I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
and handed to the consumer.

SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?

Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?

On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
> I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> and handed to the consumer.
>
> SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?

Anyone got any views?

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT), freepo 
wrote:

>I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
>has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
>splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
>and handed to the consumer.
>

I think the important part is that the goods were bagged by the
cashier. If they are bagging them, then it is their responsibility to
not overload the bags, and if they do, then you could *possibly* have
a claim against them for the cost of any goods damaged as a result.

But any court (if it were to get that far) would take into account how
obvious it should have been to you, and whether you took any measures
to prevent it happening.

>SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
>SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
>Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
>and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?

Yes.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I had a life once... now I have a computer and a modem.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sep 1, 11:52 pm, freepo  wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> > has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> > splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> > and handed to the consumer.
>
> > SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> > SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> > Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> > and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?
>
> Anyone got any views?

There is probably some duty to ensure the bags are reasonably durable
- though not necessarily under SOGA.

That said, if they pack your goods into their own bags, and that bag
then splits open when you pick it up damaging the goods, I am quite
sure they will be held liable.

Obviously the liability will not be huge should a loaf of bread fall
to the floor (shock horror), and if packing the bags yourself, common
sense would need to be used when determining what the bag can
reasonably be expected to hold.

On Sep 1, 10:26 pm, Ste  wrote:
> On Sep 1, 11:52 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> > > has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> > > splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> > > and handed to the consumer.
>
> > > SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> > > SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> > > Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> > > and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?
>
> > Anyone got any views?
>
> There is probably some duty to ensure the bags are reasonably durable
> - though not necessarily under SOGA.
>
> That said, if they pack your goods into their own bags, and that bag
> then splits open when you pick it up damaging the goods, I am quite
> sure they will be held liable.
>
> Obviously the liability will not be huge should a loaf of bread fall
> to the floor (shock horror), and if packing the bags yourself, common
> sense would need to be used when determining what the bag can
> reasonably be expected to hold.

I think we can all agree that overloading a bag yourself will remove
liability from the store.

But in the case of the store assistant overloading the bag, the bag
may not break immediately but may do so on your way home, and the
liability could be substantial, heavy goods are quite often more
expensive.

Another scenario could be the customer does the packing, but does not
overload the bag, and the bag is inherently faulty - as some of them
are sometimes, with splits.  As the customer did not see the defect I
wonder if in this case the customer could claim against the store.

Would the litigant have to name any particular law in order to make a
case against the store?

On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, freepo  wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:26 pm, Ste  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:52 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > > I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> > > > has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> > > > splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> > > > and handed to the consumer.
>
> > > > SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> > > > SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> > > > Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> > > > and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?
>
> > > Anyone got any views?
>
> > There is probably some duty to ensure the bags are reasonably durable
> > - though not necessarily under SOGA.
>
> > That said, if they pack your goods into their own bags, and that bag
> > then splits open when you pick it up damaging the goods, I am quite
> > sure they will be held liable.
>
> > Obviously the liability will not be huge should a loaf of bread fall
> > to the floor (shock horror), and if packing the bags yourself, common
> > sense would need to be used when determining what the bag can
> > reasonably be expected to hold.
>
> I think we can all agree that overloading a bag yourself will remove
> liability from the store.
>
> But in the case of the store assistant overloading the bag, the bag
> may not break immediately but may do so on your way home, and the
> liability could be substantial, heavy goods are quite often more
> expensive.
>
> Another scenario could be the customer does the packing, but does not
> overload the bag, and the bag is inherently faulty - as some of them
> are sometimes, with splits.  As the customer did not see the defect I
> wonder if in this case the customer could claim against the store.
>
> Would the litigant have to name any particular law in order to make a
> case against the store?

I seriously doubt that any major store would make an issue of goods
that cost a dime a dozen. And I can't think of many items that are
expensive, heavy, and baggable.

But as a broad guide, yes, if there is an inherent fault in the bag,
or it was bagged incorrectly by the store, and so long as no lack of
common sense could be attributed to you, then you would have the basis
for a claim.

