John Lewis damaged and urinated on my property.

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

Slightly off topic but I'm confused by this from JL:

Damiansc said:

... but I'd like to note our website does explains that items, such as yours, are delivered by the suppliers own chosen courier and they themselves are managed directly by the supplier, however I do understand as Panther have refuted the claim that they have caused the damage there is nothing we can do to change this outcome...

I've never bought anything online from JL so maybe it's my ignorance here, but what do JL mean by "items, such as yours, are delivered by the suppliers own chosen courier and they themselves are managed directly by the supplier"?  Has the OP purchased from JL or some other "supplier"?  Were the couriers acting as JL's agents or as agents of this other "supplier"?

And whenever I've bought white goods from JL (in store) they've always been delivered by JL - not some dodgy delivery company.

Or am I just being thick?

Presumably for some items JL don't hold stock and are effectively drop-shipping directly from the manufacturer?

macman

It's common for some white goods to be supplied direct from the manufacturer, as they're not always held in stock by JL at store or warehouse, in which case the delivery company may well be working for the manufacturer, rather than for JL. But this makes no difference whatsoever to the liability. If Panther were sub-contracted by LG, rather than by JL, then that simply makes them sub-sub contractors of JL. 
JL remain liable to the OP, however long the chain of sub-contracting might be. For them to send an email stating that the actions of their subcontractors are none of their responsibility is frankly astonishing.

ItsComingRome

macman said:

It's common for some white goods to be supplied direct from the manufacturer, as they're not always held in stock by JL at store or warehouse, in which case the delivery company may well be working for the manufacturer, rather than for JL. But this makes no difference whatsoever to the liability. If Panther were sub-contracted by LG, rather than by JL, then that simply makes them sub-sub contractors of JL. 
JL remain liable to the OP, however long the chain of sub-contracting might be. For them to send an email stating that the actions of their sub contractors are none of their responsibility is frankly astonishing.

I know it doesn't.  But it does, perhaps, explain JL's attitude to this (that they don't think they supplied the goods so it isn't their problem) and also explains why LG was so quick to offer a replacement.

Manxman_in_exile

If I were the OP I'd go back to JL one more time and point out that I (the OP) didn't select the supplier, JL did, so the supplier was acting as JL's agent/subcontractor, not mine.  And that as the supplier chose the courier to deliver the goods, they also were acting as JL's agent/subcontractor and therefore JL are liable for the damage the courier caused.  (I'd also copy in JL CEO as I think somebody else suggested.  She won't see it but somebody with a brain might.)

When that goes nowhere, LBA to JL.

(I'm interested that LG - I presume the manufacturer and actual "supplier" - has offered a replacement fridge.  Are they accepting that their delivery agents caused damage to the fridge - and floor?)

onomatopoeia99

Manxman_in_exile said:

Slightly off topic but I'm confused by this from JL:

Damiansc said:

... but I'd like to note our website does explains that items, such as yours, are delivered by the suppliers own chosen courier and they themselves are managed directly by the supplier, however I do understand as Panther have refuted the claim that they have caused the damage there is nothing we can do to change this outcome...

I've never bought anything online from JL so maybe it's my ignorance here, but what do JL mean by "items, such as yours, are delivered by the suppliers own chosen courier and they themselves are managed directly by the supplier"?  Has the OP purchased from JL or some other "supplier"?  Were the couriers acting as JL's agents or as agents of this other "supplier"?

And whenever I've bought white goods from JL (in store) they've always been delivered by JL - not some dodgy delivery company.

Or am I just being thick?

"American" fridges seem to be a special case.  I've had various white goods from JL over the years and all the conventional 600mm wide items arrived in JL lorries, the fridge freezer didn't though, it was a direct from manufacturer job.  The crew that turned up did have a sack truck designed for the task though and didn't scratch my wooden floor!

neilmcl

dil1976 said:

ivavoucher said:

dil1976 said:

Yes deadly serious, here is a picture showing the scratches going in different directions.

I must be too trusting, the last thing I would have concluded after seeing the photos is that the OP is a liar but then I am not an expert on how scratches are formed on wooden floors by idiot delivery men with certain makes and models of fridges. Do your conclusions cover all makes of fridge? 

No just the ability to use my eyes, how would to continuous lines be formed by dragging something over it and go in different directions?

Because they've probably had it on the floor pushing and pulling it along.

Jenni_D

neilmcl said:

dil1976 said:

ivavoucher said:

dil1976 said:

Yes deadly serious, here is a picture showing the scratches going in different directions.

I must be too trusting, the last thing I would have concluded after seeing the photos is that the OP is a liar but then I am not an expert on how scratches are formed on wooden floors by idiot delivery men with certain makes and models of fridges. Do your conclusions cover all makes of fridge? 

No just the ability to use my eyes, how would to continuous lines be formed by dragging something over it and go in different directions?

Because they've probably had it on the floor pushing and pulling it along.

You mean like they've "walked" it along the floor?

We got rid of our old (50:50 full height but not American) FF recently ... we put it on an old bath towel and pushed/dragged it across the laminate floor with no issues.

macman

ItsComingRome said:

macman said:

It's common for some white goods to be supplied direct from the manufacturer, as they're not always held in stock by JL at store or warehouse, in which case the delivery company may well be working for the manufacturer, rather than for JL. But this makes no difference whatsoever to the liability. If Panther were sub-contracted by LG, rather than by JL, then that simply makes them sub-sub contractors of JL. 
JL remain liable to the OP, however long the chain of sub-contracting might be. For them to send an email stating that the actions of their sub contractors are none of their responsibility is frankly astonishing.

I know it doesn't.  But it does, perhaps, explain JL's attitude to this (that they don't think they supplied the goods so it isn't their problem) and also explains why LG was so quick to offer a replacement.

How can JL possibly think they are not the supplier, just because they did not deliver it on a JL van? They are the only party that has a contractual relationship with the OP. 
LG appear to have supplied the fridge via their own subcontractors, Panther. JL have told them they are liable for the fridge damage and so they will resupply it and claim in turn from Panther. 
As I have pointed out before, who is ultimately liable is not the OP's concern. What the subcontractors agree (or disagree) on is for them to resolve.

ItsComingRome

macman said:

ItsComingRome said:

macman said:

It's common for some white goods to be supplied direct from the manufacturer, as they're not always held in stock by JL at store or warehouse, in which case the delivery company may well be working for the manufacturer, rather than for JL. But this makes no difference whatsoever to the liability. If Panther were sub-contracted by LG, rather than by JL, then that simply makes them sub-sub contractors of JL. 
JL remain liable to the OP, however long the chain of sub-contracting might be. For them to send an email stating that the actions of their sub contractors are none of their responsibility is frankly astonishing.

I know it doesn't.  But it does, perhaps, explain JL's attitude to this (that they don't think they supplied the goods so it isn't their problem) and also explains why LG was so quick to offer a replacement.

How can JL possibly think they are not the supplier, just because they did not deliver it on a JL van? They are the only party that has a contractual relationship with the OP. 
LG appear to have supplied the fridge via their own subcontractors, Panther. JL have told them they are liable for the fridge damage and so they will resupply it and claim in turn from Panther. 
As I have pointed out before, who is ultimately liable is not the OP's concern. What the subcontractors agree (or disagree) on is for them to resolve.

Whoever responded to the OP clearly thinks they're not.

I didn't say they were right in thinking this, clearly, they're not, but was merely trying to explain to Manxman_in_exile who the "supplier" they're referring to is likely to be.

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered.

Manxman_in_exile

I knew what you meant...