Am I being reasonable?

jdturk

'so I feel sure you will want to deal with this at no charge.'

Thats the bit I took umbridge with, as I said generally with your complaint I think it was just but as you say maybe its just differant perceptions

jdturk

Tozer wrote: »

called "cost of doing business".

In this case????

Doesn't mean its right, thats like saying speeding at 33 in a 30 is 'just the way it is'

In this case as I have said I think the OP has a case but I also think that apart from the beginning the store have also done the correct thing in a negotiated offer as the OP has had some use out of the product.

jdturk

Peter_Friswell wrote: »

I have been on the other side in that I was the defendant. The claimant (is that correct?) brought a case that was judged "frivolous and vexatious" and ended up paying all the costs

Thought it was Claimant, could be wrong but you know what I mean

Tozer

jdturk wrote: »

Doesn't mean its right, thats like saying speeding at 33 in a 30 is 'just the way it is'

In this case as I have said I think the OP has a case but I also think that apart from the beginning the store have also done the correct thing in a negotiated offer as the OP has had some use out of the product.

Point remains, that a mirror designed for bathroom use is clearly not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose in the event that it is knackered after 18 months.

Blacksheep1979

Tozer wrote: »

There is a principle in law called res ipsa loquitur. In English - the facts speak for themselves.

Interesting read - thanks for that, but it doesn't seem to back your case

Under the old common law rule, to use res ipsa loquitur in the proving a breach of negligence the plaintiff must show that:

1. The harm would not ordinarily have occurred without someone's negligence
2. The "thing" which caused the harm was under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time of the likely negligent act
3. There must be an absence of a reasonable explanation as to how the harm occurred.
4. The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm caused.

point 1 possibly would refer to an inherent fault (which they then have to prove), point 2 - well it wasn't under exclusive control of the defendant, the op had control of the item and could have subjected it to almost anything (including abrasive or corrosive cleaning products which could have damaged the seal of the mirror) which is point 4.

I'm just playing devils advocate here - the chances are that they will fold like a cheap suit, but prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Tozer

It is totally evidential. The facts speak for themselves - a bathroom mirror should not be defective if used in a bathroom.

Your 4 point rebuttal relates to pure negligence rather than a contractual claim where liability is strict.

Unless there is evidence to refer to abrasive or corrosive cleaning products (and I would have thought Bathstore would have pointed this out!), then OP is home and dry.

Peter_Friswell

I would like to say a huge thank you to all the contributors. I have taken on board all the relevant points and have decided that I am being reasonable and will therefore initiate a County Court action.

If you are interested subscribe to this thread and I will update at appropriate times.

Thanks again

Peter

Tozer

Peter_Friswell wrote: »

I would like to say a huge thank you to all the contributors. I have taken on board all the relevant points and have decided that I am being reasonable and will therefore initiate a County Court action.

If you are interested subscribe to this thread and I will update at appropriate times.

Thanks again

Peter

Good for you. And best of luck. My prediction is that Bathstore will settle it straight away.

May be an idea to fax the claim form to Bathstore Head Office with a note saying that it will be issued the following day if no resolve.

mellywoo

I have a £200 illuminated round mirror from Bathstore it went back once due to black paint type stuff printed on the back that showed through then 2 times due to a water looking mark in the frosting around the mirror, both had it ,in the end the shop had 6 more delivered all but 1 had the same sort of marks, this one is okay but now i worry it will do the same as the Peter on here, incidently our mega expensive Bathstore quadrant shower cubicle not from their usual range, it was special order (now on our 3rd enclosure) leaks badly in our new bathroom despite the last 2 being fitted by an approved fitter of theirs too, the latest one is mean't to be power shower proof and we have an ordinary pumped one in, still leaks out of the sides against the wall, it has made an awful mess in our bathroom and looks messy and horrid! We are still waiting for this last enclosure to be looked at to find out the problem, mean't to have a ridiculously long guarantee on it cos it is so good apparetly!!! Manufacturer say it is down to the fitters again. :mad:

Amistoso_2

it is annoying that it has only lasted 18 months, but the court will have to take into account that you've had 18 months use and IMHO will say 50% refund is reasonable, I cant see that the bathroom store can hold you to ransome and make you spend more money with them but if they gave you half your money back then that would be a reasonable outcome...