Just checking: Stall breakages

Just checking: Stall breakages

Author
Discussion

pitmansboots

1,372 posts

186 months

Sunday 14th October 2012
quotequote all
mrmr96 said:
Balls.

If a shopper picks up a tea pot by the handle, and that handle fails and the pot smashes on the ground (shopper still holding what's left of the handle) then why should the shopper pay for that? Sometimes things are not foreseeable and not the result of negligence. They are just accidents, which is what insurance is for.

As for "why should the insurer be out of pocket" what a ridiculous question!! They have an obligation to pay out under the terms of their contract with the insured person. It's the very reason WHY they bought insurance and why the insurer takes the premium - to accept the risk that they may have to pay out.

Do you really think that insurers will be able to pursue the person who dropped the item? Will they balls. The premium covers the risk, simple as that. If every insurer recovered the costs of payout from some mug they deemed to be liable then insurance would be a damn sight cheaper, because they'd effectively have no risk.

In short - have a think about why people insure and how insurers make money, and you'll see that making a payout under a policy is NOT leaving them "out of pocket".
You seem to be talking about some faulty goods while I and the OP are talking about someone who has broken something and it is their fault not the shopkeeper or the goods.

I don't think insurers should claim against people at fault but they do.

KingNothing

3,159 posts

152 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
I don't know about stalls dealing in antiques, but IIRC in a regular shop if you break something and it's deemed to be your fault, you have to pay, but you don't have to pay the sticker price, you're only obliged to pay the wholesale price that the shop paid for that item.

Stoofa

Original Poster:

958 posts

167 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
KingNothing said:
I don't know about stalls dealing in antiques, but IIRC in a regular shop if you break something and it's deemed to be your fault, you have to pay, but you don't have to pay the sticker price, you're only obliged to pay the wholesale price that the shop paid for that item.
That is one of the main points I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
If it's your fault YOU HAVE TO PAY....
This is the bit I don't believe to be the truth. Now if you went into a shop and started throwing things around then criminal damage is factored in yes, police could be involved. If you actually ended up paying for it, well that is a different matter.
However if I walked into a store, picked something up and was looking at it and it just slipped out of my hands, is there something in law to say I have to pay for this item?
I'm under the impression there isn't and the "you must pay" and "you must pay retail price" are put around, probably by shop keepers, whereas actually based in law you don't actually have to make any kind of payment.

To the case in point, I'd believe that a stall would be the same as a store. It's still a retail environment.
If it was privately owned then I guess it becomes a civil matter, unless of course it's criminal damage.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Stoofa said:
That is one of the main points I'm trying to get to the bottom of.
If it's your fault YOU HAVE TO PAY....

...If it was privately owned then I guess it becomes a civil matter, unless of course it's criminal damage.
Hypothetically speaking of course:

This is a civil matter. When the owner says 'You have to pay.', in legal terms what he is saying is:

"You have been negligent, and this is the loss I've incurred from your negligence."

Playing that scenario out, if disputed, the owner and the breaker would end up in court, with the owner arguing that the breaker had been negligent.

The quantum of the loss might be if for example the item had already been bought by another person, it would be what it was purchased for (assuming it was irreplaceable). However, if it had not yet been sold then the owner would have a hard time arguing that his loss was the ticket value. Not only because on such a stall the ticked value is haggled down, but, his only loss due to the negligence is the loss of what the owner purchased the item for.

Indeed, in the first scenario, a court would likely question the negligence of the owner in leaving breakable items, already sold, in a place where they could be broken by a member of the public.

As for the level of negligence, it would come down to the facts of the matter. If you tripped, then you haven't been negligent. If you tap a glass vase on a table to see if it rings out a note, then you probably have...

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Given that any claim will have an excess then the discussion is moot.

guns80

130 posts

145 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
As said in my last posting I don't believe there to be any specific law although laws such as criminal damage could be applied. In practice I doubt the police would even bother and a civil case would be the only option even then cost and uncertain outcome would probably make this doubtful.

