Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Leg broke off chair

  • 20-01-2025 7:17pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭


    I bought a brand new table and 6 dining chairs from EZ living furniture a little over 3 years ago. The chairs are used very moderately as there is only two in our house and we usually eat at the kitchen island.

    last weekend my elderly father sat in a chair and the leg snapped leaving him in a bundle on the floor and very shook. I contacted EZ living who says it was just a one year warranty and nothing they will do.

    Do I have any further recourse? The chairs were expensive and should have a must longer lifespan surely.



Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭greasepalm


    Not sure if small claims court as unfit to use.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,664 ✭✭✭con747


    Ring them back and ask them are they familiar with consumer's rights, and then quote your rights to them.

    https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/faulty-goods/

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,217 ✭✭✭sundodger5


    Not sure how that would work, it has a 12 month warranty, it is three years old.

    I would be interested in a picture of what a broken chair leg looks like though. Snap in the middle? come apart where it joins the seat?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Calahonda52


    “I can’t pay my staff or mortgage with instagram likes”.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Even with regard to the 6 year caveat trotted out for durable goods, I don't think EZ living are at fault here.

    The onus is on the claimant to prove that a fault was inherent in the product yet the owner has the chairs for 3yrs with ample time to inspect them and flagged no issues.

    Regardless of how often it used, there was ample time to inspect and reject the chair. Further as no fault was apparent in the product for 3yrs, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove an inherent fault.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭wolfyboy555


    ive attached some pictures.

    I wouldn't regularly go around checking and inspecting products I would assume should have a very lengthy life span.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Yet you had ample opportunity to do so. I don't mean to sound like a prick but part and parcel of buying any product is "acceptance" you had possession of the item for 3 years. You choosing not to give so much as a cursory check upon delivery or report an issue prior to the chair's breaking? Precludes any real success in claiming any collapse was due to an inherent fault. (Which in any case is usually only actionable if apparent within 1st 12 months).

    Whilst I have no doubt that you used the chair as a chair. You cannot prove that the fault was pre-existing nor that it wasn't caused by misuse. I'd aim for some goodwill from EZ living for a replacement chair. If you want to go to the SCC? That's of course open to you. You will need to prove an inherent defect that went unnoticed in a product for 3 years and it's likely that EZ living would enter an opinion that the damage is due to misuse as well as not being an actionable inherent defect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Sonic the Shaghog


    How much was the set thats a big part of it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭JVince


    for any recompense you would need to show a manufacturing fault and those pictures don't show that.

    It has been used for 3 years even if moderately, but it just takes one misuse or incident to cause a crack in wood.

    It doesn't come across as a particularly expensive set - standard rubberwood material that much every day value priced furniture is made from. Probably €400-€500 for the set.

    I really can't see where EZ iiving have any responsibility for a chair breaking like that where its a clear and clean snap of the wood rather than one of the joints failing.

    I think it best to accept its just an accident



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭wolfyboy555


    the 6 chairs were €1200 so not exactly cheap.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    A ‘12 month warranty” is simply the period of time retailers promise not to try to wriggle out of their responsibilities to consumers. It has no legal standing. It’s tossed about so often that people believe it’s actually a thing. Especially retail staff. They really believe it. They’ve heard each other saying it do often that it must be true. And don’t even start me on ‘extended warranties’…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Peter Dragon


    After 3 years of use (even moderate use) you’ll really struggle to prove this was a faulty item.

    You can of course go to the small claims court but it would likely be cheaper for you to just replace the chair. Not to mention the time and emotional cost of doing this.

    You have my sympathies on what happened, but sometimes you just have to put it down as one of those things.


    As for the price - well, this is Ireland. Nothing is cheap, and cost isn’t a barometer of quality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,253 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    EZ Living don't do "cheap". We've got some of their stuff, including dining chairs, and apart from their weighing a lot they seem indestructible. I don't think they can be used for anything apart from sitting on because they're too damn heavy to carry somewhere if you need to stand on something.

    As has already been said no one can have an opinion without seeing what kind of damage there is. It could well be a "Friday afternoon" dining chair and be defective, who knows. We also don't know how often it's been used over the three years. If it's hardly been used, again it could be defective and just happened to break.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 khamilton


    This is absolutely not true and a bizarre reinterpretation of established rules and precedent for the small claims procedure.

