Lowe's blows

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

Reply to
Steve B
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

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.

Reply to
Jonathan Kamens

I gathered. :-)

Reply to
JimT

Oh brother!

Reply to
JimT

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 to
trader4

You, too, Bubba.

Reply to
Steve B

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

Reply to
JimT

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.

Reply to
Sanity

Your jumping to conclusions again.

The mfg can too.

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

>
Reply to
JimT

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! :-)

Reply to
JimT

formatting link
Wow...I never knew!

Reply to
JimT

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.

---------------------------------------------------

Any ice melter will cause a problem when used incorrectly. It just makes sense. It melts the ice so it can get in the cracks. That's why you have to remove the slush.

From:

formatting link
"Here are some recommendations for reducing the risk of damage to concrete: a.. Apply ice melter at recommended rates b.. Use a push type or hand held ice melter spreader An ice melter with an environmentally inert dye marker can make it easier to prevent overapplication c.. Use an ice melter with extended refreezing protection d.. Remove slush and water before refreezing occurs e.. Avoid using ice melters on non air-entrained concrete or other vulnerable surfaces f.. Apply a commercial strength sealer when dry" We live and we learn. Hopefully, as a result, our prices don't go up. But I fear that is inevitable.

Reply to
JimT

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.

>
Reply to
Sanity

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

>
Reply to
Sanity

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.

Reply to
Sanity

You are at fault here just like I suspected. (Read my 1st post)

Go on blaming the world for your mistakes. Hey! Maybe if you bitch loud enough Lowes will pay to shut you up.

"I'm damn mad and I'm not going to take it anymore!" "Now get off my lawn!"

:^)

Bye

Reply to
JimT

Is that a promise Junior?

>
Reply to
Sanity

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.

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.

Reply to
mm

Not so.

Reply to
mm

HomeOwnersHub website 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.