On Sep 2, 4:36 pm, Ste  wrote:
> On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 10:26 pm, Ste  wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 11:52 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> > > > > has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> > > > > splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> > > > > and handed to the consumer.
>
> > > > > SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> > > > > SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> > > > > Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> > > > > and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?
>
> > > > Anyone got any views?
>
> > > There is probably some duty to ensure the bags are reasonably durable
> > > - though not necessarily under SOGA.
>
> > > That said, if they pack your goods into their own bags, and that bag
> > > then splits open when you pick it up damaging the goods, I am quite
> > > sure they will be held liable.
>
> > > Obviously the liability will not be huge should a loaf of bread fall
> > > to the floor (shock horror), and if packing the bags yourself, common
> > > sense would need to be used when determining what the bag can
> > > reasonably be expected to hold.
>
> > I think we can all agree that overloading a bag yourself will remove
> > liability from the store.
>
> > But in the case of the store assistant overloading the bag, the bag
> > may not break immediately but may do so on your way home, and the
> > liability could be substantial, heavy goods are quite often more
> > expensive.
>
> > Another scenario could be the customer does the packing, but does not
> > overload the bag, and the bag is inherently faulty - as some of them
> > are sometimes, with splits.  As the customer did not see the defect I
> > wonder if in this case the customer could claim against the store.
>
> > Would the litigant have to name any particular law in order to make a
> > case against the store?
>
> I seriously doubt that any major store would make an issue of goods
> that cost a dime a dozen. And I can't think of many items that are
> expensive, heavy, and baggable.
>
> But as a broad guide, yes, if there is an inherent fault in the bag,
> or it was bagged incorrectly by the store, and so long as no lack of
> common sense could be attributed to you, then you would have the basis
> for a claim.

Perhaps in the case where you should have had more sense, because the
store ass't bagged it for you, liability would be shared between the
parties, so you would still be entitled to something back.

If the customer was for whatever reason not very mechanically minded
to realise that the bag might break, and just trusted the store ass't
to give an appropriate bag. Would a court make an allowance if the
customer showed they did not have the neccessary knowledge to realise
there could be a problem?  Or would it be based on what a normal
reasonable person would have concluded?   Which would seem to be very
unfair on those who are less mechanically minded and more trusting.

I suppose this would be dealt with by smalll claims action, but surely
you would have to quote some legal reference to the court?

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:37:05 -0700 (PDT), freepo 
wrote:

>I think we can all agree that overloading a bag yourself will remove
>liability from the store.
>
>But in the case of the store assistant overloading the bag, the bag
>may not break immediately but may do so on your way home, and the
>liability could be substantial, heavy goods are quite often more
>expensive.
>
>Another scenario could be the customer does the packing, but does not
>overload the bag, and the bag is inherently faulty - as some of them
>are sometimes, with splits.  As the customer did not see the defect I
>wonder if in this case the customer could claim against the store.
>
>Would the litigant have to name any particular law in order to make a
>case against the store?

Proving liability may be problem.  If the bag was clearly overloaded
(and there is proof of what weight of goods were packed in the bag by
the counter clerk), the store may be found partially liable - but the
customer should surely have realised that the bag was overloaded as
soon as s/he picked it up?

But proof will almost certainly be very difficult.  It is unreasonable
to expect the counter clerk to remember what goods were packed into
which bags, and so maybe the customer rearranged the packing of the
bags after leaving the store?  I often end up with loose items in the
boot that have fallen from shopping bags, and put these into any of
the bags before removing the shopping.

You would need to have a forensic examination of the broken bag in
order to prove it was defective, and it may not be possible to
determine it at all.  What about the possibility that the customer
damaged the bag when putting it into or taking it out of the car by
catching it on something in the car?  Did the customer lift the bag
from the car too rapidly?  Did the customer swing the bag unreasonably
when carrying it, or let one of the handles go?  Did the customer
carry the goods for an unreasonably long time (AFAIAA the bags are
only designed for one-off use for a short period of time)

