Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Lowe's blows



"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
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.


Thank you for the most intelligent reply I have received to date. I was
trying to convey your message but not as eloquently as you did.

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Lowe's blows


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
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.


Thank you for the most intelligent reply I have received to date. I was
trying to convey your message but not as eloquently as you did.


agreed and I look forward to your results


  #83   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Lowe's blows

On Apr 9, 1:57*pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message

...





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.


Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warrantyfor more
information about implied warranties.


Thank you for the most intelligent reply I have received to date. I was
trying to convey your message but not as eloquently as you did.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Johnathon's post was well said and will be used by Lowe's on their
side of the argument. On your side of the argument, you will have to
prove the concrete is of suffecient quality in the first place and was
poured correctly and floated correctly, in the correct weather
conditions, should this case go in front of a judge. Considering your
back-ground, these are the main causes of concrete flaking.

My guess, Lowe's will offer you some money or products to end the
case.

Keep us posted, should be interesting, and good luck.
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,907
Default Lowe's blows

On 4/9/2010 1:51 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
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.


Well said, big box (or anyone else) can make any declaration they want
to scare away the uninformed but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Lowes likely showed their contract with their supplier to the OP because
they thought it would make them go away.
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Sanity don't read.

"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)


Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.

If you have some reason to believe, based on the information
we have been provided, that Lowe's disclaimed said warranty,
then please fully explain your reasoning.

If you don't, then please stop being one of the people posting
in this thread who is acting like he has a clue but actually
doesn't. Thanks.


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)


Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.

If you have some reason to believe, based on the information
we have been provided, that Lowe's disclaimed said warranty,
then please fully explain your reasoning.

If you don't, then please stop being one of the people posting
in this thread who is acting like he has a clue but actually
doesn't. Thanks.


Wow...chill dude. I was just curious. You know you can ignore posts.

Sheeeze!

BTW: I'll post when, what and wherever I want.


  #87   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Bahwahhhhh

In other words. If YOU examined the product the implied waranty no longer
exists.

see § 25-2-316 3. (b)

From: http://www.ncleg.net/homePage.pl

§ 25-2-315. Implied warranty: Fitness for particular purpose.
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any
particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is
relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable
goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section [G.S.
25-2-316] an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
(1965, c. 700, s. 1.)

§ 25-2-316. Exclusion or modification of warranties.
(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and
words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed
wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the
provisions of this article on parol or extrinsic evidence (G.S. 25-2-202)
negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction
is unreasonable.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty
of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention
merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude
or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing
and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is
sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which
extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)
(a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are
excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language
which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion
of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
(b) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods
or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the
goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an
examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
(c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of
dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
(4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the
provisions of this article on liquidation or limitation of damages and on
contractual modification of remedy (G.S. 25-2-718 and 25-2-719). (1965, c.
700, s. 1.)


  #88   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Lowe's blows

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:18:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank from Deeeetroit
wrote Re Lowe's blows:

Keep us posted, should be interesting, and good luck.


+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Sanity don't read.

On Apr 9, 3:12*pm, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)


Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. *That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.


You are assuming the associate, in fact said that, and if the OP can
prove said associate said that.


If you have some reason to believe, based on the information
we have been provided, that Lowe's disclaimed said warranty,
then please fully explain your reasoning.

If you don't, then please stop being one of the people posting
in this thread who is acting like he has a clue but actually
doesn't. *Thanks.


  #90   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.


"Frank from Deeeetroit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 3:12 pm, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)


Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.


You are assuming the associate, in fact said that, and if the OP can
prove said associate said that.



snip

I don't think that even matters. They both had basically the same info.

Apparently, the NCGA protects businesses from frivolous law suits. As it
should be. If Lowes pays off, it will be just to shut him up. Anything under
30k isn't worth going to court over. It's crap like this that drives prices
up.

Thanks




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Frank from Deeeetroit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 3:12 pm, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)


Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.


You are assuming the associate, in fact said that, and if the OP can
prove said associate said that.



snip

I don't think that even matters. They both had basically the same info.

Apparently, the NCGA protects businesses from frivolous law suits. As it
should be. If Lowes pays off, it will be just to shut him up. Anything
under 30k isn't worth going to court over. It's crap like this that drives
prices up.

