Break it, buy it?

Bandana boy

Bandana boy wrote: »

It is attitudes like yours that are a direct line to the anti-social behaviour epidemic we have in the country right now.

Not willing to bring your kids up correctly with discipline and not willing to deal with the consequences.
Parents defending their children when Teachers try to discipline an unruly child , fighting other parents and Garda demanding proof of little Jonny being a vandal/thief . All lead to decent people suffering as "no-one can be liable for a child".

I have no idea where you are getting all this from.

amtc

It would've been the decent thing to offer to pay the whole amount. Your son did it! Whether intentional or not he should have been under control i.e. by the hand at 3years

Suggesting half or approaching your sil (which was incorrect) and then retracting sounds to me like an inexperienced assistant, who then panicked in light of circumstances.

Rather than complain, I'd be happy I got away with it. Or write a cheque to the shop for the full amount, whilst collecting the item!

Bandana boy

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Not necessarily true

Parents hear their child's side of the story and confront the other parent with a version of events.

Some people think this is standing up for their Kids and it is complete tosh.

A Garda knocking on your door or a teacher calling you into class , hold on I will not believe you the person in authority until I verify with my Kid if he is willing to own up to this.

Oh what a surprise the kind of kid who is smashing car windows or stealing from other students is also willing to double down on the lie.
Adults do not make up lies about your kid , there is no upside for them , Kids lie to avoid consequences all the time , even good kids .

Deal with the problem head on , your kids as adults will thank you for it , They are not your friend they are your child and you owe them a duty of care to bring them up correctly.

Bandana boy

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no idea where you are getting all this from.

From you post claiming its ludicrous to expect a Parent to be responsible for their child.

WildCardDoW

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would you be discounting?

Bad setup for a large retailer, open to serious fraud.

Pfft. Discounts on any decent POS system can be changed at an account level, so you can profile A with 5% discount, and profile B with 10%. Hardly serious fraud.

CruelCoin

Larbre34 wrote: »

Some of these shops are merchandised like a flippin assault course, lots of breakables on overloaded prom islands with glass shelves.

Jaysus, i couldn't get me beer gut around the place, shure he was asking for it.

Someone elses fault, eh?

WildCardDoW

WildCardDoW wrote: »

Pfft. Discounts on any decent POS system can be changed at an account level, so you can profile A with 5% discount, and profile B with 10%. Hardly serious fraud.

And do you honestly think management or staff have access to amend POS systems in large retailers?

Hardly serious fraud? Jesus wept. Fraud is fraud.

njs030

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And do you honestly think management or staff have access to amend POS systems in large retailers?

Hardly serious fraud? Jesus wept. Fraud is fraud.

You're obsessed with large retailers, the op was in a gift shop not Tesco or dunnes!
You have some knowledge and that's fine but other people here have knowledge too and are entitled to their opinions as much as you are too yours.

notjustsweet

notjustsweet wrote: »

You're obsessed with large retailers, the op was in a gift shop not Tesco or dunnes!
You have some knowledge and that's fine but other people here have knowledge too and are entitled to their opinions as much as you are too yours.

Fine, I was speaking in a general context.

As for small retailers, are they charging cost or retail? If they are charging retail then they are profiting from accidental breakages which is also morally wrong. Do they throw breakages away or do they make a double claim?

either way right or wrong, no retailer big or small has the power to force anyone to pay for a breakage.

Bandana boy

Bandana boy wrote: »

From you post claiming its ludicrous to expect a Parent to be responsible for their child.

i've bolded the relevant word to help with comprehension.

"This ludicrous notion that the parent is solely responsible for anything the child does"

A three year old child in a shop, no matter how well-brought up, obviously comes with some risks attached. I know of no three year old that meekly walks around with their arms kept carefully at their sides, it just isn't how the world works. It is why when one small child hits another they get a stern talking to from their parents (hopefully) but not charged with assault.

