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

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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.

Considering the OP states quite clearly that in his opinion the cost levied should just have been for reglazing yet he paid for the painting, one does have to ask why he did that, what made him do that?

If we speculate, it could have been that the owner threatened to call the police (even though this would be a civil matter) it could be that the owner was loud in a public place and thus causing embarrassment to the
family, it could be that they wanted to get their son out of the situation as he was becoming upset. Any one of those could be construed as causing the OP to feel under duress.

It may have been none of those things, maybe he just paid up because he wanted to part with the extra money;) Perhaps he will come back on and tell us!!

Equaliser123

jrrowleyws wrote: »

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.

A "tool" for what exactly?

The OP mentioned that their child has down syndrome in the context of a description. Hardly using it as a "tool".

MyRubyRed

I'd REALLY like to know the name of the gallery. Whether legal or otherwise I think their attitude towards the OP stinks!!

Claire_Bear

If you knocked a picture over in a shop on the high street and only the glass broke, you would have to pay for the whole thing, you'd look a bit daft if you only offered to pay for the glass to be fixed. As I see it the gallery is just like a shop, they sell products to customers and if the policy is 'you break it you buy it' then it doesn't matter if only one element of the painting is broken. However, the fact that the painting was leaning up in a place where it would easily be knocked over then the gallery should admit some liability for the damage and should have compromised with you. Just out of interest, is it the fact that they're making you pay for everything despite the fact that the painting was in an awkward and dangerous place which is annoying you, or just the whole thing in general? If the painting was hanging up on a wall and your son knocked it off and smashed the glass, would you be more willing to pay full price for it or would you still only offer to pay for the glass? I think it's a bit cheeky that they left it in a precarious place and then whinged when it got broken!

Freddie_Snowbits

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.

No we are not.

Would you let a bull into a china shop?

lucylucky

Equaliser123 wrote: »

A "tool" for what exactly?

The OP mentioned that their child has down syndrome in the context of a description. Hardly using it as a "tool".

It could be construed that by mentioning the OP was seeking to elicit sympathy.
In that context using the info as a "tool"

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

Considering the OP states quite clearly that in his opinion the cost levied should just have been for reglazing yet he paid for the painting, one does have to ask why he did that, what made him do that?

If we speculate, it could have been that the owner threatened to call the police (even though this would be a civil matter) it could be that the owner was loud in a public place and thus causing embarrassment to the
family, it could be that they wanted to get their son out of the situation as he was becoming upset. Any one of those could be construed as causing the OP to feel under duress.

It may have been none of those things, maybe he just paid up because he wanted to part with the extra money;) Perhaps he will come back on and tell us!!

If we speculate, it may be that at the time the OP didn't actually know whether he was obliged to pay for the whole painting or just the cost of repair, and on reflection wondered how strong his case may have actually been. The situation that the OP found themselves in is inherently pressurised and I can see why s/he would have wanted to bring it to a swift conclusion, but that does not mean that the settlement was made under duress.

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

On this point, it is true that the wholesale price is what needs to be paid as it is effectively the cost for the shop owner to replace the item. However, I made my initial observations on the basis that this is art, and therefore is more than likely more difficult to replace, if it can be at all. That said, £260 is more than likely a print rather than an original, and thus probably could have been replaced at a 'wholesale' price. In which case yes, there is a possibility that the price the OP paid should have been lower.

poet123

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

No we are not.

Would you let a bull into a china shop?

That is a very offensive analogy to use in the case of a Downs syndrome child:(

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

If we speculate, it may be that at the time the OP didn't actually know whether he was obliged to pay for the whole painting or just the cost of repair, and on reflection wondered how strong his case may have actually been. The situation that the OP found themselves in is inherently pressurised and I can see why s/he would have wanted to bring it to a swift conclusion, but that does not mean that the settlement was made under duress.

.

It doesnt mean it wasn't / or couldn't have been either;)

Freddie_Snowbits

poet123 wrote: »

That is a very offensive analogy to use in the case of a Downs syndrome child:(

What does the child matter in this case. The parent or carers know that the child has downs syndrome and take measures to care about this.

Is this not child neglect instead by OP? In letting the child get into a situation that can cause upset and distress.

PS Freddie does foster and has cared for children with varying issues, with no ill affect on others!

Pipe and Smoke it.