Broken goods in store

lukehb

Hi.

I'm looking for a little advise about dealing with goods broken or damaged by a customer in a retail store.

I was under the impression that if I broke or damaged something in store, the store could only insist on me paying the cost price for them to replace it, not the retail price, (they can, of course ask me to pay whatever they like).

Firstly, is this correct at all, or have I misunderstood (or even made up) this piece of legislation?

Secondly, If I do pay only the cost price for it, can they insist that they keep the damaged goods, or can I insist that they have to provide me with them?

Thirdly, how does this apply to one-off hand made goods, when they claim that the retail price is the cost price? How do you quantify the cost of the raw materials, time etc to arrive at a true cost price, or would they be right in claiming that if they don't supply anyone else, and only sell it there, there is no "cost" price to speak of, and the retail price is the only one which has any merit?

Any advise would be much appreciated.

iclayt

Own up, what did you break

hcb42

I think you have made it up

If you are referring to the "break it and you buy it signs" then these do not form a contract nor can it be said even if the customer did break it that the negligence is 100% down to the customer and not the store.

In front of a judge, if it got that far, then the costs might be awarded based on say the wholesale price to restock the item, or it could be more if it is a more unusual item. So it 'depends' on what is reasonable.

there is no statute saying if you break something you must pay for it.

Whether you (i.e. the customer) actually does pay or not of course might be down to the customer's conscience initially, i.e. some customers may accept 100% responsibility and therefore pay up.

lucy03

lukehb wrote: »

Hi.

I'm looking for a little advise about dealing with goods broken or damaged by a customer in a retail store.

I was under the impression that if I broke or damaged something in store, the store could only insist on me paying the cost price for them to replace it, not the retail price, (they can, of course ask me to pay whatever they like).

Firstly, is this correct at all, or have I misunderstood (or even made up) this piece of legislation?

Secondly, If I do pay only the cost price for it, can they insist that they keep the damaged goods, or can I insist that they have to provide me with them?

Thirdly, how does this apply to one-off hand made goods, when they claim that the retail price is the cost price? How do you quantify the cost of the raw materials, time etc to arrive at a true cost price, or would they be right in claiming that if they don't supply anyone else, and only sell it there, there is no "cost" price to speak of, and the retail price is the only one which has any merit?

Any advise would be much appreciated.

You are under no obligation to pay for items broken in my opinion, although if there was criminal damage that would be a different matter. You can pay whatever you wish if the incident was an accident. Just my opinion.

lukehb

It is a purely hypothetical circumstance, inspired by what I will call a "very near miss" in a glassware shop.

I nearly collapsed a shelf, with probably upwards of £1000 worth of goods on it. They had one of these signs, I got talking to them about their policy, and how often people actually accepted responsibility for these things, and pay for them. I mentioned that I thought they should at least accept some responsibility because the cases and shelving they used was, for want of a better word, rickety at best.

I mentioned that I thought I had one time heard something like this, and he said he thought he had heard similar, but we both admitted we would never publicise it as most customers are ready to pay in this circumstance anyway, and the sign is usually enough to force them to be careful.

We also got talking about whether this would encourage people to deliberately cause small, easily repairable damage to goods to get them at a reduced price, if you could insist on taking the damaged goods with you.

I also lived in the US and Canada for quite a while too, so it is possible that I am transferring their laws to over here, or as I have said, have simply made them up.

Equaliser123

lucy03 wrote: »

You are under no obligation to pay for items broken in my opinion, although if there was criminal damage that would be a different matter. You can pay whatever you wish if the incident was an accident. Just my opinion.

I don't think you are correct. If the OP was negligent, then the OP is responsible for the damage.

Further, if there was a sign saying damages should be paid for then this MAY have effect in contract as it is part of the terms upon which the customer is permitted to enter the shop.

OlliesDad

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Further, if there was a sign saying damages should be paid for then this MAY have effect in contract as it is part of the terms upon which the customer is permitted to enter the shop.

Would this not the same as private car parks who try to invoice customers?

hcb42

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I don't think you are correct. If the OP was negligent, then the OP is responsible for the damage.

Further, if there was a sign saying damages should be paid for then this MAY have effect in contract as it is part of the terms upon which the customer is permitted to enter the shop.

If the OP was negligent, then they are definitely responsible to pay, however the shop owner may have to prove the customer was negligent (in a court or by some other means of dispute resolution), so the sign by itself is unenforceable.

Clearly now the OP has given more background here, it could well be the case that the rickety cabinet was at fault, not the OP, which highlights why these signs are a bit of a nonsense really.

The contract is not formed by the sign only. If that were the case then it would be lawful for someone to put a sign up saying "if you touch any of the goods you have to buy them" Clearly the customer needs to be careful however or it could end up being a costly shopping trip.

I guess what the OP was asking is are the signs enforceable, and on their own they are not, what the judge rules is of course enforceable including if he states the customer should pay for the breakages in full as they were negligent.

You don't tend to see these signs in larger stores, possibly as they are not enforceable on the spot (although possibly many customers possibly just pay up if pushed)

Equaliser123

OlliesDad wrote: »

Would this not the same as private car parks who try to invoice customers?

Exactly the same. However, the car parks don't actually suffer any losses and so the claims are penal in nature.

The distinction here is that if the shop only claims the losses suffered, it would be enforceable.

lukehb

So the consensus is, such a sign in and of itself is not a binding contract, but if the shop owner could prove negligence on the part of the customer, they could, at least theoretically, argue that the customer is liable to pay something for the items. If it came to it, this would be determined by the courts.

I guess, in that case, at least in principal, my understanding is more or less correct... for an item that can be easily replaced, the courts would find based on actual losses (cost) rather than the retail price. I guess in the in the case of a hand-made, one off item, you could legitimately argue that the retail price is the lost value, as there is no way to replace or recreate it.

But you cannot force someone to pay, it would be decided in small claims court, and in the above (theoretical) case, you could argue that the owner at minimum shares the responsibility because he didn't take care to display it safely or securely.

Equaliser123

lukehb wrote: »

So the consensus is, such a sign in and of itself is not a binding contract, but if the shop owner could prove negligence on the part of the customer, they could, at least theoretically, argue that the customer is liable to pay something for the items. If it came to it, this would be determined by the courts.

I guess, in that case, at least in principal, my understanding is more or less correct... for an item that can be easily replaced, the courts would find based on actual losses (cost) rather than the retail price. I guess in the in the case of a hand-made, one off item, you could legitimately argue that the retail price is the lost value, as there is no way to replace or recreate it.

But you cannot force someone to pay, it would be decided in small claims court, and in the above (theoretical) case, you could argue that the owner at minimum shares the responsibility because he didn't take care to display it safely or securely.

Courts resolve disputes. If someone says liable and the other does not accept that, then a Court is needed.

And I still think contractual licences are relevant.