The shop has a choice in the matter. They can ask that children don't come into the shop. They can be more careful about breakables in terms of where and how they are displayed. Or they can do neither of these things and accept that sometimes these things are going to happen.

njs030

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fine, I was speaking in a general context.

As for small retailers, are they charging cost or retail? If they are charging retail then they are profiting from accidental breakages which is also morally wrong. Do they throw breakages away or do they make a double claim?

either way right or wrong, no retailer big or small has the power to force anyone to pay for a breakage.

There's no generalisation about "small" retailers and the only one that matters is the one the op was in I doubt they are going to come on the thread and tell us so we won't know!

Myself I would have offered to pay retail if I broke it but I would have taken it with me so they couldn't return it.

notjustsweet

notjustsweet wrote: »

There's no generalisation about "small" retailers and the only one that matters is the one the op was in I doubt they are going to come on the thread and tell us so we won't know!

Myself I would have offered to pay retail if I broke it but I would have taken it with me so they couldn't return it.

Why would you offer to pay retail?

Even if it went to a small claims court the courts would only order the cost to be reimbursed, not the profit selling price.

njs030

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would you offer to pay retail?

Even if it went to a small claims court the courts would only order the cost to be reimbursed, not the profit selling price.

You'd have to be a pretty small minded person to haggle over a tenner tbh.

The small claims court is irrelevant here.

WildCardDoW

Deleted User wrote: »

And do you honestly think management or staff have access to amend POS systems in large retailers?

Hardly serious fraud? Jesus wept. Fraud is fraud.

Your view of the regular low level employee is quite shocking, might surprise you but in quite a lot of retailers certain staff are trusted to use their discounts wisely.

As I actually viewed my manager with admin access log onto the GUI and change the level at which my account is allowed to discount and also set me a new password I think it's very common considering the system in use was SAP, and it was the largest retailer in it's area in Ireland. A significant area that has quite a high turnover. Perhaps not that of Dunnes or Tesco but your comments on what staff can and can't do with their systems doesn't mesh with my own experiences.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to know that CBE allow similar changes to be made.

Your exceedingly arrogant attitude based on your experiences discounting those of everyone else is fairly infuriating.


In any event this if off-topic, so I won't risk the mods wrath.

notjustsweet

notjustsweet wrote: »

You'd have to be a pretty small minded person to haggle over a tenner tbh.

Particularly if you are a retail outlet attempting to charge someone for a three year old accidentally knocking something off a table.

Hannibal_Smith

I laugh at people on their , ' you're teaching your kid lack of responsibility blah blah blah'.. high horse.....hilarious! Do you honestly think that kid heard a bar of what was going on? Do you think that kids thought process was...'heehee just broke a mug, mums not paying for it...my evil plan to smash the world to bits is coming to fruition?' :pac:

He smashed a mug accidentally, saw his mum pick it up and own up to it. After that I bet you he switched off.

As for the original issue, I would have expected to pay for it. I would have offered in any event . Perhaps if it was a huge retailer I would expect them to say no. But I have no idea of shops and their insurance. I'd be more worried that something smashed while assistant was on duty and she might be get into trouble.

Not a moral high ground stance at all op btw. It's just my understanding of things

Bandana boy

Deleted User wrote: »

i've bolded the relevant word to help with comprehension.

"This ludicrous notion that the parent is solely responsible for anything the child does"

A three year old child in a shop, no matter how well-brought up, obviously comes with some risks attached. I know of no three year old that meekly walks around with their arms kept carefully at their sides, it just isn't how the world works. It is why when one small child hits another they get a stern talking to from their parents (hopefully) but not charged with assault.

The shop has a choice in the matter. They can ask that children don't come into the shop. They can be more careful about breakables in terms of where and how they are displayed. Or they can do neither of these things and accept that sometimes these things are going to happen.

