Lowe's blows

Page 4 of 7  


He didn't even re-ask any questions, but you're reanswering them anyhow. Don't complain later. :)

Yes I think so. Corporations don't have mouths or hands or legs. They can only speak through their attorney. Some states, maybe all by now, have amended the law to allow small corporations, like family businesses and maybe bigger, to appear without a lawyer. But this is an exception to the normal rule.
The tv courts are not courts but arbitration forums and they could have just about any rules they want on stuff like this. I don't think I've ever seen a lawyer who wasn't also the plaintiff or respondent, but I think all of the corporations I've seen have been small ones. Maybe the big ones are too smart to appear on the show. I think it some of the litigants were smarter, they woudn't humiliate themselves on tv either, which might be why so many of them are poor, because for them the 300 dollars each it pays, or 500 or 200 or something like that is more of an incentive than it would be for someone who's not poor. But others are middle class and just have no idea how bad they might look, even if they win.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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." "
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

sorry! :-) Thanks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

agreed and I look forward to your results
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
----------------------------
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty
"The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is implied when a buyer relies upon the seller to select the goods to fit a specific request. For example, this warranty is violated when a buyer asks a mechanic to provide snow tires and receives tires that are unsafe to use in snow. This implied warranty can also be expressly "disclaimed by name", thereby shifting the risk of unfitness back to the buyer."
Anyone want to tackle "expressly disclamed by name"? Jonathan? :-)
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Wow...chill dude. I was just curious. You know you can ignore posts.
Sheeeze!
BTW: I'll post when, what and wherever I want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

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? Shit, let's put them all on there. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your jumping to conclusions again.
The mfg can too.
Really dude...get a grip. You may want to lay off ng awhile.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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! :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

older than you. I know that because the younger ones act as stupidly as you do.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.icemelter.ca/traction/roofs_e.php
Wow...I never knew!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.