Thanks


And how much would it cost to shut you up? You're making a Federal case over
this. I don't know who you're trying to impress, yourself or the other
idiots.

  #92   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Frank from Deeeetroit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 3:12 pm, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)

Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.


You are assuming the associate, in fact said that, and if the OP can
prove said associate said that.



snip

I don't think that even matters. They both had basically the same info.

Apparently, the NCGA protects businesses from frivolous law suits. As it
should be. If Lowes pays off, it will be just to shut him up. Anything
under 30k isn't worth going to court over. It's crap like this that
drives prices up.

Thanks


And how much would it cost to shut you up? You're making a Federal case
over this. I don't know who you're trying to impress, yourself or the
other idiots.


That's a hoot. He posts here looking for advice and degrades anyone who
finds the info that he doesn't agree with. WTF?

LOL "He's damn mad and he's not going to take it anymore!"

It's always someone else's fault.

Priceless :-)


  #93   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Frank from Deeeetroit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 3:12 pm, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"JimT" writes:
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)

Nothing we have been told in this thread suggests that Lowe's
disclaimed the warranty of fitness for purpose when selling
the product to the OP.

On the contrary, the OP specifically asked a Lowe's associate
if the product would perform similarly to similar products
sold by Lowe's in prior years, and the associate told him that
it would. That statement by the associate to the OP prior to
purpose established a warranty of fitness for purpose.

You are assuming the associate, in fact said that, and if the OP can
prove said associate said that.



snip

I don't think that even matters. They both had basically the same info.

Apparently, the NCGA protects businesses from frivolous law suits. As it
should be. If Lowes pays off, it will be just to shut him up. Anything
under 30k isn't worth going to court over. It's crap like this that
drives prices up.

Thanks


And how much would it cost to shut you up? You're making a Federal case
over this. I don't know who you're trying to impress, yourself or the
other idiots.


That's a hoot. He posts here looking for advice and degrades anyone who
finds the info that he doesn't agree with. WTF?

LOL "He's damn mad and he's not going to take it anymore!"

It's always someone else's fault.

Priceless :-)

you're an idiot. You've asked me so many questions that were in the original
message. I had to repeat myself 3 or 4 times for you. After reading some of
your replies I got the idea that all you were interested in was trying to
impress people here and yourself how intelligent you think you are. I even
asked you to let the thread go and when I get a decision from Lowe's I'll
post it. But you kept on asking the same questions including asking me to
get a copy of the merchant contract from Lowe's and scanning it for you. If
you read about 5 of my posts you would have known that Lowe's will not give
out a copy of their contracts except to vendors but you were so interested
in sounding important you either never read my replies or understood them. A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him. Either you're a genius or an ass and
I think it's the latter. Good day sir.

  #94   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.

snip

I've met a lot of people in ngs. Some people know how to use them and others
don't. I consistently get great advice. And even when I don't, sometimes
this is a good place to think things through.

Don't let it get under your skin. Yes, there is an abundance of really bad
advice. But it's usually pretty obvious. Above all: Telling people what to
do in ngs is usually a waste of time because you don't own them and you
don't even own this thread. I've started many a threads that I left behind
because it got off the track or I just didn't find it interesting.

See, even though you've been a bit grouchy, I don't mind. It's all fair
here. If I don't like it I can leave. And so can you.

:-) -----this means all is well and don't sweat it. If you don't like it.
Move on. :-)


  #95   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"JimT" wrote in message
net...
snip

I've met a lot of people in ngs. Some people know how to use them and
others don't. I consistently get great advice. And even when I don't,
sometimes this is a good place to think things through.

Don't let it get under your skin. Yes, there is an abundance of really bad
advice. But it's usually pretty obvious. Above all: Telling people what to
do in ngs is usually a waste of time because you don't own them and you
don't even own this thread. I've started many a threads that I left behind
because it got off the track or I just didn't find it interesting.

See, even though you've been a bit grouchy, I don't mind. It's all fair
here. If I don't like it I can leave. And so can you.

:-) -----this means all is well and don't sweat it. If you don't like it.
Move on. :-)


You don't think I should get grouchy after you repeatedly asked me the same
questions over and over again and offered no practical advice?
You must use an air compressor to inflate your ego.



