Nutty California judge awards 1.6M over 2x4s not being 2" by 4"

[gfretwell]

[trader_4]

And then when I tell people what a loony hell hole the libs have made of California, some people tell me it just ain't so. This is a good example. Great way for govt to protect the consumer. Assuming that judgement stands, it's the consumer that is going to pay it through higher prices. The dopey DA that brought this case probably never bought a 2x4 in his life. Another fine example of govt running amok.

[Ken]

Wait until these guys visit a hamburger shop and discover that a "quarter pounder" is the weight before it is cooked. More lawsuits I suspect.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

this is especially true of the new dimensions for sheets of plywood: 1/2 inch plywood is now 7/16ths and each side is 1/16th shorter. be fun for roofers

[gfretwell]

This was a settlement. There will not be an appeal.

I think we are just going to see another sign. "trade size, actual size is "X") You might even see Lowes listing these in metric. (which most lumber is these days) That would also get away from that x/32ds plywood which is also metric.

I agree, they should have taken this to an appeals court but that costs a lot of money. I suspect this will prompt more suits and I doubt rational courts would agree with this insanity.

[dpb]

On 09/16/2014 12:20 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote: ...

...

For construction ply the thickness is a 32nd under (not 16th) for 1/2" and up nominal thicknesses, but for sheathing the length dimensions are

1/8" shy w/ tolerance +0/-1/16 on that...GP spec's for sheathing are at--

Hardwood ply is more variable in being often metric vis a vis English units and thicknesses as isn't subject to needing to meet building codes on strength, etc., that keeps bounds on how far they can trim stuff on construction grades.

[nestork]

Only a clueless judge would make such a ruling.

Sometimes I think it takes a generous amount of stupidity to lubricate the operation of the legal system.

[dadiOH]

Where else but California...nutty judge, nutty prosecutor, nutty weights and measures know nothing employee.

I hope Lowes appeals it.

[dadiOH]

In Spanish too, of course.

[dpb]

On 09/16/2014 1:29 PM, dadiOH wrote: ...

One would have wished but Lowes (for the third time in last year or so) just rolled over and took a settlement instead of vigorously fighting.

[Frank]

Twenty years ago a judge gave a commencement speech at my son's college graduation and talked about the problem of dumbing down America. She was right.

[Frank]

Then you must have heard about the time a contractor sent his brother in to buy 4X2's and the clerk told him that he meant, 2X4's. Guy said he'd ask his brother and came back and said the clerk was right.

Clerk asked guy how long he wanted them and guy said he'd ask his brother.

Came back and said brother said he wanted them a long time, he was gonna build a house.

[trader_4]

1/2" is not 7/16", it's 15/32, 3/4 is 23/32, etc. I just replaced some roof sheathing and the 1/32 difference doesn't matter. If someone didn't tell you, you'd never know it. Also IDK if the 1/16th shorter is true, but for roofing that doesn't matter either. There is supposed to be some space between adjacent sheets.

[Guv Bob]

Or try on a pair of Size 9 shoes.

[Dan Espen]

I see the idiots are at it, making this political.

I, for one, would not be upset if lumber was sold with the ACTUAL size mentioned somewhere.

[Frank]

It is, if you buy it immediately when cut.

[dpb]

On 09/16/2014 1:59 PM, trader_4 wrote: ...

Which is a reason for sheathing and other construction panels to be short length/width. The thickness is purely cost-savings to the fabricator--over enough sheets that difference makes up a lot of raw material...

The thickness _does_ matter when it comes to matching up with trim lumber and the like, however. It's a pita when the joint is proud by that difference. But, for sheathing/subflooring/etc., it is pretty much immaterial other than for total thickness for leveling floor transitions, etc.

[Ralph Mowery]

I can almost go along with the ruling. If the 2x4 had always been the same size I would not have a problem. Over the years the 2x4 seems to be srinking. About 20 years ago I bought some 2x4s and some nails that would not go through them when I nailed the 2 inch sides together. About 10 years ago I bought some more 2x4s and the old nails went though to the other side. That ment another trip back to the store to find some nails that were about

1/2 of an inch shorter.

[Doug Miller]

[e-mail] wrote in news: [e-mail]:

That will be overturned on appeal.

[dpb]

...

You don't take a rule with you to the lumber yard???

...

They have standardized on 1/2" under nominal for dimension common framing lumber since sometime in the 70s or 80s--prior to that it was

5/8". The change was primarily made so that two 3/4" ply sheets would match up w/ the thickness of a tuba-X when ply became so ubiquitous for sheathing and as filler for headers, etc. At 3-1/2", two on edge and a 1/2" ply make a matched-thickness header--at the 5/8" it takes 5/8" or other machinations to make it match.

There's a voluntary standard for softwood lumber that sets minimum dimensions for the various sizes and a lot of other stuff as well...

It's mind-boggling to me that simply showing this document to a judge wouldn't have gotten an immediate dismissal--that it didn't indicates either incompetence on the defense by Lowes in not presenting it or simply a preconception of "sock it to the corporation" on general principle by the judge. In CA I can believe the latter as easily or even more so than the former.

As another (or more than one, perhaps) has/have noted; it's all about the lawyers finding a way to line their pockets irrespective of whether there has been any actual harm or not or whether there's even any sense in the claim.