法律英语:01“You Break It, You Buy It” and the Law
时间:2018-12-05 作者:英语课 分类:法律英语 Legal Lad
by Adam Freedman
Today’s topic: You break it, you buy it.
Matthew asks, if a business posts one of those signs saying “you break it, you buy it,” then “are you legally obligated to buy something because you broke it.”
Are “You Break It, You Buy It” Signs Legally Enforceable?
A fine question. The short answer is: no, the store sign by itself doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to buy any item that you break. Your liability to the store will depend on the circumstances of the breakage, as well as the law in your state. Of course, the best policy is not to break things in the first place.
Before I go any further, I’m happy to tell you that this episode is sponsored by Go To Meeting. You can save time and money by hosting meetings online. Go To Meeting is the easiest, most secure way to hold an online meeting. Everyone attending simply logs on to GoToMeeting.com and then they can see whatever is on your desk top on their computer screen. Walk people through a power point deck or a product demonstration 1. The service also includes phone and voice over IP conferencing. Legal Lad listeners can try Go To Meeting free for 45 days, that’s more than $50 in savings 2, by going to GoToMeeting.com/podcast and signing up for a free trial. Again, visit GoToMeeting.com/podcast and sign up for a free trial.
Back to the issue.
The Legality of the “You Break It, You Buy It” Signs
Maybe this will ring a bell. You’re browsing 3 in some fancy retail 4 store. You admire all the nice, shiny things until you’re finally inspired to pick something up and hold it in your hands. You look up and there it is: the ominous 5 “you break it, you buy it” sign. The panic hits you: did you break it already? Are you holding it the wrong way? You put the item back on the shelf as gingerly as possible and continue strolling down the aisle 6, whistling a nervous tune 7.
Well, maybe that’s just me. But countless 8 retail stores do have these signs declaring what is popularly known as the “Pottery Barn Rule,” even though that particular retailer 9 has no such rule, according to published reports. Despite the widespread use of these signs, I don’t consider them an entirely 10 accurate statement of the law.
There’s No “You Break It, You Buy It” Law
First, there’s no statute 11 on the books declaring “you break it, you buy it” to be the law of the land. At least not in the United States, and I’m not aware of any other country with such a law. Without a statute, the signs could only be enforceable under common law doctrines 13 of either contract or tort.
Do Signs Create a “Unilateral Contract”?
Some people argue that the “you break it” signs create a contract with every customer who enters the store. But it is often difficult to prove the validity of so-called “unilateral contracts”--that is, contracts proposed by one party without explicit 15 agreement by the other party. The conduct on the part of the accepting party has to be an unequivocal acceptance of the terms proposed.
It seems very unlikely that a court would agree that when a customer enters a store he or she implicitly 16 agrees to every proposition posted on the store walls. What if the store posted a sign saying “You Look At It, You Buy It?” Would a court enforce that as a valid 14 contract? I doubt it; otherwise a lot more people would go into retail.
And besides, a valid contract has to be based on some exchange of value--what the law calls “consideration,” and it’s hard to find any consideration coming from the store in return for the “you break it, you buy it” agreement.
If You Break It, Do You Have to Buy It?
But this is not to say that you can go ahead and do your bull-in-a-china-shop routine with impunity 17. If you accidentally break something in a store, the question of whether and how much you owe the store will be determined 18 by the law of negligence 19, which, like contract law, differs from state to state, and country to country.
Generally, under negligence law, the key question is whether you acted carelessly in a situation where the law assumes that you had a duty to act carefully. Most courts in the US would hold that a store customer has a duty to take care not to cause damage that is “reasonably foreseeable.” Courts in Canada, Britain, and other common law countries follow similar rules. So, if you can’t resist the urge to juggle 20 those priceless Faberge eggs in the antiques store, you’re probably violating your duty of care. And if the eggs break, a court would likely hold you liable for damages.
The “You Break It” Signs Jump to Conclusions
Essentially 21, the “you break it” signs are a short hand way for a store to assert two legal conclusions relating to the law of negligence:
(1) if you break something, it must be entirely due to your negligence; and
(2) your legal liability is the full purchase price of the item.
But those two conclusions are not necessarily true. The store itself might have been negligent 22 by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent breakage--maybe they placed their goods in a precarious 23 position, or they left tripping hazards on the floor. Under a doctrine 12 known as “comparative negligence,” a court might apportion 24 liability between the customer and the store according to their respective degrees of fault.
If You Break It, Do You Have to Pay the Full Price?
And even if the customer is 100 percent at fault, it’s far from certain that a court would require him or her to pay the full retail price of the item. In negligence cases, courts generally attempt to put the victim in the position he or she was in just before the accident. In other words, the customer might have to reimburse 25 the store for its cost to re-stock the broken item, but that would usually be the wholesale 26, not the retail price. It is possible, however, that for a rare or irreplaceable item, the customer could be on the hook for more, but it would depend on the circumstances of the breakage and the law of the state where the accident took place.
