"Sanity" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 9:37 pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because they want manufacturer's to offer some reasonable guarantee of
their product so that Lowes customers will have some recourse if the
product doesn't live up to the guarantee. It's just good business
practice. However, that does not mean that every manufacturer has to
agree to every claim. It's not at all unusual for a manufacturer to
look at a claim and say that the failure is not due to their product,
but instead another factor. How many people do you think come back
to Lowes and bitch because the paint they bought and put on the
outside of their house is peeling? It could be the paint, but far
more likely it could be the prep work, primer, conditions during
application, etc.

What specifically did the manufacturer of the melting product say
about your claim? What was the chemical in it? As I posed before, I
did a quick google on what is the best ice melting product for
concrete and found many references from sites with no apparent dog in
the fight that said that the real factor at work is the concrete
itself. If it's good concrete properly poured, it doesn't make any
difference which particular melting product is used. The spawling
you can get is due to the increased freeze thaw cycles that result
when you use any of these melting products.

I repeat for the umpteenth time:
The manufacturer states it's safe use if:

a. the concrete is at least one year old.
b. the concrete is sealed.

The concrete is 5 years old. I've used ice melt on this driveway every
year without mishap. I personally sealed the driveway twice. I was here
when the driveway was poured. Specs called for a 2500psi mix. The mix
that was delivered bright and early in the morning (so as not to sit in
the truck for hours) was over 3000 psi.

Maybe mute at this point but, can you prove it? Do you have documents to
back it up?

Jim