The consumer legislation requires the seller to offer different product liability terms for "trade" and "Retail" deals. Guarantee amongst other things, will be different. Most if not all vendors limit their liabilities to the cost of the faulty goods. There is NO chance of a claim for loss of profit loss of reputation etc if some fireworks fails to fire.
insurance question
Started by
Guest_PyroPDC_*
, Apr 03 2009 09:38 PM
25 replies to this topic
#16
Arthur Brown
-
- UKPS Members
-
- 2,923 posts
General member
Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:28 PM
http://www.movember.com/uk/home/
Keep mannequins and watermelons away from fireworks..they always get hurt..
Keep mannequins and watermelons away from fireworks..they always get hurt..
#17
David
-
- General Public Members
-
- 2,404 posts
Moonlight Shadow
Posted 04 April 2009 - 09:01 PM
The consumer legislation requires the seller to offer different product liability terms for "trade" and "Retail" deals.
If you buy a product as a trade customer (from example everyone who uses JTF) do your statutory rights or product liability terms differ when compared to buying as a retail customer? I didn't know that.
OK, interest in fireworks to be resumed in the spring. It usually is. 
#18
TGR
-
- General Public Members
-
- 28 posts
Member
Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:42 PM
there was a landmark case about that quite recently.
A fmaily had hired a bouncy castle for their childs birthday party, and another child (I think a teenager, or a 11-12 year old) was injured playing on it .
The family of the injured boy sued (the party was insured.) The judge choose not to make an award on the grounds that it was a simple, tragic, accident, and that the people who organised could not, realistically, be in a position of supervising everyone at the party all the time.
A great victory for common sense.
Thats too why there are disclaimer signs "use at own risk" "all childen must be supervised."
SADLY David, common sense then took a holiday and is not due back for a while
http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/7389775.stm
#19
Guest_PyroPDC_*
Guest_PyroPDC_*
-
- Guests
Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:34 AM
its ironic that the whole nature of fireworks being explosives and all the safety, training, risk assessments and covering your ass for all major risks for the display and you can still get taken to court because someone tripped over lol
its sad, sometimes no mater what you do for safety accidents will happen its a shame the law don't always agree.
its sad, sometimes no mater what you do for safety accidents will happen its a shame the law don't always agree.
Edited by PyroPDC, 23 April 2009 - 12:38 AM.
#20
David
-
- General Public Members
-
- 2,404 posts
Moonlight Shadow
Posted 23 April 2009 - 01:15 AM
SADLY David, common sense then took a holiday and is not due back for a while
http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/7389775.stm
It was this very case I was refering too- I believe they successfully appealed.
BBC news page
Edited by David, 23 April 2009 - 01:19 AM.
OK, interest in fireworks to be resumed in the spring. It usually is.
#21
dogsbody
-
- General Public Members
-
- 248 posts
Pyro Forum Regular
Posted 23 April 2009 - 08:17 AM
there was a landmark case about that quite recently.
A fmaily had hired a bouncy castle for their childs birthday party, and another child (I think a teenager, or a 11-12 year old) was injured playing on it .
The family of the injured boy sued (the party was insured.) The judge choose not to make an award on the grounds that it was a simple, tragic, accident, and that the people who organised could not, realistically, be in a position of supervising everyone at the party all the time.
A great victory for common sense.
Thats too why there are disclaimer signs "use at own risk" "all childen must be supervised."
just to advise that this was overturned on appeal.
#22
David
-
- General Public Members
-
- 2,404 posts
Moonlight Shadow
Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:27 PM
just to advise that this was overturned on appeal.
No, that WAS the verdict reached on appeal- the link is above.
Originally the parents WERE found liable, this was over turned on appeal.
Unless the appeal was appealled, then the most recent verdict is that the parents were not liable, as it was an accident.
OK, interest in fireworks to be resumed in the spring. It usually is.
#23
dogsbody
-
- General Public Members
-
- 248 posts
Pyro Forum Regular
Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:32 PM
No, that WAS the verdict reached on appeal- the link is above.
Originally the parents WERE found liable, this was over turned on appeal.
Unless the appeal was appealled, then the most recent verdict is that the parents were not liable, as it was an accident.
thats what i Meant, sorry
#24
teaboy
-
- General Public Members
-
- 78 posts
Ejects Stars and Bangs
Posted 24 April 2009 - 11:43 AM
Yes it was, no it wasn't, etc...
#25
pyro-rob
-
- General Public Members
-
- 3 posts
New Member
Posted 28 September 2010 - 11:48 PM
So who are the best comanys to go thu?
#26
iggy
-
- General Public Members
-
- 24 posts
Member
Posted 29 September 2010 - 03:38 PM
these are who we are insured with have been with them for many years
http://www.fireworks...ce.co.uk/anual/
roy or angela musk are the peeps to speak to hear
http://www.fireworks...ce.co.uk/anual/
roy or angela musk are the peeps to speak to hear
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
