So what's new? I had an issue with a Husky power washer that died after
three uses. Store says it's factory's fault. Factory says warranty no
good.

I made a sign that said, "HD SELLS HUSKY JUNK". I sent a registered letter
to the store with a picture of the sign. I said that I intended to picket
the store, and notified them of the time and date. I also told them that I
had notified the local TV station that has the consumer reports news report.
I told them in the letter that if their attitude or that of the supplier
changed, to contact me, and I would accept a full refund and cancel my
picketing.

I got my money back.

Steve

"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

SMS writes:
While small claims court will limit your damages (with the limit
depending on your state), you're probably better off because neither
side can have a lawyer.

That varies from state to state.

The OP said he's living in NC. According to
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consumerism/small_nc.html,
lawyers are allowed in NC.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:49:52 -0400, "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.

The answer is look closely at the text of the demand letter you
posted. Under contracts. Lowe's has indemnified themselves from
liability. Under that contract the have advised the manufacturer to
contact their insurance carrier, for liability insurance claims.

If my Toyota, had an unintended accelerations: should I sue Toyota or
the local dealer?

For a restaurant... only eat in health department inspected businesses
.. lesson learned :-]

And an inspection by a health department doesn't mean you won't get food
poisoning from the guy who just touched the doorknob before you. Do you
ever use the public john at a restaurant?

Steve

"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.

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

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.

Bingo....Sounds like you've been there.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
So what's new? I had an issue with a Husky power washer that died after
three uses. Store says it's factory's fault. Factory says warranty no
good.

I made a sign that said, "HD SELLS HUSKY JUNK". I sent a registered
letter to the store with a picture of the sign. I said that I intended to
picket the store, and notified them of the time and date. I also told
them that I had notified the local TV station that has the consumer
reports news report. I told them in the letter that if their attitude or
that of the supplier changed, to contact me, and I would accept a full
refund and cancel my picketing.

I got my money back.

Steve


HD or Lowe's will take back any defective product. They just return it to
the manufacturer and get reimbursed. The manufacturers will take back their
merchandise in order to remain vendors with the big box stores.

"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.

"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?

"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.

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"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.

I've already intimated that without saying that I'll go that route. I spent
my life negotiating and I think I'm pretty good at it.

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"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.

I've already intimated that without saying that I'll go that route. I
spent my life negotiating and I think I'm pretty good at it.

I was looking at Lowe's site and didn't see anything. You might check wiki
for "product liability". There is some interesting stuff there. I took a
course in business law. (only 1 semester) I'm just going by the "reasonable
man" rule. I could be off but I'm just calling it how I see it. My last
question for you is: Are you sure it wasn't something else under your
control? If you do actually get to the depo stage, you'll have to provide
evidence prior to discovery, that it wasn't.

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
So what's new? I had an issue with a Husky power washer that died after
three uses. Store says it's factory's fault. Factory says warranty no
good.

I made a sign that said, "HD SELLS HUSKY JUNK". I sent a registered
letter to the store with a picture of the sign. I said that I intended
to picket the store, and notified them of the time and date. I also told
them that I had notified the local TV station that has the consumer
reports news report. I told them in the letter that if their attitude or
that of the supplier changed, to contact me, and I would accept a full
refund and cancel my picketing.

I got my money back.

Steve


HD or Lowe's will take back any defective product. They just return it to
the manufacturer and get reimbursed. The manufacturers will take back
their merchandise in order to remain vendors with the big box stores.

That was not my experience. Neither would step up.

Steve

On 4/8/2010 8:43 PM, Sanity wrote:

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.

From whose claim department? I'm assuming Lowes.

BTW I had a much different experience with Lowes. I bought a ceiling fan
from them 8 years ago and it died recently (it had a remote and neither
the light nor fan worked and it was not the remote that was the
problem). It was a Harbor Breeze, which is their house brand. The box
said "limited lifetime warranty" but I couldn't find anything in the box
which explained what that covered (I probably threw it out). I called
the phone number on the box and after being told to call another number
and then being told to call another number (they have multiple companies
making Harbor Breeze fans and they probably were not the same as they
were 8 years ago), and eventually having someone take a message and not
get back to me, I emailed Lowes at the wecare address you gave in your
original post. I got email back from them asking which of their stores I
would like them to have contact me. I picked a store and got a call from
the lighting manager the next day and I brought him the fan and he said
he would make some calls. After a few days he called and said he could
not figure out who to talk to but that the store would honor the
warranty and I should come in and pick out a new fan. Needless to say I
am now a big Lowes fan. Oh, and the new fan also says "limited lifetime
warranty" on the box. Hopefully I won't have to use it.