Or surely a choice of the store and society is to expect the parent to pay a nominal fee (50% in this case ) to cover the damage the kid did and not have somebody out of pocket because of a child you are responsible for.
Accidents will happen , be they knocking over something in a shop or putting a football through a neighbors window. Does not mean the kid is a monster , but it does mean the Parent is responsible for putting it right.

I think the parent is 100% liable for everything their child does and I do not think this is ludicrous , and society is weaker and more unpleasant for having moved away from this school of thought.

Larbre34

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Where does the line end?

You aren't comparing like with like.

You couldn't automatically get a stock refund or reimbursement from your supplier for your missing camera, so its perfectly fair that the person you lent it too should replace it.

Car crashes don't involve a transaction. The law of the land is that all parties be insured on the public highway, so if you are at fault for an accident, your policy takes the hit.

Again, retailers get stock returns for small damages, and for high value merchandise, they should be well insured for breakage on the shop floor in the same way as they are fire, flood and theft. Thats where the line ends.

notjustsweet

notjustsweet wrote: »

You'd have to be a pretty small minded person to haggle over a tenner tbh.

The small claims court is irrelevant here.

You would have to be small minded to go chasing a mother for accidential damage.

Small claims court is not irrelevant as its the only option available for retailers to recover money for breakages legally.

WildCardDoW

WildCardDoW wrote: »

Your view of the regular low level employee is quite shocking, might surprise you but in quite a lot of retailers certain staff are trusted to use their discounts wisely.

As I actually viewed my manager with admin access log onto the GUI and change the level at which my account is allowed to discount and also set me a new password I think it's very common considering the system in use was SAP, and it was the largest retailer in it's area in Ireland. A significant area that has quite a high turnover. Perhaps not that of Dunnes or Tesco but your comments on what staff can and can't do with their systems doesn't mesh with my own experiences.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to know that CBE allow similar changes to be made.

Your exceedingly arrogant attitude based on your experiences discounting those of everyone else is fairly infuriating.


In any event this if off-topic, so I won't risk the mods wrath.

My view of sales assistants is the same any large employer.

Experience and past security knowledge is the reason behind employers having stringent measures to protect them from fraud.

It may not be nice but it is essential.

WildCardDoW

In any event, you will agree that your view on what is and isn't allowed on most POS systems was incorrect and based on your own personal experience and that experience disagrees with my own and others in this thread?

I can accept that there are some businesses that operator at a stricter level of control.

SAP in it's many guises is a very popular POS system and I know for a fact that users with admin privileges (I can't say what the manager account was, although as I study DBs I'll use this generic term) can alter the level of discount afforded to an individuals profiles. Some business may manage this from HR, but others leave the tasks of setting up profiles and profile privileges to the store manager.

WildCardDoW

WildCardDoW wrote: »

In any event, you will agree that your view on what is and isn't allowed on most POS systems was incorrect and based on your own personal experience and that experience disagrees with my own and others in this thread?

I can accept that there are some businesses that operator at a stricter level of control.

SAP in it's many guises is a very popular POS system and I know for a fact that users with admin privileges (I can't say what the manager account was, although as I study DBs I'll use this generic term) can alter the level of discount afforded to an individuals profiles. Some business may manage this from HR, but others leave the tasks of setting up profiles and profile privileges to the store manager.

I would suggest the company you work for has high stock loss because having such weak measures in place to prevent stock loss is wide open to abuse.

Send me the details by PM, i could give them a free consultation on stock loss prevention methods.

Sadb

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would suggest the company you work for has high stock loss because having such weak measures in place to prevent stock loss is wide open to abuse.

Send me the details by PM, i could give them a free consultation on stock loss prevention methods.

As already said all our employees have the ability to discount.
Anyway I would offer full retail price if it were me, had you not broke the item the store owner would have made the full rrp selling it to someone else. Also I can tell you when it comes to grocery there is no recourse with suppliers bar the usual bread, milk, newspapers etc. 60% of the stock would be a direct hit to the retailer.

njs030

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You would have to be small minded to go chasing a mother for accidential damage.

