accidental breakage in shop

eisenberg1

A relative was in a store recently, and dropped an item, breaking it. She had to pay for it less 50%. Is this the norm?

BrianBoru00

They were responsible for destroying something of value - yes of course. Some shops would charge the full price - they seem to be only covering cost price

dee_mc

Charging for breakages is fairly standard practice; charging cost/reduced price is a nice gesture. It never ceases to amaze me when people break something and say 'I'd offer to pay for it, but i know you can claim through insurance'. Our premium would be through the roof if we claimed for every breakage! I don't see why the shop owner should absorb the loss, i think it's fair enough to have the customer pay for/towards the item.

eisenberg1

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

They were responsible for destroying something of value - yes of course. Some shops would charge the full price - they seem to be only covering cost price

But this is the norm? In all shops ? Are you sure or is that your opinion?

Thanks

BrianBoru00

eisenberg1 wrote: »

But this is the norm? In all shops ? Are you sure or is that your opinion?

Thanks

To be fair, I don't think there is a norm. I think it would be a relatively rare occurrence for shops.

I know of two "poundshop" type places where the standard would have been (10 years ago - presume its still the same) to charge at full rate for any breakage.

Would depend on the type of goods like a furniture shop will probably have less goods that could break than one of those "Kilkenny" outlets...

whomitconcerns

norm in all shops..you break it you bought it...

eisenberg1

whomitconcerns wrote: »

norm in all shops..you break it you bought it...

I doubt that its the case right across the board.

Ken.

Based on experience of having broke things and seen things broke. The big shops like tesco and dunnes will absorb the cost of stuff broken up to about €10. Smaller shops really are a case by case but for most anything over €2 you have to pay for.

Raytown Rocks

Nice to look at,
Nice to hold,
If you break it,
Consider it sold.

Scruffy...The Janitor

As far as I know 'you break it you bought it' has no actual standing in law. She's under no obligation to pay for the item. But the shop can take a civil case against to recuperate the cost of it.

Obviously the decent thing to do is to pay for it tho.

marathont

Often in shops things seem to be booby trapped, and very easily bumped off etc. I wouldn't pay for damage caused to an item in a shop unless it was 100% my fault. The shop owner has to realise there is a risk involved in letting people in to their shop in the first place.

ABajaninCork

If you broke something, wouldn't you offer to pay for it as a matter of common courtesy? The item wasn't yet bought by you, so it still belongs to the shop. It's a no-brainer. Why is it even a matter of debate?

I know that larger shops and supermarkets will absorb the loss, but to a small business the loss might be more significant.

I've often seen this rhyme at home in the UK which says it all:

Lovely to look at. Lovely to hold.
But if you break me? Consider me sold.

jimmii

We are a small shop and have never charged someone for breaking something. Some times people will insist and then we'll do it at 50% the vast majority of people don't offer though!

jimmii

whomitconcerns wrote: »

norm in all shops..you break it you bought it...

Thats just not true.

Miaireland

In my experience small/medium size shops you normally pay full price for an item. Supermarkets/large chain stores seem to either not charge or charge a %.

Sounds like your relative was lucky to get away with 50%. At the end of the day because your relative picked up the item and dropped (even if it was an accident) the shop cannot sell the item and therefore is a loss of income and loss of what they paid for the item that it why your relative was charged.

I was also going to post a version of Chef's message, it is well worth remembering when in shops.

jimmii

marathont wrote: »

Often in shops things seem to be booby trapped, and very easily bumped off etc. I wouldn't pay for damage caused to an item in a shop unless it was 100% my fault. The shop owner has to realise there is a risk involved in letting people in to their shop in the first place.

I agree and charging full price is just taking advantage of the situation if someone wants to buy a product then obviously you want to make a profit off that but if someone breaks something you shouldn't be profiting from that bit of misfortune charging cost is the most that should ever be charged imo.

eisenberg1

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

As far as I know 'you break it you bought it' has no actual standing in law. She's under no obligation to pay for the item. But the shop can take a civil case against to recuperate the cost of it.

