Damaging an item when shopping?

Lifeisbutadream

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

I hate these 'know your rights' programmes..:)

Who says what the trade price was for the mattress?? is that the exact amount paid for the mattress, or would it be 'allowed' to include staff time moving the mattress, removal and disposal of the packaging and disposing of the soiled item?

OP - did you take the mattress away with you? if so then you should certainly have paid full price for it - even if you left the damaged item in the store, I don't really see why you should pay a discounted price when you would then have left the shop with a damaged item that they now need to replace.

OlliesDad

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

OP - did you take the mattress away with you? if so then you should certainly have paid full price for it - even if you left the damaged item in the store, I don't really see why you should pay a discounted price when you would then have left the shop with a damaged item that they now need to replace.

I think you answered this question yourself. They do need to replace the item, and therefore they will be buying from a wholesaler at wholesalers price, therefore that is the loss that they have incurred.

I seriously hope the people that are slating the OP for allowing their child to test the bed, do not have children of their own. The naivity shown in some of the comments is absolutely ridiculous (the most ridiculous is by advising that a toilet training child must where a nappy if out in public, although this comment was from the forum clown!).

MrC_Beds

OlliesDad wrote: »

I think you answered this question yourself. They do need to replace the item, and therefore they will be buying from a wholesaler at wholesalers price, therefore that is the loss that they have incurred.

I seriously hope the people that are slating the OP for allowing their child to test the bed, do not have children of their own. The naivity shown in some of the comments is absolutely ridiculous (the most ridiculous is by advising that a toilet training child must where a nappy if out in public, although this comment was from the forum clown!).

If you mean Judas (the troll formerly known as Anihilator etc) I do believe he has been booted along with all of his posts (until the next time)

He really shouldn't have had a pop at Mr Lewis in one of the threads

Lifeisbutadream

OlliesDad wrote: »

I think you answered this question yourself. They do need to replace the item, and therefore they will be buying from a wholesaler at wholesalers price, therefore that is the loss that they have incurred.

I seriously hope the people that are slating the OP for allowing their child to test the bed, do not have children of their own. The naivity shown in some of the comments is absolutely ridiculous (the most ridiculous is by advising that a toilet training child must where a nappy if out in public, although this comment was from the forum clown!).

I have children of my own - 2 actually - I am not slating the OP, only saying that he needs to pay for the damage that his child caused. My daughter broke an ornament in a shop when she was 2 - I paid for that willingly.

The wholesale price that the store paid would not include the cost of removal and disposal of packaging, or the time for staff to move the matresses or for the disposal of the original if the customer did not take it away, therefore I have not answered my question myself - who decides the correct costing for disposal of rubbish or staff costs?

Equaliser123

To my mind, this is simple.

Retailer would have to prove negligence - a legal test that the acts or omissions of the OP fell below that of a reasonable person.

Damages for negligence are to put the claimant in the position it would have been in had the negligence not occured - therefore the cost of cleaning or, in the final analysis, the cost of replacement. As the retailer would not have paid the retail price, they would be entitled to damages for the replacement cost to them.

Ste_C

ADAM001 wrote: »

What an utterly useless,ingnorant,judgemental and insulting thing to say.
Have kids of your own? I bet if you have yours are impeccably behaved,make no noise whatsoever and are toilet trained by 6 months,i was merely asking a question,not asking for some self righteous knob to come on here and make sweeping statements about people he has never even met!!

Yea, but he's spot on though, you gotta admit that.

tbw

I seriously hope the people that are slating the OP for allowing their child to test the bed, do not have children of their own. The naivity shown in some of the comments is absolutely ridiculous (the most ridiculous is by advising that a toilet training child must where a nappy if out in public, although this comment was from the forum clown!).[/QUOTE]

Nobody has 'slated' the OP for allowing the child on the bed - just pointed out the lack of common sense in allowing a child who is NOT fully toilet trained to sit on somebody elses property! Parents surely have some duty to ensure that their offspring do not damage anyone elses stuff either deliberately or accidentally. If it all goes wrong and an accident happens then certainly the parent is liable for the damage caused.

Many people who have children seem to labour under the delusion that the rest of us have to put up with anything and everything that their children get up to. Just another instance of THEIR 'human rights' and B***** everyone else!!!

mrbrightside842

I know most people believe that morally, the OP should pay. But legally, do they have to?

Equaliser123

mrbrightside842 wrote: »

I know most people believe that morally, the OP should pay. But legally, do they have to?

See post 58. Depends on whether negligence can be established.