Damaging an item when shopping?

tbw

I am not 'anti - child' and I do think some of the replies to the OP have been a bit too judgemental.

However, in my opinion (and it is only my opinion so I don't a lot of agreement!), small children should NOT be allowed to climb onto furniture, fittings etc in shops. Its not there for them to play on, sit on etc, its there for paying customers to assess, try and possibly buy. Any damage done is the parents responsibility - and allowing a child who is still at the toilet training stage to even sit quietly on a bed is asking for trouble!

And, if I can digress slightly, I'm fed up with parents who seem to think its perfectly OK for small children to mess around with fresh food displays in the chillers in supermarkets! I do not want little hands all over packets of bacon, sausages, fruit, cakes etc that I am about to buy. Neither do I want childrens dirty feet inside the main part of supermarket trolleys that I will later possibly put my fresh food into! Trolleys with child seats are available and, if a child is too big to fit in the seat, then the child is certainly big enough to walk!

I am not in any way suggesting that the OP lets their child do anything like that but, since some people are busy moaning about people who are not totally in favour of allowing children to do what they like with no adult intervention, I thought I'd shove my two pennorth in for the rest of us who don't actually agree that childrens 'rights' have to take precedence all the time.

Equaliser123

pinkshoes wrote: »

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).

Why? Because the damage they suffered is the cost price, not the retail price. If it could have been cleaned, then that would be the price claimable.

ADAM001

tbw wrote: »

I am not 'anti - child' and I do think some of the replies to the OP have been a bit too judgemental.

However, in my opinion (and it is only my opinion so I don't a lot of agreement!), small children should NOT be allowed to climb onto furniture, fittings etc in shops. Its not there for them to play on, sit on etc, its there for paying customers to assess, try and possibly buy. Any damage done is the parents responsibility - and allowing a child who is still at the toilet training stage to even sit quietly on a bed is asking for trouble!



Excuse me,i WAS the paying customer,looking at the bed in question for my daughter,who was "trying out" the bed at the time,NOT playing on it,at least take the time to read the previous post before commenting.

tbw

ADAM001 wrote: »

tbw wrote: »

I am not 'anti - child' and I do think some of the replies to the OP have been a bit too judgemental.

However, in my opinion (and it is only my opinion so I don't a lot of agreement!), small children should NOT be allowed to climb onto furniture, fittings etc in shops. Its not there for them to play on, sit on etc, its there for paying customers to assess, try and possibly buy. Any damage done is the parents responsibility - and allowing a child who is still at the toilet training stage to even sit quietly on a bed is asking for trouble!



Excuse me,i WAS the paying customer,looking at the bed in question for my daughter,who was "trying out" the bed at the time,NOT playing on it,at least take the time to read the previous post before commenting.

I certainly did read your original post! Your child , who by your own admission is still at the toilet training stage, was allowed by you to sit on the bed. You were the paying customer, she was not. I didn't say your child was playing etc, I made a general comment about ANY children climbing on, playing on, sitting on furniture - its the parents job to keep their children off displays of any sort. You clearly didn't read my post properly.

Anyway, I stand by my comment that your child should not have been on the furniture, she's not old enough to have any real input into how the bed feels when she's on it . If she could make any comment at all about the bed it would most likely have been whether she thought the bed looked nice - and she didn't need to be on the bed to do that.

Renya

My understanding is that if you damage something in a shop, you only have to pay the wholesale price as shops are not allowed to profit from damaged items.
Not sure if this is correct, but it's just what I understand.

MrsE_2

ADAM001 wrote: »

Excuse me,i WAS the paying customer,looking at the bed in question for my daughter,who was "trying out" the bed at the time,NOT playing on it,at least take the time to read the previous post before commenting.

Its not that bad OP.

You wanted a bed, you got one.

Its not like you've had to pay for something you have no use for.

ali-t

Equaliser123 wrote: »

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

why? I used to work in retail in a department store in a ladies concession and people were always trying to get money off by damaging the stock.

Girls would come to the cash desk with a top caked in foundation and ask for money off as it had make up on it. generally the makeup was the same shade as they had trowelled on their face but we never made them buy stuff at full price. They were told no discount - take it or leave it.

I am not suggesting the OP got their child to pee on a mattress but surely if your statement is correct there are some retail bargains to be had out there

Googlewhacker

faithcecilia wrote: »

I am fairly sure that I saw on one of the consumer rights TV shows that a shop is not allowed to profit from damaged goods, so if they ask you to pay for it then it is the wholesale price they should charge you. What I wouldn't know, though, is how this would work if you then take the item home - ie in this case its actually a perfectly usable mattress.

This is correct, they are only supposed to charge you the wholesale price of the product.

vyle

Renya wrote: »

My understanding is that if you damage something in a shop, you only have to pay the wholesale price as shops are not allowed to profit from damaged items.
Not sure if this is correct, but it's just what I understand.

That probably is the law. It's stupid enough to be.

I next time I want to buy something I should damage it (cosmetically) first, then pay the lower price.

I wonder if the law takes into account the man hours involved that eats into the overheads and thus the cost of the item.

wholesale may cost, say, £10, but if the shop's had it delivered, that hasn't been free. Getting the staff to write it off took time, that isn't free. Putting it on the shop floor, pricing it up and keeping it looking nice isn't free.

Even replacing the item like for like and charging wholesale price is costing the company more money than it's generating.

unholyangel

I remember this being on Dom's know your rights thing.

They can charge you for it - legally - but should only charge you trade price.......not retail.