Obviously the decent thing to do is to pay for it tho.

marathont wrote: »

Often in shops things seem to be booby trapped, and very easily bumped off etc. I wouldn't pay for damage caused to an item in a shop unless it was 100% my fault. The shop owner has to realise there is a risk involved in letting people in to their shop in the first place.

The item in question was a low value, 25 euro and it was a but iffy the way it was stacked, but she had also purchased something for over 300 euro, I was just kind of surprised the still wanted the broken item to be paid for as well.

dee_mc

eisenberg1 wrote: »

The item in question was a low value, 25 euro and it was a but iffy the way it was stacked, but she had also purchased something for over 300 euro, I was just kind of surprised the still wanted the broken item to be paid for as well.

I think that's fair - maybe in that particular shop they usually charge full price for breakages, but made a concession based on the fact she'd spent a fair bit already?

ABajaninCork

eisenberg1 wrote: »

The item in question was a low value, 25 euro and it was a but iffy the way it was stacked, but she had also purchased something for over 300 euro, I was just kind of surprised the still wanted the broken item to be paid for as well.

The fact that your relative bought something of high value has nothing to do with the fact she broke something that belonged to the shop. If she brushed against something that wasn't properly stacked on the shelf and it fell, that's a different matter. But in your OP you say she dropped it. So - IMO the shop were well within their rights to charge for the broken item. Maybe not full price, but 50% would be fair.

Cabaal

eisenberg1 wrote: »

But this is the norm? In all shops ? Are you sure or is that your opinion?

Thanks

What does it matter if some shops choose not to have customer's pay for stuff they break. The shop is entitled not to be out of pocket.

If you were in DID and you knocked over a LCD tv and made bits of it, do you think it would be ok to not have to pay for it atleast on some level?

jimmii

eisenberg1 wrote: »

The item in question was a low value, 25 euro and it was a but iffy the way it was stacked, but she had also purchased something for over 300 euro, I was just kind of surprised the still wanted the broken item to be paid for as well.

If someone spent €300 with us there is no way I would let them pay for the breakage if they insisted I would say they can buy a fresh one at the retail price and we'll call it quits.

eisenberg1

ABajaninCork wrote: »

The fact that your relative bought something of high value has nothing to do with the fact she broke something that belonged to the shop. If she brushed against something that wasn't properly stacked on the shelf and it fell, that's a different matter. But in your OP you say she dropped it. So - IMO the shop were well within their rights to charge for the broken item. Maybe not full price, but 50% would be fair.

Cabaal wrote: »

What does it matter if some shops choose not to have customer's pay for stuff they break. The shop is entitled not to be out of pocket.

If you were in DID and you knocked over a LCD tv and made bits of it, do you think it would be ok to not have to pay for it atleast on some level?

If you have two sales, one in excess of 300 euro, and the other 25 euro with a 50% reduction, then the shop is not out of pocket. Also the shop in question is a large multinational, I would wager they have percentage factored in for breakages. Some of them probably hand broken goods back to the supplier for a full refund.

jimmii

eisenberg1 wrote: »

If you have two sales, one in excess of 300 euro, and the other 25 euro with a 50% reduction, then the shop is not out of pocket. Also the shop in question is a large multinational, I would wager they have percentage factored in for breakages. Some of them probably hand broken goods back to the supplier for a full refund.

If its a chain then they probably have a process they have to stick to regarding breakages otherwise they may risk failing audits so there could well have been little they could have done about it.

Miaireland

Op I think you are going to have to accept that your relative was charged the 50%. It is over with now. The money has been paid and really it doesn't matter whether we say the shop is right or wrong.

Cabaal

eisenberg1 wrote: »

If you have two sales, one in excess of 300 euro, and the other 25 euro with a 50% reduction, then the shop is not out of pocket. Also the shop in question is a large multinational, I would wager they have percentage factored in for breakages. Some of them probably hand broken goods back to the supplier for a full refund.

They are though,

Ok, they sell an item for 300 euro and they make a profit out of it, this is expected and like all shops they want to sell things to make profit

The other item is broken, they get 50% less for the item then planned. As such one way or another they are still out of pocket because they are down planned profit.

