My Toddler Broke LED Screen While at Harvey Norman, Who Says They Don't Have Accidental Cover?

drdarsh on 02/01/2019 - 19:15
Last edited 02/01/2019 - 22:03 by 2 other users

My son and wife were at Harvey Norman, looking out for refrigerator when my toddler threw his water bottle on a TV which smashed the screen.

Unfortunately, I was at home finishing my overdue masters project. Little fellow has been taught lesson and we will continue to be more vigilant. Officials at store have mentioned they do not have accidental cover, we have never faced this issue before and presume that stores like Harvey Norman will have accidental cover to cover similar to other emergencies? Have been asked to pay $1000.00.

Model smashed Samsung UA65NU8000

I have emailed ACCC and Choice online. Response awaited

What shall I do, need help?

  1. Cough up $1000
  2. Go on the legal policy/ACCC path
  3. Mod: Removed (Illegal/Inappropriate)
Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

Harvey Norman
Harvey Norman

Comments

                  • HighAndDry on 11/01/2019 - 15:48

                    @myfuturej:

                    You are an individual, while HN is a large Australian multinational corporation.

                    Doesn't matter. Your actions reflect on you, not on who the victim of your actions are. At the end of the day, either you the individual, HN or Samsung are out of pocket. If you're at fault, I see no moral or ethical reason why you should be able to divert this responsibility to another party.

                    Luckily for me (and wider society), the law agrees with this, because the concept is the same. It doesn't matter if HN gets a free write-off from Samsung or I get a free repair from my mechanic - it doesn't affect the liability of the person at fault.

                  • Ughhh on 11/01/2019 - 16:30
                    +1

                    @myfuturej: So you would be ok if a homeless person smashed your letter box every now and then? I mean, you got a job, a car, so it would just be pocket money, will have zero impact on you.

                    Basically, as long as the other person is wealthier than me, it's ok to hurt them?

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 02:31
    +5

    Time for a reality check.

    OP ask yourself. Would you demand/expect compensation from Harvey Norman if they came into to your home and accidentally smashed a expensive vase, window or scratched your car whilst making an delivery? IF you say no that is total BS. Just pay up and shut up.

    The OP/wife obviously has the money (most likely credit) to buy a new fridge but wants to get all scrooge about paying for their child's damage. Solution buy a second hand fridge or ask someone on OzB if they have a spare second hand fridge that they can donate and use the savings to pay for the damage.

    Harvey Norman are being fair and as a parent you obviously need to be taught a lesson in respect and morals — both which you lack by posting online.

    If you cannot be a responsible parent (accepting blame for your wife and child's mishaps) please do society a favour and get the snip ASAP as the last thing the world needs are more careless parents who have the attitude that their little (rhymes with ships) are somehow everybody else's responsibility and not their own.

    As for those suggesting that the child should suffer by not getting gifts they are all wrong. Tell your wife she is not getting a anniversary or birthday parent for not watching the child. She should have held onto the child and not allowed him to hold the bottle. I highly doubt this was his first incident of throwing an object.

    • A fish on 05/01/2019 - 02:58
      -5

      Time for a reality check.

      I'm a fish.

      Also, you need to get back on your meds.

  • shaybisc on 05/01/2019 - 08:23
    +2

    Ban children under 10 from stores with anything breakable in them.

    • wordplay on 05/01/2019 - 19:17

      should be up to 14 years old I reckon.

    • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 15:16
      +4

      That's a little unfair. Just ban OP.

  • imurgod on 05/01/2019 - 08:37
    -1

    If you have decent home insurance, you can claim it but I certainly wouldn't pay for it.

    Retailers are insured for this stuff. They've definitely misinformed you.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 01:28
      +2

      You do know the insurance covers them and not OP right? If it's deemed cheaper/easier, the insurer will simply commence legal action against OP to recover the funds rather than pay the $1,000…

      To put it another way, the insurance basically just covers the lower of recovery fees or replacement cost.

      • imurgod on 07/01/2019 - 09:20

        Mate, I have decades of experience in the insurance industry. How about you?

