"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 8:43 pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...



On Apr 8, 5:49 pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

. ..

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

You're right, I stand corrected. As someone else pointed out, this
is
America and you can sue anybody you want. Actually prevailing in the
matter, well, that's a whole different story.

Reminds me a fellow, once, that had a dispute with his water
company.
The company turned off his water! He was going to "bring them to
their knees", and somehow made them humble :-/

Maybe he could have put soil in his toilets and grew vegetables?!

Guess who won...

Apples and pears.

Why does Lowe's have the manufacturer sign an agreement to guaranty
their
products. Lowe's knows that they are the first in line to get sued
and
want
to be protected. So if they are sued, they in turn will sue the
manufacturer.
Let me ask you a question. You go into an Italian restaurant and order
spaghetti and sauce. The cook opens a can of commercial sauce and
puts
it
on the spaghetti. You get food poisoning because the sauce is bad.
Who
do
you sue? The restaurant or the manufacturer of the sauce. The
answer
is
you sue the restaurant and he in turn sues the maker of the sauce.

Spaghetti and Manicotti

Lowes didn't "cook" the ice melting product. They didn't open the
package or change it in anyway. They are in no way responsible for
what happened to your concrete.

If you sue the restaurant, you might have a chance of winning because
they played a major part in getting you sick, and maybe the restaurant
has chance of winning their suit with the manufacturer, but that's not
the same situation as simply buying an unaltered product from Lowes.

Look, we can argue the merits all day. Do us a favor: Sue 'em and let
us know how it works out.

Just a little note. I just received an email from their claims
department.
They asked for two days and then they'll make me an offer. So evidently I
was right and some of you sideline lawyers are wrong. Lowe's protects
itself
by making all it's vendors offer a guaranty or warranty in their purchase
agreement. If the vendor refuses to honor that warranty Lowe's will in
most
cases and subrogate against the vendor. I'll post in a few days with the
exact outcome.

"So evidently I was right..."

When were you right? When you said "Lowes Blows" or when you said that
Lowes was responsible for the damage to your driveway?

1 - If they make you an an offer that satisfies you, then you were
wrong in saying that they Blow.

2 - If they make you an an offer that satisfies you, then you may
still be wrong in claiming that they have hold any fault in the issue.
A "settlement" isn't an admission of fault, it could just be a good-
will thing to do. See # 1.

When they first disclaimed responsibility, especially after showing me their
contract with the supplier I was ****ed. But after much discussion Lowe's
saw my point of view. Whether they assume the 'fault' or subrogate against
the vendor is not my business. Whether they are doing this to satisfy a
customer is my business. I've done enough business with them that I deserve
to be satisfied. And why was I right? They would not have that clause in
their merchant contracts if they were not responsible, either legally or
morally to their customers.