Bill

Sanity wrote:

I live in North Carolina now. For the past five years I've purchased Ice
Melt from Lowe's and have not had one problem. This year they had a product
called "Ice Melt and Traction". I asked the associate what the difference
was from what they used to carry. He told me it's the same with sand added
to give better traction. I read the label very carefully. It said "Do not
use on concrete that is less than 1 year old or not cured. Concrete should
be sealed". Well, my concrete is 5 years old, cured and not only is it
sealed, I sealed it with product recommended by Lowe's.
As you can guess, the concrete flaked. I went to the manager at Lowe's and
he instituted a claim. The manufacturer denies any responsibility. Lowe's
sent them a 'demand' letter stating that according to their agreement the
manufacturer must assume liability.

An agreement to which you're not a party.

I didn't hear for awhile so I called
Lowe's back. In a nasty tone I was told by their office that Lowe's does not
warranty any products they sell and is not responsible.

I'll bet some lawyers will argue that sellers can be held responsible
for products they sell when they don't explicitly say otherwise. Also
the fact that a Lowe's employee said the new product was the same as
the old, except for the addition of sand, may be the key to getting
Lowe's to accept responsibility.

When I lived within walking distance of a Lowe's and a Home Depot, I
did 90% of my shopping at HD because Lowe's employed a much worse
class of morons. Example: one summer, it took three Lowe's
employees to find where the air conditioners were located. OTOH when
I asked a HD employee in the garden equipment dept. for a funny
electrical switch, he told me not only which aisle at the opposite end
of the store had it but also how high off the floor it would be.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
On 4/8/2010 8:43 PM, Sanity wrote:

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.

From whose claim department? I'm assuming Lowes.

BTW I had a much different experience with Lowes. I bought a ceiling fan
from them 8 years ago and it died recently (it had a remote and neither
the light nor fan worked and it was not the remote that was the problem).
It was a Harbor Breeze, which is their house brand. The box said "limited
lifetime warranty" but I couldn't find anything in the box which explained
what that covered (I probably threw it out). I called the phone number on
the box and after being told to call another number and then being told to
call another number (they have multiple companies making Harbor Breeze
fans and they probably were not the same as they were 8 years ago), and
eventually having someone take a message and not get back to me, I emailed
Lowes at the wecare address you gave in your original post. I got email
back from them asking which of their stores I would like them to have
contact me. I picked a store and got a call from the lighting manager the
next day and I brought him the fan and he said he would make some calls.
After a few days he called and said he could not figure out who to talk to
but that the store would honor the warranty and I should come in and pick
out a new fan. Needless to say I am now a big Lowes fan. Oh, and the new
fan also says "limited lifetime warranty" on the box. Hopefully I won't
have to use it.

Bill

I've dealt with Lowe's for years and have always been satisfied and I hope I
remain the same.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
So what's new? I had an issue with a Husky power washer that died after
three uses. Store says it's factory's fault. Factory says warranty no
good.

I made a sign that said, "HD SELLS HUSKY JUNK". I sent a registered
letter to the store with a picture of the sign. I said that I intended
to picket the store, and notified them of the time and date. I also
told them that I had notified the local TV station that has the consumer
reports news report. I told them in the letter that if their attitude or
that of the supplier changed, to contact me, and I would accept a full
refund and cancel my picketing.

I got my money back.

Steve


HD or Lowe's will take back any defective product. They just return it to
the manufacturer and get reimbursed. The manufacturers will take back
their merchandise in order to remain vendors with the big box stores.

That was not my experience. Neither would step up.