    You're somehow conflating the locus of responsibility for proving an inherent fault (which can be proved by providing evidence that the good in question was not subjected to use outside of the norm of what would be expected and yet failed prematurely) to being "you must have raised an issue with an inherent fault before it occurs to be able to claim your rights between 12 and 60 months".

    That is absolutely not true, and it's so far from the truth that I find it bizarre that you're posting on this forum.


    As someone who has extensively used the small claims procedure (including the european small claims procedure), all I've ever had to do was prove (on the burden of probability) that the fault could not have occurred due to normal wear and tear/use, and that the good in question, outside of the fault, shows no signs of mis-use.


    And I've won every single time.

    All Irish legislation has to say is

    >22. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where it becomes apparent during the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time that goods supplied under a sales contract are not in conformity with the sales contract, the lack of conformity shall be presumed to have existed at the relevant time unless—

    &

    >(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent or restrict a consumer from exercising a remedy after the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    >22. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where it becomes apparent during the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time that goods supplied under a sales contract are not in conformity with the sales contract, the lack of conformity shall be presumed to have existed at the relevant time unless—

    Quite odd that you omit the "unless" text.

    It's

    (a) the contrary is proven, or

    (b) such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.

    Both of which offer the vendor more than sufficient scope to contest the claim.

    It's also important to note that the furniture was purchased 3yrs ago. Prior to the commencement of the 2022 act and as such, not subject to the above interpretation in any case as the purchase is subject to SOGA 1980.

    Post edited by banie01 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 khamilton


    I omitted that because it refers only to the first 12 months and doesn't change anything 🤦‍♂️


    I actually understand how to read legislation, whereas you don't.

    >It's also important to note that the furniture was purchased 3yrs ago. Prior to the commencement of the 2022 act and as such, not subject to the above interpretation in any case as the purchase is subject to SOGA 1980.

    The sale of goods act was generally taken to be 5 years at a minimum for almost all goods and largely matched the CRD in terms of how it was interpreted by courts. If anything, we had slightly more rights under the SOGA and ourselves and the UK were unique in that in the EU.

    Can you please find a single link on the internet that says "Under the CRA/EU CRD, after 12 months, unless you spotted the defect in the first 12 months, you cannot claim there was an inherent fault"? Because that is just such a bizarre claim to make as it effectively says all warranty claims are limited to 12 months under the act, despite the act clearly stating otherwise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    You understand how to read legislation? But missed the fact that the legislation you quoted doesn't apply to the goods in question as you omitted to read the OP 🤨

    Your reading skills aren't all you claim them to be, unless you jumped in to the middle of a discussion without reading the OP? You didn't do that did you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭JVince


    I'll have a wild guess that you didn't look at the photos.

    The wood snapped. Not the joints or a fitting.

    From what I see in the photos is someone possibly moved from 4 legs on the floor to 2 legs on the floor. Thus causing a break in the wood itself.

    It happens.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 khamilton


    Pardon me, but you might want to cut the snideness for when you aren't the one who implicitly brought up the CRD by talking about the first 12 months to point out an inherent flaw. I was correcting your misinterpretation of the CRD.

    Sale of Goods Act specifies 6 months for the duration in which any flaw is considered to be inherent.

    Well, that was embarassing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 khamilton


    What do the photos have to do with any of the corrections I've had to issue to banie01? Please do quote where, thanks.

    Besides that, it's a front leg that catastrophically failed at a joint around a visible securing dowel. How do you think someone used the chair only on the front two legs to cause such damage?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Not particularly and hardly snideness,merely an observation of a skill you claimed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 khamilton


    So you're not disagreeing that you referred to the Consumer Rights Act that has a 12 month period during which any faults are considered to be inherent?

    Or are you arguing that you were referring to the Sale of Goods Act when referring to a 12 month period, even though the Sale of Goods Act only stipulates a 6 month period?

    Or, are you trying to avoid a simple mea culpa and acknowledging you're giving bad legal advice that can cause genuine financial loss to people?


