Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Two years ago I purchased display cabinets from a specialist shop cabinet manufacturer and installed the cabinets in my shop. Then thieves came into my shop and within 5 seconds unlocked a cabinet and stole £8000 of product. It transpires that the locks had the key code etched onto the front of each lock. The keys are readily available by quoting this number to a locksmith or by re-ordering from the lock manufacturer over the internet or from their catalogue. I have issued a summons against the manufacturer and a defence has been lodged.
I claim a duty of care is owed by the defendants in supplying locks fit for the purpose of securing the shops merchandise. They took no steps to eliminate the risk of theft. These negligent acts and ommisions fell below the standard expected and the losses suffered are of a type that was reasonably foreseable and would occur if the matters set out above were permitted to occur.
The defence states that the standard terms and conditions require that defects must be reported within twelve months and in any case, the manufacturer shall not be held liable for losses caused by their negligence, breach or non performance. Also, the locks were reasonably fit for the purpose, they did lock the cabinet. But this fitness for the purpose did not extend to ensuring the security of the merchandise.
Also, the defence states " The existence of a duty of care to eliminate the risk of theft is denied as a matter of law. The claimant has failed to substantiate the basis or scope of such a duty and has failed to particularise any alleged breaches thereof" So, how do I respond to that argument. Can I quote any Act.
It now transpires that the locks with identical keys and codes are fitted to (so far three) retailers in my home town and probably 100s of shops throughout the UK. How do I warn these retailers and put an end to the manufacturer in foisting generic locks with visible key codes to all its customers?
Cant really offer any advice but its the same in many aspects of retail equipment, for example cash drawer locks they all have key codes etched onto them well the biggest manufacturer ADS Anker do anyway the same with the keylocks in the EPOS keyboards too, good luck tho
Not sure, I think this would come down to an argument of the definition of 'purpose'.
Is a lock's purpose to prevent something from opening, or to keep things secure?
As for warning others, I think a simple letter to each and every one you know of, explaining the situation would work. I thought of telling your local papers, but that would only drastically increase the risks.
BoS:- D P A sent 09/06 Prelim. request 29/06 £1755 plus interest
1st claim Filed 5/10/06 SETTLED 19/10 £747.80 plus £534.31 interest
I was under the impression that registered locksmiths had to be given proof of identity before they would manufacure duplicate keys. In my own case when I wanted a spare key and fob for my car I had to do this.
The defendants do argue that the purpose of the lock is to lock the cabinet and that purpose does not imply the security of the merchandise.
There is a law against the clause in their contract which limits their liablity due to negligence. Its the law of unfair contracts which suggests that its a question of reasonableness depending on all circumstances. Therefore the main circumstance is that the cabinet maker knew the cabinets would hold very expensive products and therefore they would have to excercise a higher duty of care. But I need to quote a well worded argument in legal speak and I dont know where to keep researching. The law is weighted stronger for a business to consumer transaction, but weaker for business to business transactions, these can fall through the net of the Supply of Goods Act or Supply of Goods and Services Act which are designed primarily to safeguard the consumer.
The locksmiths only need documentation for certain keys not for bog standard ones as supplied.
What they appear to be trying to claim is that their locks are not in fact locks & they are not meant to secure the product to which they are fitted.
Clearly this is a foolish argument as any reasonable person would expect cabinets designed & known to contain valuable goods to be secure. Also I suggest to fit what purports to be a lock is initself an implied contract that they are "fit for their purpose" by being secure. To display the number in a prominent place does not to my mind constitute a secure lock.
Whilst I think you do have a case does your insurance company know about this. If they don't & have paid out they might to decide to pursue the manufacturer. At the very least if they become aware of this lax security they may contact their retail customers requiring them to change the locks whilst notifying the manufacture that they will not insure any items fitted with such of their products.
Can anybody point me in the direction of chapter and verse. I believe you cannot contract your way out of a negligence claim. So the supplier cannot rely on the clause in their contract that limits their liability in the event of their negligence. Does anyone know where I can quote the relevant laws?