-- 
Cynic

On Sep 2, 6:57 pm, freepo  wrote:
> On Sep 2, 4:36 pm, Ste  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 10:26 pm, Ste  wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 11:52 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 1, 1:55 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> > > > > > has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> > > > > > splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> > > > > > and handed to the consumer.
>
> > > > > > SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> > > > > > SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> > > > > > Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> > > > > > and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?
>
> > > > > Anyone got any views?
>
> > > > There is probably some duty to ensure the bags are reasonably durable
> > > > - though not necessarily under SOGA.
>
> > > > That said, if they pack your goods into their own bags, and that bag
> > > > then splits open when you pick it up damaging the goods, I am quite
> > > > sure they will be held liable.
>
> > > > Obviously the liability will not be huge should a loaf of bread fall
> > > > to the floor (shock horror), and if packing the bags yourself, common
> > > > sense would need to be used when determining what the bag can
> > > > reasonably be expected to hold.
>
> > > I think we can all agree that overloading a bag yourself will remove
> > > liability from the store.
>
> > > But in the case of the store assistant overloading the bag, the bag
> > > may not break immediately but may do so on your way home, and the
> > > liability could be substantial, heavy goods are quite often more
> > > expensive.
>
> > > Another scenario could be the customer does the packing, but does not
> > > overload the bag, and the bag is inherently faulty - as some of them
> > > are sometimes, with splits.  As the customer did not see the defect I
> > > wonder if in this case the customer could claim against the store.
>
> > > Would the litigant have to name any particular law in order to make a
> > > case against the store?
>
> > I seriously doubt that any major store would make an issue of goods
> > that cost a dime a dozen. And I can't think of many items that are
> > expensive, heavy, and baggable.
>
> > But as a broad guide, yes, if there is an inherent fault in the bag,
> > or it was bagged incorrectly by the store, and so long as no lack of
> > common sense could be attributed to you, then you would have the basis
> > for a claim.
>
> Perhaps in the case where you should have had more sense, because the
> store ass't bagged it for you, liability would be shared between the
> parties, so you would still be entitled to something back.
>
> If the customer was for whatever reason not very mechanically minded
> to realise that the bag might break, and just trusted the store ass't
> to give an appropriate bag. Would a court make an allowance if the
> customer showed they did not have the neccessary knowledge to realise
> there could be a problem?  Or would it be based on what a normal
> reasonable person would have concluded?   Which would seem to be very
> unfair on those who are less mechanically minded and more trusting.
>
> I suppose this would be dealt with by smalll claims action, but surely
> you would have to quote some legal reference to the court?

I ask you, in what conceivable circumstance could a supermarket bag
splitting cost more than a few pounds to remedy? Unless you have
legitimately purchased (an ornamental?) lump of heavy Uranium 238
bedded within extremely fragile coral reef, and the shop did not think
to provide anything more than a disposable plastic bag for your
special purchase.

The answer to the hypothetical question is this: yes, the store is
liable where the bag provided is defective or unsuitable. Also, the
man on the Clapham omnibus is not a professional engineer, though they
will expect a reasonable man to know that a single disposable carrier
bag cannot safely carry the weight of 24 tins of beans.

On 1 Sep, 13:55, freepo  wrote:
> I'm considering whether a shop in providing a customer with a free bag
> has any liability if the bag supplied was not suitable and ends up
> splitting open. In this case, the goods were bagged by the cashier,
> and handed to the consumer.
>
> SOGA refers to The "goods supplied" must be fit for the purpose.  If
> SOGA does not apply is there any other law that does?
>
> Would it make any difference if the bags were just freely available,
> and the consumer was the one who took the initiative to bag the goods?

I often put one bag inside another for extra strength , and
occasionally one comes across a double-bagger at the local checkouts
who will do it without being asked which always impresses me.

j

On Sep 5, 1:03 pm, Ste  wrote:

> I ask you, in what conceivable circumstance could a supermarket bag
> splitting cost more than a few pounds to remedy?

Oh come on, you can't imagine the scenario that a store might put a
heavy, but expensive item into a single plastic carrier bag? or a
heavy item relatively expensive which once the bag breaks then causes
directly more damage to clothing and cleaning costs for the place
where it broke.   Perhaps your idea of "expensive" is more than mine -
which may account for me not understanding your disbelief.  When I
said "substantial" I was just commenting that the damage could be much
more than a dropped loaf of bread, £15 - £30 for example.  And if you
add on cleaning and clothing the damage could enter the hundreds,
possibly thousands.


> The answer to the hypothetical question is this: yes, the store is
> liable where the bag provided is defective or unsuitable. Also, the
> man on the Clapham omnibus is not a professional engineer, though they
> will expect a reasonable man to know that a single disposable carrier
> bag cannot safely carry the weight of 24 tins of beans.

But if it were one large tin, I don't agree that 'the man on the
clapham omnibus' would necessarily be expected to realise the danger.