        Insurers don't commence legal action for $1,000 and almost never against a child.

        Also, I would imagine that HN would be on an aggregate excess structure, so this amount would be absorbed by the company rather than be claimed.

        You obviously don't know how this works.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 11:23
          +1

          Legal action as in a few letters exchanged between lawyers (/a lawyer and OP) - they obviously aren't likely to proceed to court.

          I'm not massively familiar with the insurance side of things, have just seen the legal side of it, automotive insurance cases in particular. Often see lawyers involved for <3k in the event of accidents where someone is clearly at fault.

          • imurgod on 07/01/2019 - 13:28

            @[Deactivated]: But not under aggregate excess structure, which this would likely be.

            What you're talking about is more likely in motor claims.

  • romywants on 05/01/2019 - 08:51
    +1

    I don’t believe HN doesn’t have insurance to cover it. That’s BS. What happens if someone brakes something and quietly leave if no staff has noticed it. They must have insurance for all accidental damages. Try emailing their complaint handling department.
    If you don’t pay, I doubt they will pursue legal action. It’s too small amount for them to be chasing it. Worst case scenario they will pass it on to debt collections. Debt collection will call you couple of time and at last write it off. You may end up with bad credit history though.

    • BartholemewH on 05/01/2019 - 12:03
      +7

      Just becauae HN woukd be insured, doesn't mean they need to excerise their right to claim against it.

      • Sammyboy on 05/01/2019 - 12:49
        +5

        Each claim would increase their policy cost for the following year. So they would try not to use it

        • Other on 07/01/2019 - 23:37

          I doubt a $1,200 (after rebates) one off claim is going to increase their cover that much.

    • imurgod on 05/01/2019 - 13:42

      I agree with this. They'd struggle to get anywhere with pursuing you even in a court.

  • blutek on 05/01/2019 - 09:09

    If they did lodge an insurance claim, you would have the insurance company attempting to recover cost from you.

    • imurgod on 05/01/2019 - 13:43

      No insurer would. They'd struggle with recovery.

  • MrDixit on 05/01/2019 - 11:32
    +8

    Yeah nah, the law doesn't work that way. Need to show someone is legally responsible for the breakage - a toddler can't be. The parent might be liable in negligence but there's no absolute duty to ensure your child doesn't cause damage. In this case, letting your kid carry a water bottle doesn't seem particularly negligent.

    Call consumer rights / law access / etc or the equivalent in your state.

    https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/contact-us

    http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au

    Also check in with your uni - most have student legal support.

    • ChickenTalon on 05/01/2019 - 13:56
      +5

      Best reply yet.

      I would personally feel a moral obligation to pay for something my child damages. But there is absolutely zero automatic liability placed on a legal guardian to pay for everything their child breaks, regardless of any moral obligation you or I might feel. Wright or wrong doesn’t feature here, just the law.

      A Harvey Norman franchise would maybe threaten, but would be highly unlikely to peruse civil action against a parent given the potential for negative PR. Not even sure a Harvey Norman franchise could instigate civil action on their own given the likely agreements with Harvey Norman.

      Wanna argue this? Then provide relevant case law.

      • shaybisc on 05/01/2019 - 16:49
        +2

        You're making the claim- you provide the case law.

        Someone provided a case on page 4- Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256. I looked it up. The relevant point in that case was whether or not the dangerous dog was known to be dangerous,or in this case, the child was a known bottle tosser. I don't know if that principle is the rule in NSW but it is certainly more ethical than the one you say is the law- you can take a child known to be a psychotic vandal into a china shop and you bear no responsibility for his/her actions. If that is the law, which I doubt, it needs changing.

        • ChickenTalon on 05/01/2019 - 21:52
          +4

          I think that’s about as close to an example as you’ll get, but we’re miles off a waterbottle chucked by a 3 year old at a TV in a store.

          That case was a closely fought thing and it was a rock in a slingshot from a 13 year old and involved personal injury. It hinged on the fact that the guardians knew how dangerous it could be.

