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

linlin_3

Busbybank wrote: »

our son threw his cup out of the pushchair which hit the back of a painting which was leaning against something on the floor(possibly an easel).

A painting was leaning against something on the floor? Is this where you'd expect a painting to be?

There are rules for customer safety and duty of care and I believe this falls outside those rules in exactly the same way as if a supermarket narrowed the aisles.

You need to contact citizens advice on this but from what you say, you're being taken advantage of.

Good luck

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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.

I disagree, principles are almost always worth fighting for, and in this case if the OP does not do so the gallery owner will continue to believe he was correct in his stance, or know he was wrong but that he has exerted pressure on the OP and won the day.

It doesnt have to be stressful or particularly time consuming if approached as an exercise in redressing the balance for the consumer.

poet123

jdturk wrote: »

The OP also has a duty of care to make sure their kids don't throw things away from the pram as well.

What if it had been someone blind? a painting on the floor in a area where there is heavy foot traffic is asking for trouble. Have you read the earlier link to the legal position?

Zandoni

I feel that it's best to let this go, probably not worth the heartache to get legal advice.

If I had been the parent then I would have been very concerned that something covered in glass could so easily be broken. I would say that the gallery were negligent and I wouldn't of paid them a penny.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

I disagree, principles are almost always worth fighting for, and in this case if the OP does not do so the gallery owner will continue to believe he was correct in his stance, or know he was wrong but that he has exerted pressure on the OP and won the day.

It doesnt have to be stressful or particularly time consuming if approached as an exercise in redressing the balance for the consumer.

The OP is not a champion for consumers everywhere, nor are they expected to be. They are a parent to two young children, one of whom is disabled and therefore no doubt requires further effort and attention. This is not a matter of principles, it is a matter of practicalities. Legal proceedings are stressful for those involved, and to be frank it is simply not worth it for the sake of £60 in any event, let alone in the specialist scenario that the OP is in.

Moreover, the OP is more than likely going to see any legal proceedings struck out for abuse of process in any event. Their second post makes it clear that payment was paid because they did not know their rights at the time. There is no duress in this scenario, and even if there was to run that argument would be highly disproportionate in legal costs which would not be recoverable at the end as this would be a small claim.

Whichever way you spin this, taking legal advice in this situation is precisely the wrong route to take, and it can ultimately only lead down an expensive, time consuming and stressful path.

poet123

I still disagree, and as it seems the OP is considering his position, he may also disagree with your assessment of his circumstances and what they preclude him from doing.

The mere serving of the SCC papers may bring the Gallery to heel, if not, then SCC costs are not punitive, as the function of that court is to allow the ordinary man in the street to bring proceedings without legal representation. The final figure if the case went to court may be in excess of the actual amount currently in dispute, expenses, compensation for inconvenience, loss of earnings, upset, etc. could all be claimed. With regard to duress, that would be down to how the judge interprets it, in the SCC the burden of proof is much lower than in any other court, and the demeanour of the claimant v the defendent is also a barometer for the judge, and like it or not the fact the child has a disability could be used at this juncture, along with the comment about leaving children outside. A case could definitely be made.

I have seen quite a few cases won when the aggrieved party had been told by most people not to bother proceeding.

In the end the OP must make a judgment call as to how much this has affected him, and how much he wants to pursue the matter further. He may well reach the same conclusion as you, and for reasons you have given.

That does not mean he would lose if he chose the other route.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

I still disagree, and as it seems the OP is considering his position, he may also disagree with your assessment of his circumstances and what they preclude him from doing.

I didn't mean my comment that way and you know it. I would give the same advice whether one of the OP's sons was disabled or not.

poet123 wrote:

The mere serving of the SCC papers may bring the Gallery to heel, if not, then SCC costs are not punitive, as the function of that court is to allow the ordinary man in the street to bring proceedings without legal representation.

Out of interest, what is your legal knowledge/experience? Because there is one way that the gallery owner could react to the serving of proceedings which I would like to state that could become very expensive for the OP, but it is a technical procedural point and, with the greatest of respect, I will have to explain it in more detail if you don't have knowledge of the civil procedure rules, and don't want to patronise you if you do.

poet123 wrote:

in the SCC the burden of proof is much lower than in any other court

I don't know where you're getting this from, but you are categorically wrong. For a start, and I say this for clarification purposes, there is no separate 'small claims court'. Small claims is simply a track that cases of the lowest value are allocated to, the other two tracks being the fast track and multi track. The burden of proof on all tracks, and indeed in civil claims in general, is the balance of probabilities. There is no separate standard for small claims cases.

poet123 wrote:

the demeanour of the claimant v the defendent is also a barometer for the judge, and like it or not the fact the child has a disability could be used at this juncture, along with the comment about leaving children outside. A case could definitely be made.

How exactly could that case be made? I mean seriously, outline your legal argument for me that shows duress in this case. The OP has clearly stated that the children were not distressed, indeed quite the opposite. The OP has further stated that the money was paid because they were unaware of their rights. Duress is essentially the act of removing the free will of a party. The OP was quite free to give their details to the manager and leave the store to give the matter consideration. There was nothing at all stopping them from doing that apart from the ordinary pressure of this situation, which is not anywhere close to duress.

pendulum

poet123 wrote: »

The final figure if the case went to court may be in excess of the actual amount currently in dispute, expenses, compensation for inconvenience, loss of earnings, upset, etc. could all be claimed.

I think the gallery owner has a better chance of successfully claiming for all those things than the OP does, which is just one of the reasons why going to court over this £60 is a ridiculous proposition.

It is time to let it rest. It's only £60. The OP has got nowhere with the police or trading standards, and going to court over this £60 is a poor idea. It's quite irresponsible of you to encourage them to go to court under these circumstances. If you are so sure it's for the best, and so certain of the OPs case, I wonder if you will volunteer to pay all the OPs costs if they go to court and lose?

This reminds me of the Jaguar paintwork damage case a few years back. The one where the fella started off with a small claims case which MSEers told him he was sure to win. The dealership defended and got the case seen in a higher court. He not only lost, but he had to pay the defendants costs (tens of thousands of pounds). He went bankrupt partly due to MSEers advice. If memory serves, they even held a whip round because he was having to sell household essentials. He carried on with the case out of principle and look where it got him.

Remember OP - Its easy for people to say they'd take it to court when they are sitting in their chairs at home reading someone else's situation. If they were in the situation and it was their money at risk they probably wouldn't follow their own advice. Not over £60.

puppet1984

RadoJo wrote: »

Are you suggesting it's unreasonable to expect parents to cover the cost of any damage their children do to others' property?

No i was suggesting that the sentence is not worded correctly.

Zazen999

Busbybank wrote: »

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.

So, you are no more out of pocket than you would have been if you had taken the picture to a framer and paid them to replace the glass directly.

Also, why do you even mention the medical state of your child; just say 'my child' not 'my downs syndrome child'; as the cup throwing is probably not related to the syndrome, but related to him being a child - it really is not relevant.