Damaging an item when shopping?

smcaul

If it were me there would not be a hope in hell that I would have paid a penny for it!! It is a "display" product, it will have a limited life and would then be disposed of either at a very large discount or just thrown (who would buy a 2nd hand mattress!!!)

I would be tempted to go back and kick up a huge fuss, the had absolutely no rights to make you buy the product. Being a display item it is/was conceivable that accidents of any number of varieties could happen, thats the risk the retailer takes and that should be built into their costings!!

Being as how you purchased it on credit card I would be tempted to do a sect 75 claim, tell them that you paid full price for a new mattress but the one you have received has clearly been used as it smells of wee

If the shop were that bothered then all the display products should have full protective covers on them - but they dont!! Therefore they have to accept a certain amount of risk.

Indie_Kid

If it was the other way around, (someone was in your shop and their child weed on the mattress) I assume you'd want full price for it?

serios

sh1305 wrote: »

If it was the other way around, (someone was in your shop and their child weed on the mattress) I assume you'd want full price for it?

Id ask for the price I paid.

smcaul

Nope, not at all, it is a cost of sales - it was not like they came in said our daughter needs a pee, and then sat by and watched as she did one. It was an accident, they happen.

DaisyFlower

Even if they had insurance, chances are there is a high excess so they could not have claimed against it anyway.

TBH, if my child damaged something that didnt belong to me I would have offered to pay for the repair/item before they could ask - its common sense and the right thing to do.

Taking a small child out who is potty training and letting them sit on a mattress was a daft thing to do.

xocbc

Simple really.

OP - if you owned a small shop and a customer or customer's child damaged/broke an item, would you just absorb the loss?

I severely doubt it.

As for insurance, there will be an excess, likely to be considerably more than £150.

At the end of the day (and this isn't a go at the OP), parents needs to keep children under control in shops, some parents seem to have a staggering disregard for other people's property and think that it's acceptable to let their children run riot.

ADAM001

Well,

Thanks for all the parenting tips for those that gave them,and genuine thanks to those that actually bothered to answer the query regarding liability.

pinkshoes

Equaliser123 wrote: »

OP - you should have actually paid cost and not retail price.

Why?

If this was the case, then people could choose a mattress they like, tip some wee-like substance on it, claim their child had an accident on it, then get it cheap!

I'm quite sure if you take it home, you pay the retail price, otherwise you would have to compensate the store i.e. cost of cleaning it, or actual cost (assuming it would then go in the bin as would not be re-saleable).

vyle

Mupette wrote: »

I agree that they should pay



As stated already i am not against the op not paying, i was pointing your post out as it was so rude and judgemental, (the bit you skimmed over as irrelevant)

So just so we all know, yes the OP should pay for the damage. I hope we are now clear

That's why I wasn't directing it at you.

vyle

smcaul wrote: »

If it were me there would not be a hope in hell that I would have paid a penny for it!! It is a "display" product, it will have a limited life and would then be disposed of either at a very large discount or just thrown (who would buy a 2nd hand mattress!!!)

I would be tempted to go back and kick up a huge fuss, the had absolutely no rights to make you buy the product. Being a display item it is/was conceivable that accidents of any number of varieties could happen, thats the risk the retailer takes and that should be built into their costings!!

Being as how you purchased it on credit card I would be tempted to do a sect 75 claim, tell them that you paid full price for a new mattress but the one you have received has clearly been used as it smells of wee

If the shop were that bothered then all the display products should have full protective covers on them - but they dont!! Therefore they have to accept a certain amount of risk.

Now, when a display item is put out, it's written out of normal stock, so it kind of exists as its own entity, so yes, in some ways, it has no value.

However, someone peeing on that item is different to people just sitting on it, or scuffing it. A scuffed mattress, or a grimy mattress, or even a slightly saggy from use mattress is still a mattress one can try out.

A mattress with soaked in bodily fluids is a serious health risk, is smelly, and not something other people will be willing to try out, so the shop has to write off another stock item, costing them money in that way. No, they couldnt have sold the original mattress on, but it would have stayed there until the actual sales stock had gone and it had outlived its usefulness.

There are no ivory towers involved, just an observation that, accident or not, if youre costing someone else money because of something that's ultimately your responsibility, own up and pay.