          Age of the child is important and the guardian needs to be negligent. Based on the OPs account we’re miles off, there is no automatic liability.

  • hotdish on 05/01/2019 - 11:46
    -5

    Don't pay them a cent. Let them attempt to sue your child and when they do call up a current affair or today tonight and then the threat will quickly disappear.

    It isn't a criminal matter… Not worth their time/money to litigate.

    • Wardaddy on 09/01/2019 - 12:13
      +1

      So, refuse to accept your responsibility then?

  • BartholemewH on 05/01/2019 - 12:01
    +5

    I call bullshit on OP regarding 'You break it, you bought it' policy. I remember before I could even read my mum would squeeze my hand in the store and whisper 'don't break anything, because I'll have to pay to replace it'. Sounded reasonable at the time and still does. It's not some great mystery that is finally being solved.

  • frostman on 05/01/2019 - 12:06
    +10

    Pay the money champ, Harvey Norman don't get TVs for free, each item in their inventory has a cost price.
    Whether or not he has accidental damage, there's also a premium or excess to pay.
    The franchise owner doesn't need to pay for something your kid stupidly did.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 22:49
      +2

      The OP believes all Harvey Norman customers should wear the cost for your wife being careless. Shoppers are already getting hit when it comes to shoplifting.

      I guess all those encouraging the OP not to pay are the same parents that encourage their young children to shoplift.

  • ruddiger7 on 05/01/2019 - 14:40
    +2

    Probably need to pay but at least it wasnt some 88"+ oled.

  • this is us on 05/01/2019 - 15:34
    +4

    I think the 1k is a fair price, considering the RRP, although you can try to negotiate that.

    I could just say that's common sense to pay for something you damaged (if that´s your child, that´s still your responsibility, according to common sense, I don't know about the law). As the world is pretty fu**ed up, common sense is not something we can trust anymore. The number of dishonest pieces of advice you got here show exactly that.

    For those who advocate that "parents are not responsible for their child´s damage, according to the law", I would like to see a child getting into a store or an office (anything from Wooly to Maserati) and break and scratch everything they see.

    I do understand the unfortunate event/accident, and it is the same frustration when we hit someone else's car when driving or anything like that. If we have insurance, we use it. If not, we hope they have insurance and agree to pay for the fees. If they don't have, we pay the damage. That's pretty logical and straightforward to me. I am sure you will be more careful in the future but that's life, we learn with our mistakes (and that's still (y)our responsibility).

    • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 23:00
      +2

      Wonders if the OP would return a cracked screen TV to Harvey Norman or just accept it because perhaps the store person had a sore back and dropped it by mistake.

      The fact that this trash is still dragging on is unbelievable.

  • O15 on 05/01/2019 - 16:02
    +7

    When the aliens intercept our communications, I really hope OzBargain isn't one of the first things they look at.

    The human race will be declared an inept waste of resource and annihilated the next day.

    • BartholemewH on 05/01/2019 - 16:09
      +2

      Yep, this is modern day Australia. Up next, is it stealing if it's from a company no one likes?

    • zhenjie on 05/01/2019 - 18:48
      +9

      Not white knights, just decent people.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 18:07
        +1

        At the end of the day, Harvey Norman are an organisation only fulfilling their legal obligations to ensure they retain/make a maximum amount of money. They quite frequently don't act "decent" and do many things to screw others over, like lobbying for GST on all goods coming into the country, instead of becoming price competitive in their own market.

        I don't see why it's a bad thing for a consumer to want to only fulfil their legal obligations when it comes to retaining money too.

        Edit: Not suppporting the white knight nonsense. Just saying I don't think being "decent" comes into play when you are dealing with corporations like HN.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 23:07
          +1

          Cubist must have a nice government job. So you don't give a stuff if retail staff become redundant because of a unfair playing field from greedy overseas online traders.

          GST changes were needed and more money going towards our states benefits us all.

          As much many people hate Gerry Harvey, Harvey Norman do have stores in Australia and employ Australians.

          • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2019 - 15:19

            @[Deactivated]: No need for the personal attack. No Government job here, unsure of relevancy though.

            My main issue with the GST import on all amounts is that I buy uncommon items which aren't available in Australia because there is no market, or too small a market, for them to be profitable here. Almost all of these items are second hand. My hobby is now 10% expensive because HN saw that as a better financial option for them, than being price competitive.

            When it comes to my own financial state, I am going to take what I am legally able to take, the same way HN would.

    • chumlee on 05/01/2019 - 18:52
      +1

      Probably a lot of them happy to do a dodgy on their tax return though

    • holdenmg on 05/01/2019 - 19:57

      $1000 worth of https://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server1700/6d68e/products/3577/… thanks…

    • jt2003 on 06/01/2019 - 09:55

      Wow how responsible of you! You sound like a lovely person!

  • vinhy88 on 05/01/2019 - 17:00
    +2

    @drdash

    Should you have home & contents insurance, under the liability section of your policy extends to negligence, if it is a financially viable option after the reduction of excess ($500 standard) you will only cough up $500 to the insurance company and hence they will forward full payment through to Harvey Norman.

    Fundamentally as you're the parent/guardian of the child his action becomes your responsibility until such time he turns 18 and it is your responsibility to cover necessary expenses of such child.

  • rinco on 05/01/2019 - 18:28
    +3

    You or your kid break my $2,000 TV and you owe me $2,000. I'll spend more than that to make sure you pay up.

    • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:40
      +2

      You would get not one cent back though…

  • taoz on 05/01/2019 - 20:17
    +2

    bemusing how you Harvey Norman should bear loss for this.
    if my kid breaks something i pay for it. I make sure i am keeping kids away from stuff that can break if there is any risk them doing something that could risk breaking it.
    Accidents happen, do the right thing. What if it was your business?

  • PAPower on 05/01/2019 - 20:29
    -6

    Tell HN that you're getting in touch with Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee. He's your family friend and considering to arrange a replacement for HN.
    Turns out he can't help after rounds and rounds of negotiation. By then you could have saved $1,000 then pay for it. I'm sure HN has 60-month interest free policy.

    By the way, you went to uni with Lee Boo-jin, right?

  • vengeance88 on 05/01/2019 - 21:57
    +2

    You said you were looking for a fridge. Could you negotiate the $1000 down if you committed to buy the fridge and some other large purchases (for yourself or family/friends)?

  • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 02:42

    Looks like a strong reason not to visit bricks and mortar stores, over online purchases.
    Customer could be up for tens of thousand just visiting casually.

    Don't trip over your shoelaces in a china shop.
    Or take a test-drive without verifying your insurance risk.

    I think it's the retailer's risk, and OP is rolling over without standing up for his rights. Oh well.

  • jt2003 on 06/01/2019 - 09:52
    +3

    Why is this even a question?

    You break it, you buy it! The TV is valued at $2000 usually, they have done the right thing and are only charging you what they pay for the TV not the retail price.

    • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:41
      -1

      The toddler broke it though

      • Krankite on 08/01/2019 - 13:58

        Here's out it works everyone involved in the incident has to pay a % of the replacement cost based upon how responsible they are for the incident. Now lets break it down

        Toddler:0% (They are a toddler)
        Harvey Norman:0% Nothing in the post about the TV being in an at risk location, this could change if they had it on the footpath or next to a play area.
        Person looking after the Toddler:100%

      • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 23:20

        Who cares if it was a toddler. Who else should be exempted according to your logic?

        The teenager that breaks a TV because they were too busy texting, the elderly person who dropped their cane and fell on a TV or the obese person who knocked the TV as they walked past.

        Stop making excuses for this drongo. Buying a new fridge is not like rushing out and getting medicine for your child. Your wife was irresponsible and as far as marriage goes you married her so you pay for her mistakes.

        • trapper on 09/01/2019 - 11:47

          It's not my logic, I am just relating the Law… Petition your MP to have it changed.

          Toddlers have zero liability, that's the world we live in.

