"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:06:10 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JimT" wrote:


With all due respect, that is a different scenario. The first
suspect
would
be the restaurant and you'd have a hard time proving it was the mfg.
In
the
OP there is no doubt what caused the problem; in the OP's mind at
least.

And in real life, they most likely would go after the restaurant AND
the maker.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

No, in real life, they go for the "deepest pockets". That being the
client
with the most money.

Steve


No, in real life your lawyer will want to name as many potential
defendants as possible. It makes it less likely that the whole case
will be summarily thrown out, and gives more options for collecting
damages. S.O.P.

Exactly

See....That is true BUT. Your case against Lowes is sour grapes because
you're ****ed. Listen....you don't have a case against Lowes, and maybe
not even the mfg. You're angry. That's not a good reason to go to court.

It's fantastic that you can tell I'm ****ed and angry. If you were willing
to make a wager I'll bet Lowe's comes through for me. Either they'll make
the manufacturer pay or they'll pay and go after the vendor.
People deal with a big store because they want to avoid problems. They
expect that if they have a problem with a product, the store will make
good and the store will argue with the vendor. Why would Lowe's have a
section in their purchase agreement telling the vendor that they must
guaranty their product and that if they don't, Lowe's legal department
will enforce the contract?

Start talking lawsuit and see how far that gets you.

Good Luck,

You're going to need it.