  #96   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...
snip

I've met a lot of people in ngs. Some people know how to use them and
others don't. I consistently get great advice. And even when I don't,
sometimes this is a good place to think things through.

Don't let it get under your skin. Yes, there is an abundance of really
bad advice. But it's usually pretty obvious. Above all: Telling people
what to do in ngs is usually a waste of time because you don't own them
and you don't even own this thread. I've started many a threads that I
left behind because it got off the track or I just didn't find it
interesting.

See, even though you've been a bit grouchy, I don't mind. It's all fair
here. If I don't like it I can leave. And so can you.

:-) -----this means all is well and don't sweat it. If you don't like
it. Move on. :-)


You don't think I should get grouchy after you repeatedly asked me the
same questions over and over again and offered no practical advice?
You must use an air compressor to inflate your ego.


Yeah that annoys me too. I jumped in late. Sorry. Still a fascinating
thread.

I enjoyed it regardless.


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
net...
snip

I've met a lot of people in ngs. Some people know how to use them and
others don't. I consistently get great advice. And even when I don't,
sometimes this is a good place to think things through.

Don't let it get under your skin. Yes, there is an abundance of really
bad advice. But it's usually pretty obvious. Above all: Telling people
what to do in ngs is usually a waste of time because you don't own them
and you don't even own this thread. I've started many a threads that I
left behind because it got off the track or I just didn't find it
interesting.

See, even though you've been a bit grouchy, I don't mind. It's all fair
here. If I don't like it I can leave. And so can you.

:-) -----this means all is well and don't sweat it. If you don't like
it. Move on. :-)


You don't think I should get grouchy after you repeatedly asked me the
same questions over and over again and offered no practical advice?
You must use an air compressor to inflate your ego.


Yeah that annoys me too. I jumped in late. Sorry. Still a fascinating
thread.

I enjoyed it regardless.

Glad you enjoyed it.

  #98   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Sanity don't read.

Why don't you two get a room?


  #99   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"Steve B" wrote in message
...
Why don't you two get a room?

Ad why don't you mind your own business?

  #100   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Sanity don't read.


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
Why don't you two get a room?

Ad why don't you mind your own business?


Okay, I promise not to read another one of your posts. It's just you two
were taking up half the newsgroup.

Buh bye.

Steve




  #101   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Bahwahhhhh

"JimT" writes:
In other words. If YOU examined the product the implied waranty no longer
exists.


If you examined the product, "there is no implied warranty
with regard to defects which an examination ought in the
circumstances to have revealed to him."

How, praytell, could the OP's examination of the product in
the store have revealed to him that it would flake his
concrete? On the contrary, his examination of the product in
the store, as well as his conversation with the associate,
suggested that it would not. In short, the warranty of
fitness for purpose is in effect, because the defect which was
subsequently discovered could not have been discovered by
examination before purchase.
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default Lowe's blows

On Apr 9, 12:50*pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Sanity" wrote in message

...







"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
....
On Apr 8, 5:49 pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message


om...


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.

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Sanity don't read.

"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.


I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who takes the time to
educate myself on topics about which I wish to express an
opinion and who has the intelligence to actually understand
the complexities of the topic under discussion. A number of
the people participating in this thread seem to be lacking in
either one or both of those criteria.
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Sanity don't read.


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.


I am not a lawyer.


snip

I gathered. :-)

  #105   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Sanity don't read.


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
Why don't you two get a room?

Ad why don't you mind your own business?


Okay, I promise not to read another one of your posts. It's just you two
were taking up half the newsgroup.

Buh bye.

Steve


Oh brother!



  #106   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default Sanity don't read.

On Apr 10, 10:19*am, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.


I am not a lawyer. *I am merely someone who takes the time to
educate myself on topics about which I wish to express an
opinion and who has the intelligence to actually understand
the complexities of the topic under discussion. *A number of
the people participating in this thread seem to be lacking in
either one or both of those criteria.


What I find fascinating here is that after 100 posts, we still don't
know what the actual product he bought contained, which would seem to
be key to the claim. Which is to say, if this was some chemical that
is different than what is widely used, then I think he's got a much
better case. On the other hand, if it's just a typical product and
is widely used on other driveways without spawling, I think he's got a
much harder case to prove.
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Sanity don't read.