Small claims court is not irrelevant as its the only option available for retailers to recover money for breakages legally.

It's irrelevant as a business can't use the scc to chase a private person. How do you think that would work, would the customer very kindly leave their details to be sent a summons?
It's for private person VS business or business VS business.

If a business wants to take a broken item further it would be through the gardai under a criminal damage charge.
I think a 3 year old would manage to charm his way out of it quite fast.

otto_26

Jeniflan wrote: »

Hi there

I was in a large gift shop in Killarney at the weekend when my 3 year old son accidentally knocked over a €10 novelty plastic beer mug and it broke.

I alerted a staff member and apologised profusely, and my son apologised too. As I went to leave (I had already bought items in the shop), the staff member said to my SIL, not me, that I really should pay half for it. My SIL called me back and I spoke to the shop assistant. She said it was 'common practice everywhere' and I really should but she 'wasn't going to push it', it was up to me. Vague.

So although I don't agree with this practice and I was unsure as to whether or not she actually expected me to pay, I went to the cash desk to give her the €5 for it. I did say however I thought it was unfair to ask to customers to pay for an accidental breakage, and that the quality of the item didn't look to be great seeing as it broke so easily (it really didn't fall far). She then said she'd be sending it back to the supplier. So I was like well if you get a refund for it why am I being charged? She then changed her tune and said she wouldn't be sending it back.

I then asked if there was any signage in the shop stating that if you break something you must pay half, and she opened a cupboard under the till, then got all flustered, gave me my money back and told me she didn't have time to argue with me.

Anyway- Although I didn't pay I'm a bit pissed and want to contact management to complain. She was SO unpleasant and it was pretty humiliating the way she spoke to me. As a result my two young children were really upset.

Just wondering where consumers stand in terms of accidental shop breakages if anyone knows? I had a look at the consumer rights website but couldn't find anything.

Thanks!

The honest fair and just way to have reacted would have been to call a member of staff let them know your child broke an item and how much you owed for it and then paid for it without saying another word to them.

But come on we all are humans we all want to take take take and give as little back as we can, your on here looking for as many excuses as you can muster up so you can look in the mirror and convince yourself you did the right thing but unfortunately we all have a gut that we can't fool and always nags at us when we didn't act in the honest fairest way in a situation.

The next time your passing somebody collecting for cancer or a homeless person give them the tenner and your gut will leave you alone and you won't need to come on to boards to get excuses.

Jeniflan

otto_26 wrote: »

Jeniflan wrote: »

Hi there

I was in a large gift shop in Killarney at the weekend when my 3 year old son accidentally knocked over a €10 novelty plastic beer mug and it broke.

I alerted a staff member and apologised profusely, and my son apologised too. As I went to leave (I had already bought items in the shop), the staff member said to my SIL, not me, that I really should pay half for it. My SIL called me back and I spoke to the shop assistant. She said it was 'common practice everywhere' and I really should but she 'wasn't going to push it', it was up to me. Vague.

So although I don't agree with this practice and I was unsure as to whether or not she actually expected me to pay, I went to the cash desk to give her the €5 for it. I did say however I thought it was unfair to ask to customers to pay for an accidental breakage, and that the quality of the item didn't look to be great seeing as it broke so easily (it really didn't fall far). She then said she'd be sending it back to the supplier. So I was like well if you get a refund for it why am I being charged? She then changed her tune and said she wouldn't be sending it back.

I then asked if there was any signage in the shop stating that if you break something you must pay half, and she opened a cupboard under the till, then got all flustered, gave me my money back and told me she didn't have time to argue with me.

Anyway- Although I didn't pay I'm a bit pissed and want to contact management to complain. She was SO unpleasant and it was pretty humiliating the way she spoke to me. As a result my two young children were really upset.

Just wondering where consumers stand in terms of accidental shop breakages if anyone knows? I had a look at the consumer rights website but couldn't find anything.