Steve

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.

larry moe 'n curly wrote the following:
Sanity wrote:

I live in North Carolina now. For the past five years I've purchased Ice
Melt from Lowe's and have not had one problem. This year they had a product
called "Ice Melt and Traction". I asked the associate what the difference
was from what they used to carry. He told me it's the same with sand added
to give better traction. I read the label very carefully. It said "Do not
use on concrete that is less than 1 year old or not cured. Concrete should
be sealed". Well, my concrete is 5 years old, cured and not only is it
sealed, I sealed it with product recommended by Lowe's.
As you can guess, the concrete flaked. I went to the manager at Lowe's and
he instituted a claim. The manufacturer denies any responsibility. Lowe's
sent them a 'demand' letter stating that according to their agreement the
manufacturer must assume liability.


An agreement to which you're not a party.


I didn't hear for awhile so I called
Lowe's back. In a nasty tone I was told by their office that Lowe's does not
warranty any products they sell and is not responsible.


I'll bet some lawyers will argue that sellers can be held responsible
for products they sell when they don't explicitly say otherwise. Also
the fact that a Lowe's employee said the new product was the same as
the old, except for the addition of sand, may be the key to getting
Lowe's to accept responsibility.

When I lived within walking distance of a Lowe's and a Home Depot, I
did 90% of my shopping at HD because Lowe's employed a much worse
class of morons. Example: one summer, it took three Lowe's
employees to find where the air conditioners were located. OTOH when
I asked a HD employee in the garden equipment dept. for a funny
electrical switch, he told me not only which aisle at the opposite end
of the store had it but also how high off the floor it would be.


Well, that's good enough for me. I'll only shop at your HD because every
employee knows where everything in the store is located.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"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.

On Apr 8, 9:20*am, "Sanity" wrote:
I have been a homeowner, mostly up North for the past 50 some odd years. My
family is in the construction business so I know a little about building and
maintenance.
I have used Ice Melt on my driveways and steps for many, many years without
a problem. I know not to use rock salt as that would deteriorate the
concrete.
I live in North Carolina now. For the past five years I've purchased Ice
Melt from Lowe's and have not had one problem. This year they had a product
called "Ice Melt and Traction". *I asked the associate what the difference
was from what they used to carry. He told me it's the same with sand added
to give better traction. I read the label very carefully. It said "Do not
use on concrete that is less than 1 year old or not cured. Concrete should
be sealed". *Well, my concrete is 5 years old, cured and not only is it
sealed, I sealed it with product recommended by Lowe's.
As you can guess, the concrete flaked. *I went to the manager at Lowe's and
he instituted a claim. *The manufacturer denies any responsibility. *Lowe's
sent them a 'demand' letter stating that according to their agreement the
manufacturer must assume liability. I didn't hear for awhile so I called
Lowe's back. In a nasty tone I was told by their office that Lowe's does not
warranty any products they sell and is not responsible. All they'll do is
refund the money I paid for the bag of ice melt. I asked if this was their
policy on everything they sell and they said 'yes'. I will be taking them
and the manufacturer to court. Whether I win or not is not important at this
point. I just want everyone to know that when Lowe's tells you to email
, they really don't.

We had the same problem with that stuff at work. Problem is it damaged
just some section of the concrete, pieces that had been replaced at
one time, and not others. This would indicate that the quality of the
concrete, sealer, or workmanship was also involved. Lots of luck with
sorting it all out. I put out 10,10,10 fertilizer before it freezes
over. Melts the ice, doesnt hurt anything. If I dont get it out in
time I just put it over the ice for traction.

Jimmie

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The offer is being made for you to go away so they can end the issue.
Your cement work must have a certain degree of defectiveness. I am in
southeastern Michigan with climates much harsher than the Carolinas.
Localities use salt to clear the roads of snow in the Winter. 56
years of salt and my parents driveway and side walks look like new as
well as the rest of the cement work around here.

If your case does end up in court, Lowe's will have a corporate person
argue their side of the case. No lawyers are permitted in Small
Claims Court in Michigan, perhaps the same is true in your area, but
the person arguing Lowe's case could very well be a corporate
attorney. Small Claims are filed against retail stores all the time,
please do not feel that you case is the first one filed against
Lowe's. Your case is frivolous.

"Frank from Deeeetroit" 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The offer is being made for you to go away so they can end the issue.
Your cement work must have a certain degree of defectiveness. I am in
southeastern Michigan with climates much harsher than the Carolinas.
Localities use salt to clear the roads of snow in the Winter. 56
years of salt and my parents driveway and side walks look like new as
well as the rest of the cement work around here.

