise the chances of something bad happening in are exponentially increased. An alternative is posting a Bond which is LIKE insurance but is money held aside "Just in case." One company I know of will rent you any performance car of their stable you want for $5000 a day plus you must post a commensurate bond of equal value to the car! You blow it up the repairs or replacement is covered then. Otherwise be ready for your insurance to either hit you with a financial cap where they will cover their expected limit (per terms of contract with the Insurance carrier) and leave you with the rest of the bill or they will say, YOU WERE RACING, NO WAY! NOT COVERED! The laws do indeed work differently here than they do in Japan. Like anywhere though you need to be careful. There are a lot of scam artists out there. And retail here can be rather P.T.Barnum, the man who said "there is a sucker born every minuet." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$14.00 is pittance to argue about principle, but i would be peeved too if somebody came into my shop, broke a $14.00 item, and then proceeded to argue about paying for it because it was 'cheaply made'...i'm guessing there's a principle somewhere in there too ;-) 14 dollar is definitely very small amount of money to worry about. Just happened to overhear this story and wonder about what y'all think. :) Well..maybe your friend got the short end of the stick...maybe not. The principle remains the same for the retailer...as well as the customer. There is no realistic resolve for a $14.00 piece of junk, apart from a moralsitic viewpoint, and this can be argued till we're blue in the face. But for $14.00??...psssht...i'd rather just suck it up then shake it off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it was a private party arrangement.
Okay I see your point... that would be a case for a judge to decide. ... and the outcome would depend on the verbal (or written) contract between the two private parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
katelin0210
on
Sun 01/27/13 09:08 PM
|
|
$14.00 is pittance to argue about principle, but i would be peeved too if somebody came into my shop, broke a $14.00 item, and then proceeded to argue about paying for it because it was 'cheaply made'...i'm guessing there's a principle somewhere in there too ;-) 14 dollar is definitely very small amount of money to worry about. Just happened to overhear this story and wonder about what y'all think. :) Well..maybe your friend got the short end of the stick...maybe not. The principle remains the same for the retailer...as well as the customer. There is no realistic resolve for a $14.00 piece of junk, apart from a moralsitic viewpoint, and this can be argued till we're blue in the face. But for $14.00??...psssht...i'd rather just suck it up then shake it off. Haha, agree. She did suck it up. I guess if the shop girl's attitude werent that rude, she wouldnt even have brought it up to me. I am the one who's curious about the law and perspectives behind all these, regardless of the price. Thanks for all your input tho, real interesting to hear from all of you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah the shopkeep is wrongful for that and it wad cheap so i would be outraged and pay her in pennies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah the shopkeep is wrongful for that and it wad cheap so i would be outraged and pay her in pennies ahahahahaha!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah the shopkeep is wrongful for that and it wad cheap so i would be outraged and pay her in pennies Too bad you just can't give them an IOU or a gift card to Hot Topic!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to the ring; The customer damaged the merchandise do to her
negligence, she dropped it. She is therefore responsible for the cost. It doesn't matter how cheaply made the ring was, or what the repair cost would be. The clerk on the other hand was rude. She could have just said the ring can be repaired for five dollars. As to the race car; The driver is responsible in a way. What was the agreement between the owner of the car and the driver? Was a waiver signed? Was it mentioned that the driver would take full responsibility for any damage caused? Only an idiot would let somebody take a classic car out on the track without some kind of agreement beforehand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to the ring; The customer damaged the merchandise do to her negligence, she dropped it. She is therefore responsible for the cost. It doesn't matter how cheaply made the ring was, or what the repair cost would be. The clerk on the other hand was rude. She could have just said the ring can be repaired for five dollars. So are you playing judge and jury now for the civil case of the ring? The point I am making is that the shop keeper has no legal recourse other than a law suit and if the customer didn't want to pay for it, the shop keeper would have to sue her. Point being, she could not call the police and have her arrested. It is a civil matter for a judge to decide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't go into a store and start breaking things. If the shopkeeper would have called the police, and if the police showed up before the woman walked out the door,
the cop could have written her a ticket for disorderly conduct or some such thing, which would end up costing her more than the purchase price of the ring. Something the officer would have no doubt pointed out to her and settled the matter right there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't go into a store and start breaking things. If the shopkeeper would have called the police, and if the police showed up before the woman walked out the door, the cop could have written her a ticket for disorderly conduct or some such thing, which would end up costing her more than the purchase price of the ring. Something the officer would have no doubt pointed out to her and settled the matter right there. That is a ridiculous exaggeration of what happened. She accidentally dropped a ring for christ sake. geeeeeze. She was not a person going around "breaking things" or being 'disorderly'. Now if a person walked into a store and started breaking a bunch of things, yes, you could call the police. But that is not what this O.P. was about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion
With the HUGE mark up in jewelry, $7.00 should have covered the cost & would have been a fair price, for this situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The shop assistant took advantage of the situation...but..through careless handling of the stores merchandise, the friend dropped the ring, causing it to break...which makes her liable. That argument right there would so stand up in a civil court..IF...it ever got that far and wasn't laughed out of it first.
Paying for half of it seems a reasonable compromise to me. Bring on Judge Judy! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The shop assistant took advantage of the situation...but..through careless handling of the stores merchandise, the friend dropped the ring, causing it to break...which makes her liable. That argument right there would so stand up in a civil court..IF...it ever got that far and wasn't laughed out of it first. Paying for half of it seems a reasonable compromise to me. Bring on Judge Judy! I would argue that the ring should not have broken in the first place. I have never broken a ring by dropping it. I would not have caved in to the demands of the shop keeper, or I may have offered to give her $2.00 for some glue. 
|
|
|
|
|