    Where exactly did I misread legislation? Is it where you claimed a section that only referred to the first 12 months of the Consumer Rights Act instead referred to the period after 12 months had passed? That's an awful lot of basic errors in a very short time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,508 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    While I'll happily concede that I should have made clear that where a claim arises for a defect after 12 months under 2022 CR,that my sentence

    (Which in any case is usually only actionable if apparent within 1st 12 months)

    Is unclear, I should have made it clear that there is an onus upon the claimant to prove that such a defect existed, rather than it should have been apparent.

    The truth is any competent respondent that enters a response in such a claim,under either SOGA or the 2022 CRA will seek to have evidence of the alleged inherent defect presented via a report by an SQP.

    I am aware of multiple instances of awards at SCC in favour of the claimant for similar cases but to my knowledge? They are primarily in cases of no response entered. In general the larger the company, the less likely they are to enter an appearance. They tend to engage in the negotiation process but skip the hearing. Not a tactic that mid sized Irish furniture companies tend to take.

    In cases where the respondent requests evidence confirming the existence of the alleged inherent defect or challenges the cause of damage, in instances where misuse could lead to similar damage? Anecdotally, (which in reality is worth the sum total of nothing 🤷‍♂️) The success rate is quite low. My anecdotal knowledge is via multiple court clerks and quite a few staff albeit primarily in electronic & Telco companies who deal with SCC claims.

    In any event, most cases are settled prior to any appearance via negotiation facilitated by the clerks, as I'm sure you're aware. Given the cost of the claim and the report that would likely be requested if EZ living have a competent person dealing with this? The advice I offered the OP to seek a goodwill replacement of the chair, is advice I would reiterate.

    As an aside. Ideally, the SCC cases should be reportable and searchable to allow claimants better structure their claims and their responses but alas they aren't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 399 ✭✭Rock Steady Edy


    These chairs look flimsy and not worth the original €200 each. At that price, it makes me think of those items that shops have to park in a corner somewhere to satisfy the part of the sales code that says the pre-sale price must have existed for 28 days but the shop never expects to sell them at that price. As @JVince says, the set looks around the €400-€500 price point. You can get much thicker solid oak chairs for €150 each.

    My concern would not just be about the chair that's broken, but that I'd have no faith in it not happening again to any of the other chairs. I'd want the set replaced with something better.

    Post edited by Rock Steady Edy on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭JVince


    Yes, absolutely someone who used the chair on the two front legs would have caused this type of break.

    I'd go as far as saying it's near certain judging by the angle and location of the snap.

    The OP has no claim against the supplier



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Calahonda52


    !00% agree here very weak detail: worse that Junior cert requirements.

    The dowel weakened the longitudinal grain, which is transverse rather than // to the length

    OP post the pics over in wood working and ask for an opinion

    “I can’t pay my staff or mortgage with instagram likes”.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Agree the direction of the grain is key here, as it ran out of the wood not far from the joint, exactly where it broke. This would have taken way less pressure to break because of this.

    Was an accident waiting to happen. I would send off that first pic and expect a replacement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,500 ✭✭✭Rosahane


    It looks to me as if the joint wasn’t adequately glued and gave way when put under pressure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,857 ✭✭✭The Continental Op


    I'm another that thinks its a combination of bad grain direction, inadequate gluing plus poor design.

    Wake me up when it's all over.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Out of curiosity OP, what are you hoping to get if you pursue this (and I'm not trying to say you shouldn't!)? Presumably that chair is no longer available so are you looking for a replacement chair that kinda looks like yours but clearly is not part of the set? Are you looking for a few quid (bear in mind that you've had the use of it for three years so won't get the full original amount spent)? Or do you want them to repair the chair? Or what?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Sonic the Shaghog


    I dont care what anyone says, 3 years for a €1200 set of chairs is shocking



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,198 ✭✭✭kirving


    Things you buy should last a "reasonable" length of time. I think that would be assessed by the SCC as a €1200 purchase, rather then a €200 purchase (for just one). I think you'd have a good case looking at the failure mode.

    The recourse here is really dependent on whether any injuries were sustained I would think.