Its no different here just because somebody bought an item doesn't change things, they are still down an item as it was broken and as such they are down the expected full profit on that item.

thehouses

I presume Ireland is the same as the UK where if you break something it is the wholesale price you pay - they are not guaranteed a sale and their loss is limited to whatever they paid for the item.

eisenberg1

Miaireland wrote: »

Op I think you are going to have to accept that your relative was charged the 50%. It is over with now. The money has been paid and really it doesn't matter whether we say the shop is right or wrong.

But then there would be no discussion......where would that leave Boards.ie ?

Cabaal wrote: »

They are though,

Ok, they sell an item for 300 euro and they make a profit out of it, this is expected and like all shops they want to sell things to make profit

The other item is broken, they get 50% less for the item then planned. As such one way or another they are still out of pocket because they are down planned profit.

Its no different here just because somebody bought an item doesn't change things, they are still down an item as it was broken and as such they are down the expected full profit on that item.

Okay, your point is taken, but what ever happened to a goodwill gesture?

For the record, the relative does not have a issue as such, and paid the 50% asked without question. I am just throwing it out there a discussion and to see how other people feel about it.

riffmongous

Cabaal wrote: »

They are though,

Ok, they sell an item for 300 euro and they make a profit out of it, this is expected and like all shops they want to sell things to make profit

The other item is broken, they get 50% less for the item then planned. As such one way or another they are still out of pocket because they are down planned profit.

Its no different here just because somebody bought an item doesn't change things, they are still down an item as it was broken and as such they are down the expected full profit on that item.

Sure the shop is entitled to get back the cost, but in this situation there is also a goodwill issue I think and perhaps the shop would be better of leaving it be.

jimmii

Cabaal wrote: »

They are though,

Ok, they sell an item for 300 euro and they make a profit out of it, this is expected and like all shops they want to sell things to make profit

The other item is broken, they get 50% less for the item then planned. As such one way or another they are still out of pocket because they are down planned profit.

Its no different here just because somebody bought an item doesn't change things, they are still down an item as it was broken and as such they are down the expected full profit on that item.

It depends if they have additional stock of the item and there is additional stock to be able to order a replacement from the manufacturer then they won't be down on the expected profit from the product. They would only be losing out on expected profit from the product if they were unable to meet future demand due to the breakage.

riffmongous

Miaireland wrote: »

Op I think you are going to have to accept that your relative was charged the 50%. It is over with now. The money has been paid and really it doesn't matter whether we say the shop is right or wrong.

Well the relative can spend their money elsewhere in future, at a shop that they feel treats their customers better.

eisenberg1

riffmongous wrote: »

Well the relative can spend their money elsewhere in future, at a shop that they feel treats their customers better.

To be honest, she will probably return:D

But I wont.

Thanks to all

Arthur Beesley

eisenberg1 wrote: »

If you have two sales, one in excess of 300 euro, and the other 25 euro with a 50% reduction, then the shop is not out of pocket.

You don't really know that. They could be making a small margin % on the more expensive item, might be loss leader or similar etc.

eisenberg1 wrote: »

Also the shop in question is a large multinational, I would wager they have percentage factored in for breakages.

Just like they factor in shop lifting. Doesn't make shoplifting right or mean they do nothing about it or stop them trying to recover the goods etc.

Tar.Aldarion

eisenberg1 wrote: »

To be honest, she will probably return:D

But I wont.

Thanks to all

You wouldn't go to the majority of shops with that attitude, actually they were pretty good to give it only at 50%. Or is it only when you see it happen that it counts?

sabat

chef wrote: »

Nice to look at,
Nice to hold,
If you break it,
Consider it sold.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I've often seen this rhyme at home in the UK which says it all:

Lovely to look at. Lovely to hold.
But if you break me? Consider me sold.

This sign always makes me want to smash stuff...

eisenberg1

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

You wouldn't go to the majority of shops with that attitude, actually they were pretty good to give it only at 50%. Or is it only when you see it happen that it counts?

What attitude exactly ?

JimsAlterEgo

isnt that what insurance is for?

discombobulate

Put it this way if they had dropped the €300 item instead would you still think they shouldn't have to pay? Exact same principle.

eisenberg1

discombobulate wrote: »

Put it this way if they had dropped the €300 item instead would you still think they shouldn't have to pay? Exact same principle.