  • solidussnake on 06/01/2019 - 10:42
    +1

    If you had and done your shopping at JB they would have claimed it on insurance, I worked in the TV department for 5 years and when LG first bought out the FHD OLEDs they were about 3.5k had a customer flex the edge as the back was carbon fiber and cracked it in the first week (ran out of the store). Second week a salesman pda flew out of his hands and cracked the second one 😂😂 he was pale as a ghose telling the store manager who just said we would claim insurance on it

  • JoshPR on 06/01/2019 - 13:17
    +1

    Afterpay it

  • SnoozeAndLose on 06/01/2019 - 14:44
    +1

    OP any update on what you have done?

  • Dack Smith on 06/01/2019 - 15:12
    +8

    Bloody hell its YOUR child that did the damage.

    Just pay $1,000 and be done with it.

    Seriously people don’t seem to be able to understand accountability anymore.

    Break it, pay for it - seems hard for many to grasp that concept, which is dire for the future of human evolution

    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 00:37
      +3

      Just curious if the OP and their wife work for free when their boss or co-worker does something wrong that requires time to fix?

      Welcome to the real world! You created your child. He is your responsibility. Pay up. Lesson learnt and move on.

      Whether that particular Harvey Norman store has insurance is really none of your business. Why should they have their premiums increased because your wife is incapable of controlling your child. It is not the first time your child has thrown an object.

      You are acting like an uninsured motorist that has caused an accident and expecting someone else to take blame (and pay the premium) so you can get your car fixed for free.

      • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:43

        And the real world has laws, which say otherwise. :)

      • chumlee on 07/01/2019 - 18:45

        In the real world what OP decides is none of your business

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 23:24
          +1

          It is my business if they are whinging online.

  • senor cogswallop on 06/01/2019 - 15:55
    +28

    Nice to touch,
    nice to hold,
    throw a bottle at it,
    and consider it sold.
    Break the display,
    You'll be in dismay,
    Once Harvey Norman,
    Chases you up to pay.
    My only advice,
    Is don’t think twice,
    Be a good citizen,
    and pay up the price.
    And dare I say there'll be no pardon,
    Once you ask about it here on Ozbargain.

    • bdl on 06/01/2019 - 21:32

      Gerry says don't buy from Kogan,
      "Cause I think he's a bogan…"

      • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 00:44

        I wouldn't buy anything more from Kogan as their help desk are that stupid (even after forwarding them the email outlining the promotion) that clearly states $60 Kogan.com credit after holding your insurance policy for 45 days that they are unable to make a decision and just pay up.

        Like seriously $60 Kogan.com Credit = $10-20 actual cash.

      • CalmLemons on 08/01/2019 - 21:11
        +1

        codswallop and bdl - fking gold lol.

  • shaybisc on 06/01/2019 - 18:06
    +2

    I have to admit I would be paranoid about taking a 3yo through a forest of large, expensive, fragile tv screens, even if they weren't grasping a projectile.

    • jebdra on 09/01/2019 - 18:31

      This. Absolutely this.

      The attitude by many parents that they should be able to take their child anywhere is becoming more prevalent. Then add the idea that they really don't need to "supervise" said child and it's amazing there aren't many more cases like this.

  • Julius on 06/01/2019 - 21:44
    +6

    Please add a Business Law and Ethics elective for next semester.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 00:52
      +5

      Better still the OP should open their own Harvey Norman franchise so we can all bring all our children down to trash the store and walk away as the OP feels entitled to do.

      There is no point asking the OP if they have a faith or morals as the answer would be no. Any person of faith would understand the simple concept of honesty and taking responsibility for their own (or in this case your child's) actions.

  • KangaBanga on 06/01/2019 - 22:34
    +1

    like a toddler in a china shop!

  • THICKnSLOW on 06/01/2019 - 23:37

    If the toddler has good aim he could play cricket for Oztralia in a few years.

    Just make sure he is comfy with sandpaper down his nappy.