If your case does end up in court, Lowe's will have a corporate person
argue their side of the case. No lawyers are permitted in Small
Claims Court in Michigan, perhaps the same is true in your area, but
the person arguing Lowe's case could very well be a corporate
attorney. Small Claims are filed against retail stores all the time,
please do not feel that you case is the first one filed against
Lowe's. Your case is frivolous.

And I've lived in the North for 60 years before moving here so:
1. I've used ice melt before without problem
2. My whole family is in the building business so we know about concrete.
(the vendors packaging said the concrete has to be one year old and sealed,
which it was).
3. The concrete used in my driveway met all specs. It cured for 5 years.
It's been sealed properly twice.

so I think I know a little about concrete. And the case is not frivolous.
And lawyers for a Corporation are permitted in most small claims court.
And if Lowe's felt no responsibility for products they sell, they would have
that 'hold harmless' clause in their vendor contracts and would not threaten
the vendor with a legal suit for not upholding their end.
Regardless, as long as Lowe's takes care of the problem I don't care if it's
just to 'make me go away' or if it's their corporate responsibility that
makes them do it.

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.


Actually there was a similar case on Peoples Court last year.
Someone ordered a dish that had pitted olives in it. One of the
olives contained a pit and the customer broke a tooth on it. They
sued the restaurant and....they LOST. The judge said to prevail the
plaintiff would have to show that the restaurant was negligent and did
something wrong, which they did not. The judge said they might have
a claim against the olive maker, but even then, everyone should know
that it's not possible to guarantee 100% perfect removal of all pits.

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.

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.

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.


Actually there was a similar case on Peoples Court last year.
Someone ordered a dish that had pitted olives in it. One of the
olives contained a pit and the customer broke a tooth on it. They
sued the restaurant and....they LOST. The judge said to prevail the
plaintiff would have to show that the restaurant was negligent and did
something wrong, which they did not. The judge said they might have
a claim against the olive maker, but even then, everyone should know
that it's not possible to guarantee 100% perfect removal of all pits.

========

That's an interesting PL case. I've heard the same thing about "fish bones".
Unfortunately, the plaintiff can't sue God. I'll bet they could if they
could serve a subpoena. (St. Peter's Square? Sistine Chapel?)

Our court system is out of control but thankfully there are some glimpses of
sanity.

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"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.

Cool! Please let us know. :-)

Post a copy of the actual letter so we can read and make our own
determination. I'd like to see that "purchase agreement" too.

Thanks

On 4/8/2010 8:06 PM, Steve B wrote:
"Kurt wrote in message
...
In astnet,
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


In real life they go after everyone who has assets because they think
their job is to transfer as much wealth as they can to themselves. It
only costs them whatever they pay their staff to do the research as to
who has assets and how they can get them, the filing fee and a little
extra court time. They have already done all of the other work.

On 4/8/2010 8:36 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:06:10 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Kurt wrote in message
...
In astnet,
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.

That is standard practice. They are more than willing to spend the
relatively small cost to have their staff investigate who else can be
named and determine what assets they have. Even if they only pick up an
extra 20, 50 or 100k on that part of the action it is money well spent.

"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

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"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.

Cool! Please let us know. :-)

Post a copy of the actual letter so we can read and make our own
determination. I'd like to see that "purchase agreement" too.

Thanks

For the third time here is the paragraph. Lowe's will not give out an
actual copy of their merchant agreement.

""I direct your attention to the Master Standard Buying Agreement, executed
between your company and Lowe's. Please refer to Article V, WARRANTIES AND
GUARANTEES, sec (5) which contains the following indemnification agreement.
Pursuant to this agreement your company is responsible for this matter. Your
company is responsible to Lowe's for the defense and indemnification of any
and all claims, including expenses and legal fees resulting from this
matter. Lowe's will exercise all available legal remedies to enforce this
agreement Failure on your part to respond to this may result in additional
expenses, as well as legal action being taken against your company.
Lowe's therefore demands immediate acceptance of this claim in writing. If
you have any applicable liability insurance coverage for this matter, you
should immediately place your insurance carrier on notice."
"

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"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


As a matter of fact, I do. And if and when I go into court, which I doubt I
have to do, I can show 40 years of construction supervision to prove I know
what I'm talking about. As I said before, my family is in the construction
business (skyscrapers, malls, hospitals, etc.) for many, many years. I'm
retired quite awhile but I can pick up the phone, have one of our engineers
fly down, take a core sample and have it analyzed to prove my point.

