A mishap at an art gallery - broken painting - Gallery owner refused to listen

suited-aces

Some of you sound like you're calling the OP a bad parent for having a kid with downs. Shame on you.

jrrowleyws

suited-aces wrote: »

Some of you sound like you're calling the OP a bad parent for having a kid with downs. Shame on you.

More to the point, I fail to see what down syndrome has to do with this situation. Any 3 year old child could have caused the damage. Disability is always used as a tool on this website.

mumOf2wonderfulkids

op, take a look at this posted by MSE Wendy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1480303

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

They could make a case in the small claims court for lack of duty of care, and sue the Gallery for their out of pocket expenses associated with that lack of care , namely the cost of the painting, inconvenience and travelling expenses.

Any such attempt would fail; the OP has already admitted liability and paid for the 'loss' suffered by the store. Bringing fresh proceedings now would be construed as an abuse of process because the matter has already settled.

Crazy_Jamie

suited-aces wrote: »

Some of you sound like you're calling the OP a bad parent for having a kid with downs. Shame on you.

Please point out who you are referring to with this comment, because on scanning the thread back I genuinely don't see who this is aimed at.

poet123

Not if they felt they had to settle, and did so under duress.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

Not if they felt they had to settle, and did so under duress.

Indeed not, though there is absolutely nothing in the original post to suggest that this money was given under duress, at least not the legal definition.

Soubrette

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You are right that no assumption can be made that it would have been sold that day, but such an assumption is not needed. The OP has raised the issue that £260 was too much for the painting because it includes an effective £60 profit to the art gallery. In fact the price is correct because the art gallery would have made that profit on a sale of the painting anyway.

The OP may have gotten away with paying less if only the glass/frame was paid for. However, ultimately this isn't now relevant because the OP paid for the whole painting. And on that eventuality the £260 price was correct.

I agree that it is probably irrelevant as the OP has admitted liability and paid.

However it seems that profit should not be included in breakages - just the wholesale price.

Sou

Altarf

jdturk wrote: »

Irrespective of who caused the damage that if you do it in a store the store has the LEGAL right to get you to pay the wholesale price (Plus VAT) for the item.

To be pedantic, if they are VAT registered, it is the wholesale price excluding VAT, as they will have claimed the VAT back.

isplumm

Altarf wrote: »

To be pedantic, if they are VAT registered, it is the wholesale price excluding VAT, as they will have claimed the VAT back.

Hi,

Not every company that is VAT registered can claim VAT back ...

Mark