To turn this on its head if customer buys a bottle of wine say and after leaving the shop the handle on the plastic snaps thereby the bottle breaks do posters feel that the customer has any recourse?

mrmr96

13,736 posts

203 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
guns80 said:
As said in my last posting I don't believe there to be any specific law although laws such as criminal damage could be applied.
How can you apply criminal damage laws to an accident?

guns80

130 posts

145 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Sorry that's bad wording on my part didn't so much mean criminal damage could be applied to any case only in the case where as an earlier poster suggested of someone deliberately smashing up a store. I was trying to say that in more extreme cases where much damage had been caused would the police become involved.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

203 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
guns80 said:
Sorry that's bad wording on my part didn't so much mean criminal damage could be applied to any case only in the case where as an earlier poster suggested of someone deliberately smashing up a store. I was trying to say that in more extreme cases where much damage had been caused would the police become involved.
Ok, makes more sense smile

AdeTuono

7,240 posts

226 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
guns80 said:
Thankfully most people are good enough that when they break something either accidentally or on purpose they offer to pay.
Do you honestly have customers who enter your store, break things on purpose and then offer to pay for them? What are you selling? Straitjackets?

Gene Simmons

2,643 posts

209 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
guns80 said:
To turn this on its head if customer buys a bottle of wine say and after leaving the shop the handle on the plastic snaps thereby the bottle breaks do posters feel that the customer has any recourse?
This happened to me last year whilst walking back from the local
Waitrose. I went back and they replaced it no questions asked...



guns80

130 posts

145 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
I was just generalising covering all bases so to speak. I'm not aware of anyone having broken something in store deliberately. However I've long since stopped being surprised by things that people do and some accidents are more avoidable than others, some people do seem to have trouble with cause and effect! I'm not trying to say that all customers are bad in fact the vast majority are great but in 15 years I've seen a few shockers and its those that you remember.

LukeSi

5,753 posts

160 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
I would hate to imagine how much breakages etc cost the store where I work.
(it is a wholesalers recently taken over by someone else)

R60EST

2,364 posts

181 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
mattviatura said:
streaky said:
rofl

Here Polly, here Polly, have some cuttlebone.

Streaky
Finally.

laugh
I thought the OP might have been in Dover , apparently not . He's quite far away from there , on foot , so to speak

V8RX7

26,762 posts

262 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
I can't add to the legal position but I'd suggest that if you don't agree with the stall policy a good idea might be to either not approach it and / or not touch anything.

I tell people when they want to test drive a car I'm selling privately that they aren't covered by my insurance, they usually tell me they have 3rd party cover and I confirm that:

"You can only drive it on the basis that, if you crash it, you've bought it"

I had someone then ask "Why would I buy a damaged car ?"

Needless to say he didn't get to test drive it.

Crazy Torque

2,632 posts

204 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Amazing how many people think it's ok to smash someone elses property and not have to pay just because it's insured.

So if you own a car, and one night a someone staggers into it while drunk, droping a large bottle smashing a headlight, denting the car etc - that drunk is not to be held accountable because "The car is insured, and that's what insurance is for."

Near identical circumstances, but I somehow think the above posters will take quite a different view if it's there insurance they have to claim on, and if you are one of them, then you are quite simply a total c&^t!


Stoofa

Original Poster:

958 posts

167 months

Monday 15th October 2012
quotequote all
Drunk person smashing up a car - entirely different.
That is intended damage, of course that person should pay.
If however in a store, pick up say a £100 item, for whatever reason it slips, I'm knocked, whatever and it falls to the floor. It's an accident and that is exactly what insurance is there for...accidents.

V8RX7

26,762 posts

262 months

Tuesday 16th October 2012
quotequote all
Stoofa said:
If however in a store, pick up say a £100 item, for whatever reason it slips, I'm knocked, whatever and it falls to the floor. It's an accident and that is exactly what insurance is there for...accidents.
So you have your own personal accident policy then ?

As it was YOU who had the accident.

On this basis I might cancel my car insurance as it costs £1k a year and I've never had an accident and if it's an accident apparently it's OK for the other party who did nothing wrong to claim - as that's what they have insurance for.

FFS