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"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


As a matter of fact, I do. And if and when I go into court, which I doubt
I have to do, I can show 40 years of construction supervision to prove I
know what I'm talking about. As I said before, my family is in the
construction business (skyscrapers, malls, hospitals, etc.) for many, many
years. I'm retired quite awhile but I can pick up the phone, have one of
our engineers fly down, take a core sample and have it analyzed to prove
my point.

How could they prove the sealers were applied? Maybe having the receipts
would help. Or the left over containers. Ehhh. Like you said, I doubt it
will go to court. I just find this stuff interesting. Is that "purchase
agreement" or "lowes product guarantee" available on line and do you have
access to a scanner? I'd really be interested in reading.

Jim

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"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.

Cool! Please let us know. :-)

Post a copy of the actual letter so we can read and make our own
determination. I'd like to see that "purchase agreement" too.

Thanks

For the third time here is the paragraph. Lowe's will not give out an
actual copy of their merchant agreement.

""I direct your attention to the Master Standard Buying Agreement,
executed
between your company and Lowe's. Please refer to Article V, WARRANTIES AND
GUARANTEES, sec (5) which contains the following indemnification
agreement.
Pursuant to this agreement your company is responsible for this matter.
Your
company is responsible to Lowe's for the defense and indemnification of
any
and all claims, including expenses and legal fees resulting from this
matter. Lowe's will exercise all available legal remedies to enforce this
agreement Failure on your part to respond to this may result in additional
expenses, as well as legal action being taken against your company.
Lowe's therefore demands immediate acceptance of this claim in writing. If
you have any applicable liability insurance coverage for this matter, you
should immediately place your insurance carrier on notice."
"

sorry! :-) Thanks

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"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


As a matter of fact, I do. And if and when I go into court, which I doubt
I have to do, I can show 40 years of construction supervision to prove I
know what I'm talking about. As I said before, my family is in the
construction business (skyscrapers, malls, hospitals, etc.) for many,
many years. I'm retired quite awhile but I can pick up the phone, have
one of our engineers fly down, take a core sample and have it analyzed to
prove my point.

How could they prove the sealers were applied? Maybe having the receipts
would help. Or the left over containers. Ehhh. Like you said, I doubt it
will go to court. I just find this stuff interesting. Is that "purchase
agreement" or "lowes product guarantee" available on line and do you have
access to a scanner? I'd really be interested in reading.

Jim

Again, you haven't read my posts. Lowe's will not give out a copy of the
merchant agreement. The reason I have that paragraph is that Lowe's
insurance company sent it to me to show me that they are actively going
after the vendor.

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"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.

Cool! Please let us know. :-)

Post a copy of the actual letter so we can read and make our own
determination. I'd like to see that "purchase agreement" too.

Thanks

For the third time here is the paragraph. Lowe's will not give out an
actual copy of their merchant agreement.

""I direct your attention to the Master Standard Buying Agreement,
executed
between your company and Lowe's. Please refer to Article V, WARRANTIES AND
GUARANTEES, sec (5) which contains the following indemnification
agreement.
Pursuant to this agreement your company is responsible for this matter.
Your
company is responsible to Lowe's for the defense and indemnification of
any
and all claims, including expenses and legal fees resulting from this
matter. Lowe's will exercise all available legal remedies to enforce this
agreement Failure on your part to respond to this may result in additional
expenses, as well as legal action being taken against your company.
Lowe's therefore demands immediate acceptance of this claim in writing. If
you have any applicable liability insurance coverage for this matter, you
should immediately place your insurance carrier on notice."
"

Read it: I don't see how this makes Lowes liable. In fact, I think it's
Lowe's way of insuring they won't be liable. In-other-words. If Lowe's does
get sued Lowe's could use this as a contract between them and the supplier.
So Lowe's can in-turn sue the supplier for breech of contract.

