Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 May 2019 16:15
clearance

Need explanation how Thai law is working if you broke something in store (not intentionally)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, KittenKong said:

And what would happen if I wandered into a shop that sells imported Venetian glassware and knocked a load over? Should that glassware be nailed down or glued down too? I dont think so.


If the mannequin was arranged in such a bad way that it could fall over on its own then the store would be responsible. But if you have to run at it full tilt to knock it over then I think that it becomes the runner's fault.
Most people I know have enough wit to realise that it's probably best not to run around in shops. Small children don't know that which is why they should be left at home or in the car or otherwise restrained. Common sense really. The same applies to dogs: on a leash when in public and fitted with a muzzle if likely to bite. And if they crap on the floor the dog owner should clean it up. Just a matter of simple responsibility.

 

We agree on some of this... 

 

You've taken an extreme example - As Glassware shop should have insurance, what with it being extremely fragile. Accidents happen, the glass should also be stored securely. 

 

We could go around in circles all day pointless debating generalization which would be quite useless. 

 

Items on display and store furniture should be secure enough not to fall over if a child or adult knocks it. 

 

This is a tricky one though - as we have no video or evidence of how unruly the kids were...  Could it have been that the kids were playing and accidentally brushed against it knocking it over, or did they run full speed into and sending it flying - I believe there is a shift in blame and responsibility between the two.

 

Regardless, 25,000 baht (£620 / $800) is extortion, I'm also quite sure an international chain such as H&M would have insurance to cover such things. 

 

If the charge was paid in cash it makes it all the more suspicious that someone would pocket the money. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

I dont think it's very tricky. Kids should not be playing in shops at all. They should be standing still or, if they cant do that, they should be in another place where they cant break anything. The problem is one of lack of discipline and lack of responsibility.

 

You see ill-behaved children all the time these days - not just in Thailand. It's caused entirely by bad parenting and I see no excuse for it.

 

I can think of many run of the mill shops where breakable items are left in places where they could be knocked over and broken by stupid or unruly people. But normal people would not make that mistake. When I go into shops I may want to touch things before buying and I dont see why I should have to ask an assistant to unlock a case every time I want to look at a 10B glass jar. Does that mean that I am not responsible if I knock that jar over and break it? No, it doesn't.

 

Did you have kids? It would seems not - you show an extreme lack of tolerance... the type of guy who believes kids should not be permitted to fly etc...    

 

All I can think of when I read your post is whether or not it was you who was the subject in the GOM thread a few years back.

 

There is a discretional grey area....  at one end of the spectrum there are shops where things are displayed and things can get knocked over too easily, at the other end of the spectrum there are kids who are unruly and poorly disciplined...  somewhere in the middle is normal life where accidents happen... 

 

Parents can't tie up their kids - In a china shop, of course, keep a very close grip on your 5 year old child or better still avoid the place. But in an H&M it shouldn't be necessary to have to 'heel' your child, they should be free to walk next to you, relaxed, skipping along and enjoying life... and if they trip over or bump into something it shouldn't fall... thats poor shopkeeping, its poor awareness of safety...  

 

Again... In this example, I'm not sure if the kids were to blame or the shop... How can a kid knock a mannequin over unless he virtually rugby tackles it, or it wasn't secured properly.... Either way, its not worth 25,000 baht !!!!!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recall back in the 90's my wife was walking in the narrow aisles on the top floor at Emporium where all the crockery is located. Her handbag knocked some items off the shelf and broke them, we had to promptly pay up for the broken items amounting to a few thousand baht.

 

Every time we pass by there now I remind my wife to be extremely careful.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

How can a kid knock a mannequin over unless he virtually rugby tackles it, or it wasn't secured properly.... Either way, its not worth 25,000 baht !!!!!

 

 

Running around in a shopping area is stupid to start with. Can you give us the price what a mannequin costs here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for conclusion:

- There is no law in Thailand that covering that area, so stores don't need to pay attention to safety of customers;

- Store can charge any price and you can't argue with it;

- Nothing can be done after payment for damage is complete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

really? i don't think so. running and playing? you break it, you pay for it. 