On Sep 4, 6:36 pm, Cynic  wrote:

> Proving liability may be problem.  If the bag was clearly overloaded
> (and there is proof of what weight of goods were packed in the bag by
> the counter clerk), the store may be found partially liable - but the
> customer should surely have realised that the bag was overloaded as
> soon as s/he picked it up?

The weight would be proven by the reciept for the goods.


> But proof will almost certainly be very difficult.  It is unreasonable
> to expect the counter clerk to remember what goods were packed into
> which bags, and so maybe the customer rearranged the packing of the
> bags after leaving the store?  I often end up with loose items in the
> boot that have fallen from shopping bags, and put these into any of
> the bags before removing the shopping.

If the customer only had 1 item in 1 bag, there would be no possible
shuffling.  In any event, I don't like the idea that the store could
claim the customer was not telling the truth.  The customer has
through the fault of the cashier been left with damaged goods, I would
hope a court would accept their word that they simply carried the
goods home and the bag broke on the way home.


> You would need to have a forensic examination of the broken bag in
> order to prove it was defective, and it may not be possible to
> determine it at all.  What about the possibility that the customer
> damaged the bag when putting it into or taking it out of the car by
> catching it on something in the car?  Did the customer lift the bag
> from the car too rapidly?  Did the customer swing the bag unreasonably
> when carrying it, or let one of the handles go?  Did the customer
> carry the goods for an unreasonably long time (AFAIAA the bags are
> only designed for one-off use for a short period of time)
>
> --
> Cynic


Putting aside the 'customer packed' defective bag scenario, I tend to
overcomplicate my questions with different scenarios.

If the customer walked home, and the bottom of the bag broke in the
normal course of walking home, then the bag supplied was not suitable.

But the big question remaining is what law would apply when making a
claim?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:58:47 -0700 (PDT), freepo 
wrote:

>> Proving liability may be problem.  If the bag was clearly overloaded
>> (and there is proof of what weight of goods were packed in the bag by
>> the counter clerk), the store may be found partially liable - but the
>> customer should surely have realised that the bag was overloaded as
>> soon as s/he picked it up?

>The weight would be proven by the reciept for the goods.

None of my supermarket receipts indicate how many bags the goods were
packed into, nor which goods were packed into which bags, nor whether
I or store staff packed the bags.  I am astonished that your receipts
have such detail.

>> But proof will almost certainly be very difficult.  It is unreasonable
>> to expect the counter clerk to remember what goods were packed into
>> which bags, and so maybe the customer rearranged the packing of the
>> bags after leaving the store?  I often end up with loose items in the
>> boot that have fallen from shopping bags, and put these into any of
>> the bags before removing the shopping.

>If the customer only had 1 item in 1 bag, there would be no possible
>shuffling.

Sure.  It is not often that a supermarket customer buys just one item,
however.

>  In any event, I don't like the idea that the store could
>claim the customer was not telling the truth.

Is that because you do not believe that customers tell lies?

>  The customer has
>through the fault of the cashier been left with damaged goods, I would
>hope a court would accept their word that they simply carried the
>goods home and the bag broke on the way home.

But it is not *only* the fault of the cashier.  I would expect the
average person to be able to judge whether a bag feels a bit too heavy
to be safe.

-- 
Cynic

On Sep 16, 3:11 pm, Cynic  wrote:

> None of my supermarket receipts indicate how many bags the goods were
> packed into, nor which goods were packed into which bags, nor whether
> I or store staff packed the bags.  I am astonished that your receipts
> have such detail.
>

> Sure.  It is not often that a supermarket customer buys just one item,
> however.
>

> Is that because you do not believe that customers tell lies?
>

> But it is not *only* the fault of the cashier.  I would expect the
> average person to be able to judge whether a bag feels a bit too heavy
> to be safe.

At the end of the day in a case where someone is claiming one thing
and the store is not denying it but saying the customer may have
shuffled the goods or handled the bag unreasonably and/or the cashier
may have given a double bag and the customer for whatever reason has
taken 1 bag away, hence, the failure.  Or the store is outright
refuting the claim as incorrect.  In the absence of CCTV the judge
would have to come to a decision, based on his experience (as a
judge).

But what law puts the store as liable for damages in the event the
judge believes the customer?