Well, it was an armchair, so they would have had to throw it at a wall. Most shops place high value or fragile goods, in a case, or shelve them is such a way that's it is difficult to get to them.

TheDoctor

If I walked into a shop/someones home/onto someones premises and broke something, irrelevant of whether it be €1000 or €1 I would expect to have to pay for the damage I caused.

discombobulate

eisenberg1 wrote: »

Well, it was an armchair, so they would have had to throw it at a wall. Most shops place high value or fragile goods, in a case, or shelve them is such a way that's it is difficult to get to them.

She dropped it!

Even if it had been in a case or out of the way, after she had taken it from the safe place it was dropped, not knocked because of the position it was in!

eisenberg1

TheDoctor wrote: »

If I walked into a shop/someones home/onto someones premises and broke something, irrelevant of whether it be €1000 or €1 I would expect to have to pay for the damage I caused.

I don't think it is quite the same thing. If I broke/damaged a neighbours/friends property, there would be no question, I would replace or pay for the item without hesitation.

discombobulate

eisenberg1 wrote: »

I don't think it is quite the same thing. If I broke/damaged a neighbours/friends property, there would be no question, I would replace or pay for the item without hesitation.

But not a strangers item which they have in their shop and depend on selling to make a living?

zarquon

eisenberg1 wrote: »

What attitude exactly ?

The atitude of no personal responsibility. Someone breaks something and somehow the owner of the broken item is painted as the bad guy rather than the culprit. TBH i think the shop is very generous in taking a 50% hit. I would be embarassed at the thought of not paying for an item i broke and would be even more embarassed to criticise a shop for expecting partial remuneration.

eisenberg1

discombobulate wrote: »

But not a strangers item which they have in their shop and depend on selling to make a living?

Did I say that?

Tar.Aldarion

zarquon wrote: »

The atitude of no personal responsibility. Someone breaks something and somehow the owner of the broken item is painted as the bad guy rather than the culprit. TBH i think the shop is very generous in taking a 50% hit. I would be embarassed at the thought of not paying for an item i broke and would be even more embarassed to criticise a shop for expecting partial remuneration.

Yes and the fact that they said they wouldn't visit the shop again, qhy? because they made somebody pay for breaking something? Basically if they take that stance they should go into the majority of shops ever.

zarquon

Its a question of morals really rather than law. If you break something, any one with a decent sense of moral responsibility should offer to pay in full for a broken item if within their means. If one is happy to let someone else suffer a loss for one's own mistake then it speaks volumes of one's character.

eisenberg1

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes and the fact that they said they wouldn't visit the shop again, qhy? because they made somebody pay for breaking something? Basically if they take that stance they should go into the majority of shops ever.

Yes, you are right, they should.

I said my relative probably would visit the shop again, but I wouldn't.

zarquon

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes and the fact that they said they wouldn't visit the shop again, qhy? because they made somebody pay for breaking something? Basically if they take that stance they should go into the majority of shops ever.

I propose an alternative, person doesn't pay 100% for their own breakage then they should be barred from said shop. B&M stores have enough revenue issues these days without having to deal with $rsehole customers with a lack of morals. Such customers that refuse to pay for breakages or criticise shops may as well try dipping their hand in the till as that is basically what they are doing anyway!!

zarquon

eisenberg1 wrote: »

Yes, you are right, they should.

I said my relative probably would visit the shop again, but I wouldn't.

You wouldn't visit the shop because your relative made a mistake and cost the shop some profit? (they would eventually have sold the broken item to someone else!) :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

eisenberg1 wrote: »

Yes, you are right, they should.

I said my relative probably would visit the shop again, but I wouldn't.

What, can you not read? I already said that. That is what we are talking about.

eisenberg1

zarquon wrote: »

I propose an alternative, person doesn't pay 100% for their own breakage then they should be barred from said shop. B&M stores have enough revenue issues these days without having to deal with $rsehole customers with a lack of morals. Such customers that refuse to pay for breakages or criticise shops may as well try dipping their hand in the till as that is basically what they are doing anyway!!

Oh, we are reduced to name calling now are we? Who refused to pay???

I merely asked was paying 50% of the price of an item that broken, the norm?

Now you are accusing people of theft...