Question regarding 'durability' of item

Azari

Fosterdog wrote: »

Okay, because you seem to like being deliberately obtuse and spend a lot of time trying to belittle others and attempt to make them look unintelligent (hint there's only one person that makes look bad, you'll find their image if you look at your reflection in the mirrored drawer thread)

:rotfl: Hello pot, meet kettle.

Forget about the glass, although you have proven the point that it would be unreasonable to expect glass not to break, and it would also be unreasonable to expect a magazine rack of this design not to break if knocked over.

What if the item wasn't a magazine rack but a large freestanding vase, it is more like the rack in that it is a free standing piece of decorative furniture that also serves the purpose of holding items. They are both as likely as each other to be knocked over, and both equally likely to break if they are knocked over. Does that make all large freestanding vases not fit for purpose?

Plain and simply a magazine rack is no more designed to be knocked over than a plate, glass, vase, tv, chair, speaker, fridge (I could list tens of thousand more items here that would fit into the same category) that does not make any of the items not fit for purpose if they get knocked over and break.

Again you are completely missing the point.

You would, of course, expect to place a decorative object made of a fragile material like glass or ceramic in a position where it is not going to get knocked over.

Only if you do not have children, animals, or clumsy cleaners, would you even consider placing it on the floor.

However, here we are talking about a lump of concrete (you know the stuff motorways and bridges are made of*), fashioned into an item that, considering its weight and purpose, is bound to be placed on the floor.

For it to be of satisfactory quality, it must be able to stand up to what could reasonably be expected to happen to it, given the nature of what it is. This it failed to do, and there is, therefore, a prima facie case that it was not of satisfactory quality.


* Before anyone starts, yes, I know that motorways and bridges are made of reinforced concrete, but no one is drove an artic over this magazine rack

SuperHan

Azari wrote: »

However, here we are talking about a lump of concrete (you know the stuff motorways and bridges are made of*), fashioned into an item that, considering its weight and purpose, is bound to be placed on the floor.

It may be a "lump of concrete" but reasonable people on this forum have seen a picture of the product and been able to immediately identify where it would break if knocked over. It's therefore reasonable to assume that it would break if knocked over (the same way you would assume a freestanding glass vase may break if knocked over).

That said, your advice isn't bad. The OP could get back in touch with the retailer and/or send an LBA. They may get a refund. If they don't though, it's probably not worth pursuing in court.

Azari

SuperHan wrote: »

It may be a "lump of concrete" but reasonable people on this forum have seen a picture of the product and been able to immediately identify where it would break if knocked over. It's therefore reasonable to assume that it would break if knocked over (the same way you would assume a freestanding glass vase may break if knocked over).

This is a very fair point in that it is easy to see what will happen if the actual material it is made from is both very brittle and very weak.

However, I think the salient point is: Is it reasonable to make something that, by its very nature, is going to be placed on the floor, out of a material that (a) can be made strong enough to withstand being knocked over and (b) hasn't been made of such a material.

The manufacturer had the choice of making it from wood, plastic, metal, reinforced glass, or a suitable mixture of cement, in which case there would be no problem. They, however, chose to make it out of a very brittle and weak material. Unless they made it very clear before purchase that the concrete out of which it was made was extremely weak and brittle, I would very much suspect that a court would find that it was not fit for purpose.

kuohu

I can't be the only one wondering how big this cat is.

Svein_Forkbeard

Azari wrote: »

For it to be of satisfactory quality, it must be able to stand up to what could reasonably be expected to happen to it, given the nature of what it is. This it failed to do, and there is, therefore, a prima facie case that it was not of satisfactory quality.

What about one of these? Class action?

DCFC79

The Hut is part of the same group as Zavvi, The Hut sy they are a leading luxury online department store, wouldnt put them intk that bracket.

Anyway the magazine holder is selling for about £82, thats a reduction from £150.

[Deleted User]

DCFC79 wrote: »

Anyway the magazine holder is selling for about £82, thats a reduction from £150.

Link shows it costing £165 now! :eek:

unforeseen

Azari wrote: »

This is a very fair point in that it is easy to see what will happen if the actual material it is made from is both very brittle and very weak.

However, I think the salient point is: Is it reasonable to make something that, by its very nature, is going to be placed on the floor, out of a material that (a) can be made strong enough to withstand being knocked over and (b) hasn't been made of such a material.

The manufacturer had the choice of making it from wood, plastic, metal, reinforced glass, or a suitable mixture of cement, in which case there would be no problem. They, however, chose to make it out of a very brittle and weak material. Unless they made it very clear before purchase that the concrete out of which it was made was extremely weak and brittle, I would very much suspect that a court would find that it was not fit for purpose.

The concrete wasn't weak, it was probably the bends between the sides and bottom that were the natural weak points. That would've the weak point for a lot of materials. The difference being that other materials may have the elasticity to absorb the force of the sidewall wanting to carry on going after the bottom wall hits the floor. Concrete by its nature in such a small item has no elasticity whatsoever and the bend cannot absorb and dissipate that force. Something had to give. If one bit stops, Newton says that the rest will try to carry on the way it was going

owen_money

mrdo wrote: »

Hi there,
I purchased a concrete magazine rack in November.
Last week the cat knocked the magazine rack over (it was sitting on the floor as you would expect) and the rack split in two.

My question is whether I would be entitled to a replacement or refund as I consider the item to have failed the durability test. If I had purchased a plastic, wooden or metal magazine rack, I would not have expected the rack to break the first time it fell over.

Ironically, the company originally sent me 2 racks by mistake and I was honest enough to inform them and have them collect the extra rack. I wish I hadn't now!

I should point out that the magazine rack costs approx. £150 so is not a cheap item.

Any advice gratefully received.

Our cats is always knocking things over, it a pain!

Is there a durability test for concrete magazines racks? I've had a look at the ISO standards website but cant find anything, what durability test are you referring to?

Thanks

unholyangel

Azari wrote: »

For it to be of satisfactory quality, it must be able to stand up to what could reasonably be expected to happen to it, given the nature of what it is. This it failed to do, and there is, therefore, a prima facie case that it was not of satisfactory quality.

If that were the case, anyone who has ever dropped a phone and cracked their screen would be entitled to a FOC replacement.

As for the nature of what it is....its a magazine rack. It did not suddenly jump up and fall over on its own (which would indicate an inherent fault). It was sitting perfectly stable, minding its own business when a cat-astrophe happened its way.