Let’s say you’re shopping and your overcoat brushes against an expensive piece of glassware. It falls and shatters. If the store legally able to prosecute you for damages if you refuse to pay for the broken item?
They have insurance for this situation.
The only way they could prosecute you in the US would be to show you did it intentionally. Malicious mischeif or something like that. Intent would have to be proven.
This one got me thinking…
How about if that same overcoat scratches someone’s car in a parking lot. My fault?
What you’re really asking is what the legal standard is to determine whether damage you caused was due to your negligence (something you should have prevented), or whether it was due to their negligence. Unfortunately since IANAL I have no idea, though obviously it would vary on a case by case basis.
Under criminal law, yes. There is still the possibility of the merchant filing a civil suit against the customer.
Many, many moons ago when I was taking Law 101 (ahem - take this post for what its worth) my prof suggested that if you did accidentally break something, and the store owners were trying to get you to pay for it, you could tell them to pound salt. They would be able to ban you from the store, but would probably not be able to get any sort of judgement against you in any court of law.
Of course, this assumes that what you broke was a $200 chachkie, and not a $200,000 rare piece of art or something.
YMMV, void where prohibited.
I don’t know about legal enforceability. I think it wouldn’t be worth their time or money to go after you for the loss.
I do recall reading somewhere that the policy is quite unfair. A store should not charge you full retail price for something broken. If they’re going to insist on something, it should be that you reimburse the store for its wholesale cost. That’s is all they have lost, and it’s not like you’re getting anything. They shouldn’t expect to profit on a simple accident.
I can imagine one of the reasons this would be unpopular with the store is that is would reveal their markup.
Interesting point. If the store were to sue for damages based on the theory of negligence, the proper damages would be the replacement cost.
Also, it occurs to me that to win a negligence case, a defense would be that a store shouldn’t leave breakable items in a location where someone could bump into them.
Any store that has $200,000 arts sitting precariously atop wobbly display tables has some serious answering to do to its insurance carrier.
A huge, expensive furniture store here in Roanoke hands out little bottles of Coke to people as they enter. They really, really want you to have a Coke as you browse. I’d always assumed that this was part of the reason; you (or your kids, for those foolish enough to bring them) dump Coke on an $800 chair, and presto, it’s yours.
I know they might just be trying to be nice, but they really insist that you have a Coke. You have to say ‘no’ three times before they’ll give up.
Some news outlets actually quoted a spokesman from the Pottery Barn chain back a couple months ago in news stories. If you’ll recall, somebody in some political position had said that we are obligated to help out the population of Iraq since we were the ones who messed it up in the war. It’s the Pottery Barn rule, this person said, which is that if you break it, you buy it. The news stories about this then quoted the Pottery Barn spokesman to the effect that, whatever the obligations of the U.S. to Iraq are, the Pottery Barn chain has no such rule. In general, they consider breaking a piece of merchandise to be an accident and wouldn’t charge a customer for it.
Does that mean we can get the hell out of Iraq now?
There used to be a place by my Mom’s that did the same thing (although it was a fontain machine). They stopped because people kept spilling on the furniture.
Re: wholesale cost: the merchant has still incurred costs putting the item up. I suppose one could argue that that’s a cost of business though… I suppose it’s unreasonable to think that the extra ten minutes the stockboy used should be counted. Never mind.
It’s an interesting question. My customers frequently damage things I have installed in their houses, yards etc. I had a customer once , bought a tiller, before he was done destoyed about 400 feet of irrigation pipe.
The job wasn’t done and all I had was a deposit. Technicly the pipe was mine. ( I spoke with my lawyer) But, since it was on his property it was also his. So I just talked with the guy and agreed that he would cover labor while I supplied parts.
I feel this was a good faith move on my part, I would have prevailed in court. But a contractor known for suing his customers don’t exactly get flooded with calls.
Americans are a blunt-spoken lot. “You break it, you bought it!” (That was the title of an album by the Michael Stanley Band back in the '70s. The cover illustration showed massive science-fiction machinery.)
The British are more twee:
Lovely to look at
Nice to hold
Once broken
Consider sold
I believe it was Colin Powell.
What about prominently posted signs? With similar topics (we reserve the right to search bags, etc), people have raised the point that if such signs are prominent and easily understandable, then the customer agrees to them upon entering the store. Essentially, the customer enters into a contract in which they accept these conditions, in return for being allowed to shop at that store. Would the same thing apply here?
In my experience, people have selective memory about signs. We have a sign which says ‘No returns on special orders.’ prominently posted, yet at least once a week I have people who want to return their special ordered parts.
Like in other contracts, the conditions on the sign are not necessarily legal and enforceable. That isn’t to say they wouldn’t hold up in court, it’s just that it isn’t unusual to find clauses in contracts that reflect what the drafter wished the law allowed, rather than reality.
I was in a store earlier this week which had signs all over stating something to the effect of “If you open the box, you have to pay for the contents”. I was sorely tempted just to see what lengths they would go to enforce this. It was not the kind of store I would care too much being banned from.