Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
Sanity don't read.
Why don't you two get a room?
|
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
Sanity don't read :-)
|
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lowe's Lousy Inventory | Home Repair | |||
Thank You, Lowe's | Home Repair | |||
Went to Lowe's today ........... | Home Repair | |||
Drill Doctor 350 at Lowe's for $28 | Metalworking | |||
GMC Tools at Lowe's?? | Woodworking |