Amazon uk & product liability claim issue

ThumbRemote

geri1965 wrote: »

You would only be entitled to the value of the damaged items taking into account their age and condition, not what they would cost new.

Second hand jeans/quilt cover etc. unlikely to be worth more than about £50 in total.

They will be entitled to the replacement cost of the items. While it may be possible to buy second-hand jeans, I'm not certain there's much of a market for second hand bedding. They'd be likely to get the current 'new' cost for these.

geri1965_2

ThumbRemote wrote: »

They will be entitled to the replacement cost of the items. While it may be possible to buy second-hand jeans, I'm not certain there's much of a market for second hand bedding. They'd be likely to get the current 'new' cost for these.

No, you are absolutely wrong. I am a insurance loss adjuster so I know about these things. It's called indemnity if you want to look it up.

shaun_from_Africa

geri, irrespective of your being a loss adjuster, maybe you should actually read what Thumbremote stated before saying they were wrong.

They didn't state that the OP would legally be entitled to full replacement costs for the bedding. What they did state was

They'd be likely to get the current 'new' cost for these.

I've only ever claimed for damage caused by a third party once (I was on a garage forecourt and someone delivering goods pushed a trolley over my foot which ruined the shoes I was wearing).
Yes, they could legally have only paid me the value of the shoes at the time but they didn't. They simply asked me to provide proof of the cost of replacement, which is what I was paid, and this is probably what will happen to the OP should Amazon decide to compensate them.

geri1965_2

I did read what they said. They said "they will be entitled to the replacement cost of the items" (first line of he bit I quoted). This is incorrect as they are not entitled to this. What they receive is up to Amazon, it may be the case that they pay it in full. That does not mean this is what they are entitled to in the eyes of the law.

societys_child

OP, are you a chemist or something?

there was clearly a chemical reaction within the ingredients that made the glass bottle explode

Also, wouldn't there be thousands of the things going off all over the place?

Sounds more like the bottle has suffered some damage at some time.

Tractorgirl79

geri1965 wrote: »

No, you are absolutely wrong. I am a insurance loss adjuster so I know about these things. It's called indemnity if you want to look it up.

If you are a loss adjuster in the corporate world then you should know that the casualty policy for amazon is either written out of the US and sitting under a US master policy or is indeed written out of London on a pan european programme - where the deductible for an claim will be set in the 10s of thousands......

This incident wouldn't go anywhere near the insurers as the compensation request is between 200 & 800 quid depending on how they want to deal with the iPhone 5 issue.

Society's child - what are you on ? a chemist or something ?? jeez. The bottle didn't just crack, it exploded, so yes i believe the ingredients had a reaction with the glass bottle which may have been stored at the wrong temperature.

Either way .....Ive done what I needed to do this morning to Chris North with a 21 day deadline before an LBA is submitted to MCOL with ALL receipts and photos

Regards !!!!!

agrinnall

Feel free to provide some evidence that the contents of the bottle reacted with glass (a notoriously non-reactive substance, hence it's widespread use for storage of a multitude of substances). Faulty bottle is so much more likely that if you try to claim it's a content issue you'll get laughed at - they may pay out anyway if it's less hassle than contesting, but there's no chance they will agree with you. And I do have a degree in Chemistry, although I haven't used it since graduating 33 years ago.

societys_child

what are you on ? a chemist or something ?? jeez. The bottle didn't just crack, it exploded, so yes i believe the ingredients had a reaction with the glass bottle which may have been stored at the wrong temperature.

Woah, it was a genuine question. You've now backtracked from

clearly a chemical reaction

(and I wondered what your qualifications were to be able to state this with such certainty)

to . . .

i believe

which sounds like an uneducated guess.

shaun_from_Africa

Tractorgirl79 wrote: »

so yes i believe the ingredients had a reaction with the glass bottle which may have been stored at the wrong temperature.

No reaction, possibly physical damage to the glass.

Glass is inert and impermeable
Glass is a natural substance: it is inert and able to remain unchanged over time. Because it is inert, glass does not react with foreign substances or absorb them. For this reason glass is the healthiest packaging material, which is why laboratories and pharmaceutical sectors trust glass to protect
their products against chemical or biological contamination

.

geri1965_2

Tractorgirl79 wrote: »

If you are a loss adjuster in the corporate world then you should know that the casualty policy for amazon is either written out of the US and sitting under a US master policy or is indeed written out of London on a pan european programme - where the deductible for an claim will be set in the 10s of thousands......

That may be true, but that doesn't mean that your claim isn't subject to English law.

I deal with claims for multinational companies that are within their deductible, and very often I will settle for the replacement cost as the difference is negligible and the company doesn't want to get a bad name by quibbling over small amounts.

That's why I said that Amazon might settle the claim on a replacement basis - which is not the same as you being entitled to have the claim dealt with on a replacement basis.