Thanks Meagain, that has strengthened my case. The supplier really is on weak ground trying to rely on the clauses in the contract which aim to limit his liability of negligence. The question and test is one of reasonableness. Whilst it might be reasonable to allow a member of the public to buy a cabinet with a mass produced key and code written on the lock to be used to store sentimental china and souveneers in the front room, it's a different matter and becomes very unreasonable to supply two jewellers and one gift shop in the same town with the same locks and to roll them out to 100s of other retailers Nationwide.
My other concern is that the defence states "The existence of a duty of care to eliminate the risk of theft is denied as a matter of law. The Claimant has failed to substantiate the basis or scope of such a duty and has failed to particularise any alleged breaches thereof. The Defendant reserves the right to plead further in this respect if the Claimant amends its Particulars of Claim"
Now, I claimed that the Defendant owed a duty of care but I didnt quote reasons why or how far those reasons applied. I reckon its their job to research the law to see if they are in breach, not my responsibility to tell them chapter and verse, why and wherefore. I dont believe I need to explain whether I am relying on the Sale of Goods Act (which doesnt protect me much, I am not the consumer but a business) or some other Act. This would only help them to prepare a defence. Furthermore the claim form only requests brief details of claim. I believe the solicitors defence is an attempt to put me off or to make life more difficult for me. How should I reply to this point of their defence? Any thoughts gratefully received.
I alerted a couple of trade associations who have passed the problem to their members.
I popped into 6 shops in my town today (one was a department store), four of them had my codes on their locks and under scrutiny of their staff I used my keys to open their cabinets. I reckon 50% of shops with lockable cabinets and illuminated glass tower displays will have at least one cabinet using these locks. One shop I was in today had 16 of them, all the same, all mine.
My Gawd! that's appalling & the supplier doesn't think they have a liability. Are they in for a shock. Silly sods. It won't be long before all of the criminal element in your town will know about these theives candy stores.
I think that without being libellous you should let the defendant via their solicitors know what your research has uncovered. Then watch them panic
Also have you notified the local crime prevention officer of this because if there are anymore simular thefts they are going to think unjustly it would now appear that each such crime is an "inside job" Also they might go around warning other traders in your town
The Police are aware. I suppose it will take a few more thefts before anything happens. I believe this issue is a huge national (even international) matter. I think the TV and Newspapers should run an article to warn everybody but that will also alert the thieves. Of course this site could do just that too.
I have arranged through various trade associations to alert their members. I have advised the defendants solicitors to ask their client to be aware that if my negligence claim succeeds, they (the defendants insurance company Axa) will be inundated with claims for replacement locks and additional claims if losses have occured within the past six years. I have suggested they quietly ensure their insured clients are made aware. It seems though that they want to shoot the messanger rather than resolve the issue with the locks. They should really settle my claim and ensure damage limitation processes are in place rather than hoping to successfully defend and therefore mitigate further claims against them.
Went to the UKs biggest jewellery trade show today. I stopped counting after 15 firms were displaying their wares with locks that used my key. All had H1 clearly marked.
I went through the suppliers website today. They have listed over 40 specimen instalations across the UK.I have started to contact these retailers (ranging from National Museums to Jewellers to Card Shops. So far ALL who have given me information have H1 keys. This is getting big.
Thieves had keys **WON**
require that defects must be reported within twelve months and in any case, the manufacturer shall not be held liable for losses caused by their negligence, breach or non performance. Also, the locks were reasonably fit for the purpose, they did lock the cabinet. But this fitness for the purpose did not extend to ensuring the security of the merchandise.
Reply With Quote
I popped into 6 shops in my town today (one was a department store), four of them had my codes on their locks and under scrutiny of their staff I used my keys to open their cabinets. I reckon 50% of shops with lockable cabinets and illuminated glass tower displays will have at least one cabinet using these locks. One shop I was in today had 16 of them, all the same, all mine.
Originally Posted by JonCris