"JimT" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
Why don't you two get a room?

Ad why don't you mind your own business?


Okay, I promise not to read another one of your posts. It's just you two
were taking up half the newsgroup.

Buh bye.

Steve


Oh brother!


You, too, Bubba.


  #108   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Bahwahhhhh


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
"JimT" writes:
In other words. If YOU examined the product the implied waranty no longer
exists.


If you examined the product, "there is no implied warranty
with regard to defects which an examination ought in the
circumstances to have revealed to him."

How, praytell, could the OP's examination of the product in
the store have revealed to him that it would flake his
concrete? On the contrary, his examination of the product in
the store, as well as his conversation with the associate,
suggested that it would not. In short, the warranty of
fitness for purpose is in effect, because the defect which was
subsequently discovered could not have been discovered by
examination before purchase.


Nonsense. He read the instruction, as well as the associate, and determined
it was appropriate. Which, with the evidence I've read, is probably correct.

The "snow tire" scenario (not sure if you read that one) didn't include the
purchaser reading any mfg instructions. I believe this could easily be
argued in court that if there is any defect in the product (doubtful) it
would be the mfg's responsibility. Clearly in the snow tire example, the
consumer relied entirely on the salesman's expertise.

Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell the
contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible for the
cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I obviously don't
know if this is true. This is just for example). My question to you is: Why
doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that matter, the cement mfg? Maybe
the store where the cement was purchased? ****, let's put them all on there.
LOL

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Lowe's blows


wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 12:50 pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Sanity" wrote in message

...







"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 5:49 pm, "Sanity" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message


om...


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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I've read it and it's a letter, that REFERS to the actual contract.
We don't have the actual contract, the context, what comes before it,
or after it. But from what is stated there, I agree with JimT.
Nothing there says that Lowes is liable. Companies routinely put all
kinds of disclaimers in their contracts to limit POTENTIAL liability
and direct it elsewhere, just in case someone decides to sue. All
this shows is that Lowes expects the company to honor their warranty.
It doesn't say that if they don't, Lowes will.

How about if I sell a used car that is a year old. A year later, the
buyer comes back and bitches because the engine has a problem that the
manufacturer refuses to honor for whatever reason. Am I now
supposed to be liable?

====

shhhhhh....don't **** him off. :-)

  #110   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Bahwahhhhh



"JimT" wrote in message
...



Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell
the contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible
for the cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I
obviously don't know if this is true. This is just for example). My
question to you is: Why doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that
matter, the cement mfg? Maybe the store where the cement was purchased?
****, let's put them all on there. LOL


Again, you're an idiot that doesn't read anything but jumps to conclusions.
If you read my postings, which obviously you didn't, when the cement arrived
it came with all the certifications. It met or exceeded all standards
required. You also didn't read that I and my family have been in the
construction business for many years and know what we're talking about. You
also didn't read that I was willing to fly in one of our engineers from NY
to take a core sample, have it analyzed to prove that it met the criteria.
Yes, it would have cost me more to prove that I'm right but I would have
still will win.
Now unless you've read all the postings, stop making assumptions and get on
with something you know a lot about, like nothing.



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Bahwahhhhh


"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...



Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell
the contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible
for the cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I
obviously don't know if this is true. This is just for example). My
question to you is: Why doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that
matter, the cement mfg? Maybe the store where the cement was purchased?
****, let's put them all on there. LOL


Again, you're an idiot that doesn't read anything but jumps to
conclusions. If you read my postings, which obviously you didn't, when the
cement arrived it came with all the certifications. It met or exceeded all
standards required. You also didn't read that I and my family have been
in the construction business for many years and know what we're talking
about. You also didn't read that I was willing to fly in one of our
engineers from NY to take a core sample, have it analyzed to prove that it
met the criteria. Yes, it would have cost me more to prove that I'm right
but I would have still will win.
Now unless you've read all the postings, stop making assumptions and get
on with something you know a lot about, like nothing.


Your jumping to conclusions again.

The mfg can too.

Really dude...get a grip. You may want to lay off ng awhile.



  #112   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Bahwahhhhh


"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...



Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell
the contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible
for the cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I
obviously don't know if this is true. This is just for example). My
question to you is: Why doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that
matter, the cement mfg? Maybe the store where the cement was purchased?
****, let's put them all on there. LOL


Again, you're an idiot that doesn't read anything but jumps to
conclusions. If you read my postings, which obviously you didn't, when
the cement arrived it came with all the certifications. It met or
exceeded all standards required. You also didn't read that I and my
family have been in the construction business for many years and know
what we're talking about. You also didn't read that I was willing to fly
in one of our engineers from NY to take a core sample, have it analyzed
to prove that it met the criteria. Yes, it would have cost me more to
prove that I'm right but I would have still will win.
Now unless you've read all the postings, stop making assumptions and get
on with something you know a lot about, like nothing.


Your jumping to conclusions again.

The mfg can too.

Really dude...get a grip. You may want to lay off ng awhile.




You know what I find really interesting? If we are to believe this is the
best cement in world. Why did it fail when a product, that was made for use
on cement, was used on it? This stuff must be impressive. They should market
it as cement remover. Gnarly! :-)


  #113   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read :-)


http://www.icemelter.ca/traction/roofs_e.php

Wow...I never knew!


  #114   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Bahwahhhhh



"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...



Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not tell
the contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be responsible
for the cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's expertise (I
obviously don't know if this is true. This is just for example). My
question to you is: Why doesn't he pursue the contractor? Or for that
matter, the cement mfg? Maybe the store where the cement was purchased?
****, let's put them all on there. LOL


Again, you're an idiot that doesn't read anything but jumps to
conclusions. If you read my postings, which obviously you didn't, when
the cement arrived it came with all the certifications. It met or
exceeded all standards required. You also didn't read that I and my
family have been in the construction business for many years and know
what we're talking about. You also didn't read that I was willing to fly
in one of our engineers from NY to take a core sample, have it analyzed
to prove that it met the criteria. Yes, it would have cost me more to
prove that I'm right but I would have still will win.
Now unless you've read all the postings, stop making assumptions and get
on with something you know a lot about, like nothing.


Your jumping to conclusions again.

The mfg can too.

Really dude...get a grip. You may want to lay off ng awhile.


Why don't you just grow up? I don't know your age but I have grandchildren
older than you. I know that because the younger ones act as stupidly as you
do.

  #115   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Bahwahhhhh



"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Sanity" wrote in message
...


"JimT" wrote in message
...



Take, for example, the cement the OP purchased. Assuming he did not
tell the contractor which cement to use, the contractor would be
responsible for the cement. He relied entirely on the contractor's
expertise (I obviously don't know if this is true. This is just for
example). My question to you is: Why doesn't he pursue the contractor?
Or for that matter, the cement mfg? Maybe the store where the cement
was purchased? ****, let's put them all on there. LOL

Again, you're an idiot that doesn't read anything but jumps to
conclusions. If you read my postings, which obviously you didn't, when
the cement arrived it came with all the certifications. It met or
exceeded all standards required. You also didn't read that I and my
family have been in the construction business for many years and know
what we're talking about. You also didn't read that I was willing to fly
in one of our engineers from NY to take a core sample, have it analyzed
to prove that it met the criteria. Yes, it would have cost me more to
prove that I'm right but I would have still will win.
Now unless you've read all the postings, stop making assumptions and get
on with something you know a lot about, like nothing.


Your jumping to conclusions again.

The mfg can too.

Really dude...get a grip. You may want to lay off ng awhile.




You know what I find really interesting? If we are to believe this is the
best cement in world. Why did it fail when a product, that was made for
use on cement, was used on it? This stuff must be impressive. They should
market it as cement remover. Gnarly! :-)


You must have a headache already. I can recommend a good proctologist for
you.



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read :-)



"JimT" wrote in message
net...

http://www.icemelter.ca/traction/roofs_e.php

Wow...I never knew!


Except when the concrete is sealed. You want to match wits with someone who
worked with cement for 40 some odd years? You're an idiot.

  #117   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Sanity don't read.


wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 10:19 am, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.


I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who takes the time to
educate myself on topics about which I wish to express an
opinion and who has the intelligence to actually understand
the complexities of the topic under discussion. A number of
the people participating in this thread seem to be lacking in
either one or both of those criteria.


