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

poet123

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Yet the painting survived fine until it had something thrown at it. If it was that unstable it wouldnt have lasted until then.

The OP is straw clutching. Im sure if the easel had fallen on their buggy they would have been in court in seconds to sue for their damages. Also to add how would the OP ever prove their argument about unsafe.

Consider the weight of the average plastic cup....should it be able to dislodge a painting (which was allegedly secured by 3 screws)when thrown by a small child?.....the balance of probability says, no, and that is what any small claims court would take account of.

Weirdlittleman

poet123 wrote: »

Consider the weight of the average plastic cup....should it be able to dislodge a painting (which was allegedly secured by 3 screws)when thrown by a small child?.....the balance of probability says, no, and that is what any small claims court would take account of.

The balance of probabilities also suggests 3 year old children wouldnt be able to smash TV's with these cups. Go and look in the insurance thread at how often it happens though and these balances of probabilities are found to be likely :rotfl:

Or are you suggesting all these people are commiting fraud?

The OP should pay up and control their child better in future.

Equaliser123

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

No we are not.

Would you let a bull into a china shop?

Out of order. End of.

Equaliser123

lucylucky wrote: »

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

Sympathy for what? The circumstances?

Still not sure what a "tool" is in this context.

poet123

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

The balance of probabilities also suggests 3 year old children wouldnt be able to smash TV's with these cups. Go and look in the insurance thread at how often it happens though and these balances of probabilities are found to be likely :rotfl:

Or are you suggesting all these people are commiting fraud?

The OP should pay up and control their child better in future.

Never seen a thread/post where a 3 year old has smashed a TV with a plastic cup, perhaps you could link to one......:D I will read it and see how it comes across, but generally, yes, I would be unconvinced.

Busbybank

Hi All,

Thank you all for your responses. We have a number of points to make.

1. We did feel under pressure the whole time after our son broke the painting. I was so upset I went outside with my sons. We kept asking to pay only for the damage and were happy to do this. The painting was still wrapped and not on display.

2. Both our sons were strapped into there buggy and both had drinks. Perhaps it is off no relevance that J has Down Syndrome, but he neither looks nor acts like a three year old and is very unpredictable. J was not upset or bothered by his actions, in fact he seemed to think the glass breaking was a great noise. We would never place him in a situation which we think would cause him distress. We want the best for him which includes a huge range of positive life experiences. We were the ones who were distressed and upset.

3. The artist was fantastic and upset that she was not called as she would have asked for damages only. The painting was an original and was not damaged at all. They contacted the framer and they said it would cost no more that £60.00 to re-glaze.

4. We did not know our rights at the time and so paid - now I would walk out if they would not accept the cost of damages only. We did talk with the police after and they said we should have told them we refused to pay and to call them!

5. There were no signs indicating that we should pay for any damage caused. (This is not a legal requirement according to Trading Standards)

6. We were having an hour browsing the shops time after spending time on the beach (most of the morning) and wanted our kids to see the art as well. if I needed to leave my kids outside I would not have gone in. Most of the artwork was secure, this painting was still wrapped and not on show nor even priced I must add.

7. Not gonna name the gallery as the artist has a living to make I would like her to make some money from her art. Not to my taste, but I am sure someone loves it.

8. We think we are responsible parents, which is why we wanted to pay for the damages, not buy a painting which we don't like and could be repaired. This is the first time we have ever had anything break in a shop (hopefully the last).

9. If we wanted to 'play the disability card' we would have mentioned that one of us is profoundly Deaf and relies on lip reading. It did not help that the gallery owner would not look us in the face. It added to the stress at the time but is not really relevant and so we did not mention it.

Thank you all for your responses. It has given us food for thought and probably a huge discussion. One of us wants to leave it at that and the other wants to get legal advice. :beer:

Weirdlittleman

poet123 wrote: »

Never seen a thread/post where a 3 year old has smashed a TV with a plastic cup, perhaps you could link to one......:D I will read it and see how it comes across, but generally, yes, I would be unconvinced.

Some super strength 3 year olds for you....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2357189

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/30305735#Comment_30305735

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1736563

Bloody kids cant be taken anywhere. Sounds like kids cages should be invented....

poet123

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Some super strength 3 year olds for you....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2357189

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/30305735#Comment_30305735

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1736563

Bloody kids cant be taken anywhere. Sounds like kids cages should be invented....

I repeat show me a thread about a plastic cup.....The wii remote is not comparable as it is quite heavy when it has batteries in, and is being swung directly at the TV.

DVardysShadow

MyRubyRed wrote: »

Surely the fact that the child has Downs should not be the issue here. Any child of 3 could have thrown a beaker or toy out of a buggy. Indeed I'm in my 50's and frequently throw my toys out of the pram??

At your age, it is the only way to make room enough to get in.

Crazy_Jamie

Busbybank wrote: »

One of us wants to leave it at that and the other wants to get legal advice. :beer:

Your second post was fine and reasonable, but on this point I highly urge you not to take legal advice on this. The reason is simple; even if this was an entirely clear cut case (which it is not) it is simply not worth the hassle. The gallery are highly unlikely to return your money without something of a fight, and even at the best of times legal proceedings are stressful. For the sake of £60 or thereabouts I would simply say that it is not worth the stress and effort. Move on and devote that time instead to your children. You will feel much better for it; if you spend your time fighting on principle you'll not have enough time for the things that actually matter.