It wouldn't strengthen your case against Lowes. It's for Lowes. But of
course.....it depends on "what the deffinition of "is" is". :-) ****in'
lawyers.

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"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.

Cool! Please let us know. :-)

Post a copy of the actual letter so we can read and make our own
determination. I'd like to see that "purchase agreement" too.

Thanks

For the third time here is the paragraph. Lowe's will not give out an
actual copy of their merchant agreement.

""I direct your attention to the Master Standard Buying Agreement,
executed
between your company and Lowe's. Please refer to Article V, WARRANTIES
AND
GUARANTEES, sec (5) which contains the following indemnification
agreement.
Pursuant to this agreement your company is responsible for this matter.
Your
company is responsible to Lowe's for the defense and indemnification of
any
and all claims, including expenses and legal fees resulting from this
matter. Lowe's will exercise all available legal remedies to enforce this
agreement Failure on your part to respond to this may result in
additional
expenses, as well as legal action being taken against your company.
Lowe's therefore demands immediate acceptance of this claim in writing.
If
you have any applicable liability insurance coverage for this matter, you
should immediately place your insurance carrier on notice."
"

Read it: I don't see how this makes Lowes liable. In fact, I think it's
Lowe's way of insuring they won't be liable. In-other-words. If Lowe's
does get sued Lowe's could use this as a contract between them and the
supplier. So Lowe's can in-turn sue the supplier for breech of contract.

It wouldn't strengthen your case against Lowes. It's for Lowes. But of
course.....it depends on "what the deffinition of "is" is". :-) ****in'
lawyers.

This is what I've been telling you all along. If the vendor won't do
anything, Lowe's will and then subrogate against the vendor.

How's about letting this conversation die. When I get the results I'll post
them.

Good golly, there are a lot of people commenting in this
thread who don't seem to have a clue about how our legal
system works but think they do anyway.

When a merchant sells you a product, there are implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for purpose. These
warranties apply unless the merchant explicitly disclaims
them. In some jurisdictions they cannot be disclaimed (i.e.,
the merchant is stuck with them whether he likes them or not).
These warranties apply to the merchant who sells the product,
*not* to the manufacturer. If the product is sold in a chain
of transactions (e.g., manufacturer to distributor,
distributor to merchant, merchant to consumer), there are
implied warranties at each link in the chain between the two
parties to that particular transaction.

Merchantability applies here because the product failed when
used as intended and in accordance with its published
instructions.

Fitness for purpose applies here because the product's
instructions claimed that it would perform adequately and it
did not, and because the purchaser asked the merchant
specifically if it would perform as desired and was told by a
representative of the merchant (i.e., the Lowe's associate)
that it would.

The OP does not have a contract with the manufacturer of the
product, because he did not buy the product from the
manufacturer. The OP has a contract with Lowe's, because he
bought the product from Lowe's, and therefore the implied
warranties at the OP's disposal for recouping damages for his
loss are with Lowe's not with the manufacturer.

If, indeed, the manufacturer of the product was negligent in
selling a product which they claimed would be safe for
concrete when used in certain conditions and which was not in
fact safe for concrete when used in those conditions, then
the OP could have a claim against the manufacturer for
negligence, independent of the implied warranties between
Lowe's and the OP.

In short, if the facts are as presented by the OP (i.e., his
concrete was old enough and sealed properly, the product said
it was safe to use on concrete that was old enough and sealed
properly, and yet the concrete flaked when the product was
used on it), then he can certainly sue Lowe's for damages
based on the implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for purpose, and he can also, should he wish to do
so, sue the manufacturer for negligence.

It appears from the information provided by the OP that Lowe's
has its own contract with the manufacturer which allows Lowe's
to force the manufacturer to cover any claims for damages
arising from its products sold by Lowe's. That's all well and
good for Lowe's, but it has nothing to do with the OP, who is
not a party to that contract. It is not the OP's concern
whether Lowe's can or does successfully collect reimbursement
from the manufacturer for whatever damages Lowe's pays out to
the OP, and the contact between Lowe's and the manufacturer
cannot be used as the basis of a lawsuit initiated by the OP
against either Lowe's or the manufacturer. Frankly, I'm not
sure why Lowe's showed it to the OP; it just muddied the
waters.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty for more
information about implied warranties.