By now, you might be looking forward to having a spirited debate with a store owner regarding the enforceability of their “you break it, you buy it” signs. But when you think about it, isn’t it better to avoid the issue altogether? Just be really careful when browsing, and consider asking the sales assistant to get that nice piece of china off the shelf for you.
Thank you for reading Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful 27 Life. Thanks again to our sponsor this week, Go To Meeting. Visit Go To Meeting.com/podcast and sign up for a free 45 day trial of their online conferencing service. That’s GotoMeeting.com/podcast for a free 45 day trial.
You can send questions and comments to。。。Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this article only.
- His new book is a demonstration of his patriotism.他写的新书是他的爱国精神的证明。
- He gave a demonstration of the new technique then and there.他当场表演了这种新的操作方法。
- I can't afford the vacation,for it would eat up my savings.我度不起假,那样会把我的积蓄用光的。
- By this time he had used up all his savings.到这时,他的存款已全部用完。
- He sits browsing over[through] a book. 他坐着翻阅书籍。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- Cattle is browsing in the field. 牛正在田里吃草。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- In this shop they retail tobacco and sweets.这家铺子零售香烟和糖果。
- These shoes retail at 10 yuan a pair.这些鞋子零卖10元一双。
- Those black clouds look ominous for our picnic.那些乌云对我们的野餐来说是个不祥之兆。
- There was an ominous silence at the other end of the phone.电话那头出现了不祥的沉默。
- The aisle was crammed with people.过道上挤满了人。
- The girl ushered me along the aisle to my seat.引座小姐带领我沿着通道到我的座位上去。
- He'd written a tune,and played it to us on the piano.他写了一段曲子,并在钢琴上弹给我们听。
- The boy beat out a tune on a tin can.那男孩在易拉罐上敲出一首曲子。
- In the war countless innocent people lost their lives.在这场战争中无数无辜的人丧失了性命。
- I've told you countless times.我已经告诉你无数遍了。
- What are the retailer requirements?零售商会有哪些要求呢?
- The retailer has assembled a team in Shanghai to examine the question.这家零售商在上海组建了一支团队研究这个问题。
- The fire was entirely caused by their neglect of duty. 那场火灾完全是由于他们失职而引起的。
- His life was entirely given up to the educational work. 他的一生统统献给了教育工作。
- Protection for the consumer is laid down by statute.保障消费者利益已在法令里作了规定。
- The next section will consider this environmental statute in detail.下一部分将详细论述环境法令的问题。
- He was impelled to proclaim his doctrine.他不得不宣扬他的教义。
- The council met to consider changes to doctrine.宗教议会开会考虑更改教义。
- To modern eyes, such doctrines appear harsh, even cruel. 从现代的角度看,这样的教义显得苛刻,甚至残酷。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- His doctrines have seduced many into error. 他的学说把许多人诱入歧途。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- His claim to own the house is valid.他主张对此屋的所有权有效。
- Do you have valid reasons for your absence?你的缺席有正当理由吗?
- She was quite explicit about why she left.她对自己离去的原因直言不讳。
- He avoids the explicit answer to us.他避免给我们明确的回答。
- Many verbs and many words of other kinds are implicitly causal. 许多动词和许多其他类词都蕴涵着因果关系。
- I can trust Mr. Somerville implicitly, I suppose? 我想,我可以毫无保留地信任萨莫维尔先生吧?
- You will not escape with impunity.你不可能逃脱惩罚。
- The impunity what compulsory insurance sets does not include escapement.交强险规定的免责范围不包括逃逸。
- I have determined on going to Tibet after graduation.我已决定毕业后去西藏。
- He determined to view the rooms behind the office.他决定查看一下办公室后面的房间。
- They charged him with negligence of duty.他们指责他玩忽职守。
- The traffic accident was allegedly due to negligence.这次车祸据说是由于疏忽造成的。
- If you juggle with your accounts,you'll get into trouble.你要是在帐目上做手脚,你可要遇到麻烦了。
- She had to juggle her job and her children.她得同时兼顾工作和孩子。
- Really great men are essentially modest.真正的伟人大都很谦虚。
- She is an essentially selfish person.她本质上是个自私自利的人。
- The committee heard that he had been negligent in his duty.委员会听说他玩忽职守。
- If the government is proved negligent,compensation will be payable.如果证明是政府的疏忽,就应支付赔偿。
- Our financial situation had become precarious.我们的财务状况已变得不稳定了。
- He earned a precarious living as an artist.作为一个艺术家,他过得是朝不保夕的生活。
- It's already been agreed in principle to apportion the value of the patents.原则上已经同意根据专利的价值按比例来分配。
- It was difficult to apportion the blame for the accident.很难分清这次事故的责任。
- We'll reimburse you for your travelling expenses.我们将付还你旅费。
- The funds are supposed to reimburse policyholders in the event of insurer failure.这项基金将在保险公司不能偿付的情况下对投保人进行赔付。