    You still have 11 other front chair legs. If your father was seriously injured, you could have the remaining legs tested to see what force they can stand up to. Just because it lasted three years is absolutely no guarantee that it wasn't a design or manufacturing fault.

    There is science behind this - chairs should comply with the EN 12520:2015 standard I believe. It would be up to you (a forensic engineer, really) to try and prove non-compliance with the applicable standard. Not worth your while for a 200 quid chair, but definitely would be if there was compensation on the line.

    https://furnitest.com/testing/furniture-testing/types-of-furniture/chair-testing/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭JVince


    I still assert that a beak like that is cause by someone going up on the front two legs. Its a snap of the wood. The dowel is still intact. It was most likely caused by mis-use.

    Frankly, the OP hasn't a leg to stand on (couldn't resist)

    Of course you will get posters claiming this that and the other - quoting all sorts of crap and even quoting furniture design standards. But that break is, from the 3 photos, quite obviously caused by exertion on the front legs and that is most likely due to someone going up on the front two legs of the chair. That's mis-use and the scc will not find in your favour.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 63 ✭✭Orban6


    Leg lasted 3 years without issue. Unlikely a manufacturing fault.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,865 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    If you were to read the OP, the chair got minimal use in those three years



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 63 ✭✭Orban6


    I did read the OP. They said they were used "moderately". Not "minimal use" as you state. What does moderately mean? Once a week, several times a week or once a month?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,077 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Any chance you can explain how someone can "go up on the front too legs" with sufficient force to break one of them?

    I've dealt with a lot of abused chair legs in my time, and it's always the back legs that suffer, because it's damn near impossible to "mis-use" the chair and over-stress the joint to breaking point … unless you're whirling it around and smashing it against the wall.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,857 ✭✭✭The Continental Op


    Modern central heated houses could be a factor here? Is it possible the wood dried out so much that the joint started to open up a little before it finally broke.

    Another vote for not abuse if its the front leg(s), back legs sure abuse but not the front.

    Wake me up when it's all over.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,358 ✭✭✭emo72


    Someone mentioned they were rubber wood. I'm pretty sure they are oak, I work with timber. 200 per chair, is not overly expensive nowadays, it's probably below the going rate. A lot of chairs are 300 or 400 each these days. No, I wouldn't pay that much for a chair either. I think people think that 100 euro is expensive for a chair. Inflationary times we live in I guess. Dining chairs get some amount of abuse because they are getting used and moved around a lot. The tables generally last forever. They aren't getting sat on and moved around!

    OP, I have sympathy for you, you didn't do a lot wrong, I'm sure if the shop had the same chair they might have changed it for you to make the problem go away. At the very least sell one to you at cost price, but I wouldn't even say that's an option, furniture is like fast fashion, changes quite a lot. SCC? After 3 years it's a long shot, I can't really see a manufacturing problem. Best of luck



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭standardg60


    JV is correct, the leg broke backwards so was either up on two legs or being shuffled forwards at the time.

    That doesn't take away from the fact there was an inherent weakness in that leg, it should have been able to withstand that, the other leg didn't break.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,077 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Sure, we can all see the direction of force applied to cause the break. What I'm asking is how someone could apply such force just by sitting on the chair? It's easy enough to do that to the back legs if you lean back aggressively, but due to the very nature of a chair's design and our human form, it's incredibly difficult to achieve the same result with a front leg.

    You'd have to have a second person push the first person (heavy, and sitting on the chair) forwards; or smash the empty chair forwards into the leg of the table or some other obstacle.

    To me, that looks like the father sat himself down and went to pull himself in towards the table when the leg broke. That'd be well within the scope of normal use and points towards a pre-existing defect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭Doodah7


    Who is not to say that they didn't shuffle forward (to get closer to the table) whilst sitting on the chair? That could explain the front leg breaking in the particular direction?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,154 ✭✭✭tabby aspreme


    Looks like the glue has failed, both on the tenon and the mitre cut, I don't think it's a suitable joint for a chair leg and having to put a dowel through it tells me they were not trusting the glue to hold it, the short grain in the rail was never going to take much pressure once the glue had failed. It's Oak timber



Advertisement