  • lostn on 07/01/2019 - 00:06

    How does a TV break that easily? A toddler should not have enough force in his throw to damage a TV. Was the bottle glass? And was the TV glass too?

    How badly is it damaged? Just cracked? Or did it tip over?

    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 01:02

      The OP should just pay up.

      If I was Harvey Norman I would give

      a) You the option of pay $1,000 for a $2,000 TV (for a short period)
      b) If you resisted I would charge you the full retail cost of the TV
      c) If you failed to pay then take you to small claims court for the full amount

      I doubt you would get little or any sympathy for your attitude at any tribunal or court. The Harvey Norman franchisee are being reasonable yet the only person who is acting like a complete ****er is the OP.

      • trapper on 07/01/2019 - 18:46

        The court will say toddlers have no legal liability…

    • solidussnake on 07/01/2019 - 09:19

      Glass yeah they were 10 years ago now they all that cheap plastic flexi stuff and easily broken

    • dtbnguyen on 08/01/2019 - 03:47

      Yes, clearly Samsung should bear some responsibility as well for not making the TV toddler proof? LOL

  • cannedhams on 07/01/2019 - 01:12
    +2

    Hi OP.

    Legally, there is no principle of strict liability for the acts of one's children, particularly toddlers. Have a read:-

    According to the decided cases, a parent is not as such liable for the torts of his or her children. Parents may, however, be liable for torts committed by their children in the following circumstances:

    (a) Where the Parent has Directed, Authorised or Ratified the Act of the Minor
    “It seems clear that if the parent has directed, or consented to, or ratified, the child's acts which cause the damage, the plaintiff will be able to recover damage from the parent as an independent tortfeasor: qui facit per alium facit per se.”

    https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDamagecausedby…

    I also remember a case called Re Cooke (can't find the citation) from first year law school, where a boy who threw a piece of metal at a tree, which deflected and knocked someone's eye out, was found to be not liable (nor the school where he attended), as he wasn't doing anything you wouldnt reasonably expect of a young boy in the same circumstances.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 01:33
      +9

      Does Irish law even have jurisdiction here though lol

      • cannedhams on 07/01/2019 - 14:26
        +8

        For the benefit of those that recced this comment, and those that negged mine, both Ireland and Australia are common law countries (ie, have inherited the corpus of general legal principles around contract, negligence etc from Britain), and so the answer, in this case, is effectively yes.

        Also, if anyone had actually bothered to read the article, it refers to instances where the English authorities (like Moon v Tower) have been cited approvingly in Australia on many occasions. Eg http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1963/2.pdf

        Alternatively, the OP is welcome to listen to the rest of you talk out of your hats, if that is their preference.

        • Other on 07/01/2019 - 23:41
          +4

          drop mike.

        • pifts on 08/01/2019 - 00:08
          +2

          Both being common law systems doesn’t mean they’re transferable at all… I can name plenty of UK principles that haven’t been accepted by Aus courts and vice versa.

          • cannedhams on 09/01/2019 - 20:10

            @pifts: Sure there are differences. For example, the right to ramble (walk across other people's private property along traditional paths) is still an active part of the common law in Britain, not so much here. But in this instance, Moon v Tower is part of the received common law. You're not strictly liable for the actions of a toddler, whether in Australia or Britain.

            You're not even strictly liable for the actions of a dog (if it bites someone) or a horse (if it kicks), although in general, its probably not a good idea to let your pitbull go for a romp at a 3-year old's birthday party. But in general the old saying applies: "every dog is entitled to his (one) bite" https://www.smithslawyers.com.au/help/dog-bite-injury-compen…

        • [Deactivated] on 08/01/2019 - 00:54

          Seems like it's all more just proof of concept - it's not even case law yet, let alone legislation. I highly doubt anyone would be successful using this argument without lengthy court proceedings and appeals.

          Would be interesting to see one day, but wouldn't expect it for anything under 6 or even 7 figures.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2019 - 01:30
    +1

    A lot of people are mentioning insurance… Typically insurance of this kind would simply protect HN from being out of pocket - it does nothing for you. More then likely the insurance company will pay a few hundred to recovery monies (from OP) rather than outright cover the replacement cost…

  • JP on 07/01/2019 - 03:51
    +6

    You must be doing a masters in “how to be a dumb shit” if you need to ask questions like this.