Yes...you break it ...you bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gunderhill said:

25k,  hilarious

just Googled "price of mannequin Thailand". apparently just a small head mannequin can cost over 10k and full body over 30k. So I guess they weren't overcharged afterall

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have yet another example of why children should not be allowed to travel, especially on aeroplanes, until they are at least 14 and properly house trained 😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LukKrueng said:

just Googled "price of mannequin Thailand". apparently just a small head mannequin can cost over 10k and full body over 30k. So I guess they weren't overcharged afterall

 

Ouch - thats insane - its seems they weren't ripped of then. But, I still think H&M 'should' have insurance which covers mishaps, if they did, I'm wondering why the parents were charged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they let their children run around in  the shop like wild horses. They are 100% responsible. I hate parents who don't how to teach their offspring how to behave.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KittenKong said:

"Tolerance" these days just means having to put up with the misbehaviour of others. It is a one-way process. No one has to tolerate me because I'm considerate and do nothing that would annoy others. I dont double-park outside shops rather than walk a couple of yards. I dont make noise. I dont leave rubbish lying around. I dont keep dogs that bark and crap everywhere. Yet I am expected to "tolerate" the lazy and stupid people who do things like that.

 

It used to be the same with children: they used to be controlled so as not to annoy other people. These days parenting is just a free-for-all, and many parents seem to think that their horrible offspring have some sort of right to do anything they like. Well, I don't see it.

 

As for flying, I think that children should be put in some faraway section of the plane, just like smokers used to be. I certainly dont think that they should be allowed in any premium section of a plane. If an airline introduced a "no-children" policy or a "no-children-in-business-class policy" then it would certainly be much more likely to get my custom than an airline that had no such policy. A suitable compromise would be to ban children on some flights every week, and I would be more than happy to adjust my timetable to use only those flights.

 

Again, I find myself agreeing with much of what you say, but you deal with the extreme end of the spectrum as if it is an everyday occurrence. 

 

I could use similar arguments at the other end of the spectrum, no one has to tolerate my child because he is well behaved, in shops, on a plane and pretty much everywhere when in public. He's better behaved than many of the adults I see around, so are many other kids. 

 

I do disagree with your comment that 'these days parenting is a free-for-all'.... These days you do see some kids being naughty and making a nuisance of themselves, but you see far more behaving quite well without any issues whatsoever... tarring all kids with the same brush is failing to recognize the reality and choosing to selectively confirm your negative bias. 

 

As someone who has travelled extensively in Business Class - Kids upfront are not a problem. It is only the 'problem kids' who are a problem, these are far fewer than the problem drunks who can't behave or talk too loudly with each other etc when drunk (in my experience at least).

The only saving grace for noisy kids and abusive drunks on flights is that they all fall asleep sooner or later. 

So, if banning kids is an option, so should banning alcohol on flights be an option so we can avoid the risk of some tool making a nuisance of himself.

 

The problem with the kid issue is we see or hear one kid or read one news report and take the whole situation out of reasonable balance and forget that the vast majority are trouble free. 

 

Additionally, parenting with an iron fist only leads to stunted development of those who will grow to become intolerant old farts... Of course, an intolerant old fart will never accept they are an intolerant old fart, they can't see it in themselves, they lose perspective and soon accuse everyone around them of behaving poorly when its just an rare minority. 

 

This example where the child knocked over the mannequin may have been a case of poor behavior, but it seems more like high spirits, perhaps excessively high spirits in which case the parents should have had better control of their child, but I also wonder exactly how secure the mannequin was and if it fell over easily or not. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MrBanks said:

Here we have yet another example of why children should not be allowed to travel, especially on aeroplanes, until they are at least 14 and properly house trained 😂😂

Because kids are the only ones who ever make a nuisance of themselves on a flight right?

 

... Ban old men on flights, they never stop farting...   Ban alcohol, too many drunks get noisy and make a nuisance on a flight..  Ban other cultures, they behave differently and inconsiderately in a manner I'm not familiar with.... Heck.. ban anyone unless I approve them first... Right ??????

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...