Thanks!

The honest fair and just way to have reacted would have been to call a member of staff let them know your child broke an item and how much you owed for it and then paid for it without saying another word to them.

But come on we all are humans we all want to take take take and give as little back as we can, your on here looking for as many excuses as you can muster up so you can look in the mirror and convince yourself you did the right thing but unfortunately we all have a gut that we can't fool and always nags at us when we didn't act in the honest fairest way in a situation.

The next time your passing somebody collecting for cancer or a homeless person give them the tenner and your gut will leave you alone and you won't need to come on to boards to get excuses.

Oh Lord.
You clearly didn't read my post correctly, or any of my posts which followed.
I'm not looking to feel better about anything. I asked a specific question about the situation.
I assure you there's nothing wrong with my 'gut' or my conscience about any of this. I have clearly already said- when asked to pay half- she never asked to pay full- I did. Immediately. Gave her the money. She took it and held it in her hand. When she told me she would be sending back to the supplier I questioned it. She handed the money back.
I did go and tell her my son broke it.
No excuses. No problem with my gut. None.

Hope the view is just lovely up there.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

My view of sales assistants is the same any large employer.

Experience and past security knowledge is the reason behind employers having stringent measures to protect them from fraud.

It may not be nice but it is essential.

Delightful. How your brain immediately went to fraud instead of panicked incompetence on the part of the shop assistant tells a lot I think.

And this idea that you seem to have that every retailer has exactly the same practices in place for reductions and discounts is complete waffle. I work for a pretty large retailer and I almost daily have to make decisions about whether something gets reduced or not. It's a very common occurrence. I've also worked for other companies that had entirely different attitudes - no reductions no matter what. I've also worked in places that had different practices in one section of a store from another section of the very same store. Making out, as you are, that everything is carried out exactly the same everywhere is complete rubbish.

I've worked in retail - stores big and small - for years and years and in that time I never seen a customer charged for a breakage of any kind - and there has been a lot of customers breaking things over the years. Not once. Sometimes people have offered to pay, but usually, it's a case of -"ah, sure, it's fine". Some people definitely could have been held financially liable, but 99% of the time you just want to get on with it and clean up the mess and move onto whatever else you were working on before you heard the smash or the splat in the distance.

otto_26

Jeniflan wrote: »

Oh Lord.
You clearly didn't read my post correctly, or any of my posts which followed.
I'm not looking to feel better about anything. I asked a specific question about the situation.
I assure you there's nothing wrong with my 'gut' or my conscience about any of this. I have clearly already said- when asked to pay half- she never asked to pay full- I did. Immediately. Gave her the money. She took it and held it in her hand. When she told me she would be sending back to the supplier I questioned it. She handed the money back.
I did go and tell her my son broke it.
No excuses. No problem with my gut. None.

Hope the view is just lovely up there.

All I did was give you an honest answer I'm sorry it's not the answer your looking for.

mikeybrennan

Bandana boy wrote: »

Some people think this is standing up for their Kids and it is complete tosh.

A Garda knocking on your door or a teacher calling you into class , hold on I will not believe you the person in authority until I verify with my Kid if he is willing to own up to this.

Oh what a surprise the kind of kid who is smashing car windows or stealing from other students is also willing to double down on the lie.
Adults do not make up lies about your kid , there is no upside for them , Kids lie to avoid consequences all the time , even good kids .

Deal with the problem head on , your kids as adults will thank you for it , They are not your friend they are your child and you owe them a duty of care to bring them up correctly.

No idea where you're getting all this from.

I was referring to parents confronting other parents with their childs version of an 'incident'

Teachers confronting parents will have a 1st hand account of issues

my3cents

otto_26 wrote: »

All I did was give you an honest answer I'm sorry it's not the answer your looking for.

I just wonder how many of the people giving "honest" answers would actual admit to breaking anything or if they'd pretend it never happened.