nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Leg broke off chair

wolfyboy555

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

greasepalm

Not sure if small claims court as unfit to use.

con747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058390244/leg-broke-off-chair

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/

sundodger5

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078165#Comment_123078165

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?

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078184#Comment_123078184

Pictures are key

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.

wolfyboy555

PXL_20250116_213306050.jpg

PXL_20250116_213250432.MP.jpg

PXL_20250116_213322803.jpg

ive attached some pictures.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078196#Comment_123078196

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

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078262#Comment_123078262

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.

Sonic the Shaghog

How much was the set thats a big part of it

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

wolfyboy555

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078304#Comment_123078304

the 6 chairs were €1200 so not exactly cheap.

endacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078184#Comment_123078184

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’…

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.

ejmaztec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078396#Comment_123078396

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.

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078196#Comment_123078196

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.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078677#Comment_123078677

>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.

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078853#Comment_123078853

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.

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?

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078677#Comment_123078677

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.

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079064#Comment_123079064

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.

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079072#Comment_123079072

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?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079118#Comment_123079118

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

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079128#Comment_123079128

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.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079135#Comment_123079135

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.

Rock Steady Edy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123078396#Comment_123078396

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.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079122#Comment_123079122

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

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079307#Comment_123079307

!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

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079433#Comment_123079433

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.

Rosahane

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123079072#Comment_123079072

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

The Continental Op

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

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?