What I find fascinating here is that after 100 posts, we still don't
know what the actual product he bought contained, which would seem to
be key to the claim. Which is to say, if this was some chemical that
is different than what is widely used, then I think he's got a much
better case. On the other hand, if it's just a typical product and
is widely used on other driveways without spawling, I think he's got a
much harder case to prove.

reply: I find it hilariously amusing that after much mental masturbation
and fallacious ejaculations that we are no further towards the resolution
than whence we started. Except that the two participants have gotten
themselves into a rather substantial lather.

Steve


  #118   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default Sanity don't read.


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 10:19 am, (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
"Sanity" writes:
A
lawyer posted to you giving you the exact law that pertains to this
circumstance and you argued with him.


I am not a lawyer. I am merely someone who takes the time to
educate myself on topics about which I wish to express an
opinion and who has the intelligence to actually understand
the complexities of the topic under discussion. A number of
the people participating in this thread seem to be lacking in
either one or both of those criteria.


What I find fascinating here is that after 100 posts, we still don't
know what the actual product he bought contained, which would seem to
be key to the claim. Which is to say, if this was some chemical that
is different than what is widely used, then I think he's got a much
better case. On the other hand, if it's just a typical product and
is widely used on other driveways without spawling, I think he's got a
much harder case to prove.

reply: I find it hilariously amusing that after much mental masturbation
and fallacious ejaculations that we are no further towards the resolution
than whence we started. Except that the two participants have gotten
themselves into a rather substantial lather.

Steve


LOL. I'm frothing. :-)

Aside from grumpy old man needing a nap, I found some pretty interesting
stuff. I think the NCGA has some pretty comprehended statutes on the
subject. Also, I never knew you have to remove the slush before it
refreezes. Ehhhh. I live in Central TX. It's hardly a problem here.


  #119   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Sanity don't read.



"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Steve B

Aside from grumpy old man needing a nap, I found some pretty interesting
stuff. I think the NCGA has some pretty comprehended statutes on the
subject. Also, I never knew you have to remove the slush before it
refreezes. Ehhhh. I live in Central TX. It's hardly a problem here.


Now I know the answer. Another Texan idiot who thinks he's smart. A real
know-it-all. I forgot what you never knew. And I'm not normally grumpy.
Only when I'm dealing with an illiterate who constantly asks the same
questions and then makes believe he knows the answers. You don't know your
ass from a hole in the ground.

And if you don't remove the slush before it refreezes, you're back in the
same boat you started out with. Now how many times you gonna ask me what I
just said idiot?

  #120   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default Lowe's blows

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 09:20:27 -0400, "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.


That's between Lowes and the manufacturer. It has little or nothing
to do with you. You have a relationship with Lowes. It's called
privity. Whether you have such a relationship with the man. I'm not
sure, but I know you have it with Lowes. And btw, Lowes does
business in your state and is thus easy to sue.

If Lowes has an agreement with the man. that they must assume
liability, like he says, when lowes pays you or loses to you,
depending on what situations the agreement covers, the man must
reimburse them. Maybe this guy went to a meeting or read a memo, but
he doesn't understand law.

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.


In fact they warranty every product they sell, whether he admits it or
not. Stated warrantees are iirc limitations on the common law
warranty. Everything is warranted to be suitable for the normal use
for which it is intended. Something like that.

Either he has no knowledge of the law or he is trying to bamboozle
you. The other side, and the other side's lawyers will often,
probably usually try to convince complainers that they have no case.

Don't take legal advice from the other side.

If you don't complain higher up, and don't sue them, I hope you got
his name so you can call him back and explain how ignorant he is on
these two points.

P&M because it's been 3 days in a busy group.

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lowe's Lousy Inventory Larry Caldwell Home Repair 82 September 15th 09 11:36 PM
Thank You, Lowe's Norminn Home Repair 49 June 30th 07 01:17 AM
Went to Lowe's today ........... Steve B Home Repair 33 March 21st 07 04:34 AM
Drill Doctor 350 at Lowe's for $28 AL Metalworking 2 January 16th 06 12:28 AM
GMC Tools at Lowe's?? Gregg Woodworking 20 April 1st 05 05:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"