    Stop wasting my and everyone else’s time and take responsibility.

    I think you should pay them $20,000 take my advice, you asked for it!

  • MrBillions on 07/01/2019 - 07:11
    -2

    Do nothing.

    What are they going to do?

    Don't teach your child 'a lesson' that doesn't sound right, it is just a toddler.

  • gimme on 07/01/2019 - 10:37
    +1

    Storm in a teacup and lot of overcomplicated and self righteous responses as always. Politely decline to pay and let them take legal action should they wish - They
    won't.

    (This is not a mum and pop store. It's a large organization who are capable of writing off this sort of stuff)

    • chumlee on 07/01/2019 - 18:50
      +1

      Only months ago the same self righteous people were wanting a boycott of HN due to GST changes on imports.

      Gerry and his wife who's the CEO of HN, have written of tens of millions of dollars in bad investments, costing shareholders (which store proprietors are) lots of coin. A cracked TV is the least of their problem.

      • gimme on 07/01/2019 - 20:07
        +1

        Lol exactly why noone should be canvassing this type of advice on ozb

      • inertia8 on 08/01/2019 - 07:53
        +1

        I'm still holding strong on boycotting HN… Never forget

    • longhaul84 on 07/01/2019 - 22:45
      +2

      The self-entitlement is strong with this one.

  • reddead2067 on 07/01/2019 - 11:33
    +2

    A. Bikies.

    B. Cough up the $1000. The TV model costs around to $2000. So consider yourself lucky.
    https://www.binglee.com.au/samsung-ua65nu8000wxxy-65-4k-uhd-…

    Insurance claims still attract an excess. So I dont see why you think you can get away with it.

  • tonsta on 07/01/2019 - 12:01
    -2

    you dont have any obligations to pay, they will have to pursue this in court if they want, but you are not required to do anything.

  • Seni0r El Cheapo on 07/01/2019 - 12:22
    +1

    Will you get to keep the LED?

  • wanderingeyesau on 07/01/2019 - 13:11
    +4

    My younger one threw a toy at my older, who dodged it and the toy hit the almost brand new 55" inch tv. Since it's my kid, I had to take responsibility and get a new one.

    This is similar case, you need to own up your kids actions. Or parents would start letting their kids use these stores as playgrounds.

    Pay up $1000 or whatever you can negotiate with them, as a lesson learnt.

  • AndreNaples on 07/01/2019 - 13:34
    +1

    This has been great… I hope that OP is actually finishing his masters on consumer law and this has all been part of his thesis.

  • Bills22 on 07/01/2019 - 13:45

    I'm not sure if people nowadays use the phrase, "Put oneself in someone's shoes".

    I take it also, OP has not run a business before and most likely think he is an self-entitled person who wants to argue over everything and every little thing in life that is not his doing. I would think that if I or my toddler were to break something on someone's premises, I would be ethically and morally obliged to pay a compensation, regardless of insurance etc. etc.

    Take option 1 so you can leave your integrity score high.

  • MAB on 07/01/2019 - 17:41
    +5

    Business is fully insured. Places the models on display with very small chance of actually ever selling display model. Display models often placed in-store by manufacturer to sell those models.

    Toddler cannot form mens rae. Has no idea they would be committing a crime by damaging the good. Will not be prosecuted by Harveys.

    Insurance will fully cover it. Just move on. Police won't investigate. Lawyers legal fees to send the letter would cost more than $1,000.

    • qwerty on 08/01/2019 - 19:22
      -2

      It takes a business about 5 minutes and next to no cost to pass your details onto a debt collection agency where they can worry about sending legal letters and possibly persusing the damages from you in court for the $1000 .

      • zwolf on 09/01/2019 - 02:30
        +1

        Pfssh. If there's no signed contract of debt, there's nothing to pass on.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join