Kay wrote:
:: In article , Janet
:: Baraclough. . writes
::: The message
::: from "Ken Richardson" contains
::: these words:
:::
:::: A gentleman who attended our show complained two days later
:::: that the ink from the stamp used as a pass out on the back of
:::: his hand got on to his shirt and cannot be removed. Does he have
:::: any right to make a claim.from us or should we direct him to the
:::: manufacturers of the stamp.
:::
::: Is he claiming the stamp hit his hand, or the shirt?
:::
::: If the gateperson stamped his hand, surely it was the
::: complainant's
::: own responsibility to keep an ink mark which he knew was there,
::: away
::: from his clothing?
:::
:: I don't buy that one! Someone tells me that if I want to enter a
:: show, I am going to have an ink stamp, which I don't want, on my
:: hand. And then I have to worry for the next several hours about
:: keeping my hand away from my clothing?
::
Not at all, if you don't want an ink stamp on your hand, then you are
perfectly able to walk away without one, it *was* *not* forced on him - he
accepted it and then *he* got the ink onto his own shirt.


:: If someone is going to insist I have my hand stamped, I reckon
:: they also have a duty to make sure a) that it is washable and I
:: don't have to wear the mark for days to come b) that it isn't
:: going to cause permanent damage to anything it comes in contact
:: with, such as clothing.

Or you could choose not to have the stamp in the first place?
- If you did *choose* to have the ink stamped onto your hand, you have then
accepted responsibility for that ink...how far can this idiotic compensation
culture go? - MacDonalds now have to have 'caution! contents may be hot'
stamped on their apple pies to prevent the permanently baffled from
thrusting molten apples down their throats!!! - 99.9% of people know it's
hot, as do the other 0.01%, but if it wasn't explained to them, they would
put in a claim for 'tongue trauma' - it's pathetic.

In article , Phil L
writes
Kay wrote:
:::
:: I don't buy that one! Someone tells me that if I want to enter a
:: show, I am going to have an ink stamp, which I don't want, on my
:: hand. And then I have to worry for the next several hours about
:: keeping my hand away from my clothing?
::
Not at all, if you don't want an ink stamp on your hand,
then you are
perfectly able to walk away without one,

But if I have, against my desire, accepted one as a condition of
entering (or re-entering) the show, I think I am reasonably entitled to
expect that it won't cause permanent damage to my clothing, and that I
should not need to take deliberate action to avoid damage.

it *was* *not* forced on him

Though it is not apparent that he could have got into (or back into) the
show without it, so it was not entirely voluntary.

- he
accepted it and then *he* got the ink onto his own shirt.

Well, that is not clear, is it? What he is saying was that the ink
transferred to his shirt. If it was through no deliberate action of his
own, I don't think you can say 'he got the ink onto his own shirt'.


:: If someone is going to insist I have my hand stamped, I reckon
:: they also have a duty to make sure a) that it is washable and I
:: don't have to wear the mark for days to come b) that it isn't
:: going to cause permanent damage to anything it comes in contact
:: with, such as clothing.

Or you could choose not to have the stamp in the first place?
- If you did *choose* to have the ink stamped onto your hand, you have then
accepted responsibility for that ink

But I haven't accepted responsibility for its damaging my clothing
unless I am aware that it is liable to rub off on to clothing and leave
a mark. And I think it is quite reasonable to expect that ink used for
this purpose should *not* rub off and leave a mark.

...how far can this idiotic compensation
culture go?

I'm entirely with you on the general principle. But I think this case is
different.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"