Saturday, October 04, 2014
Lowe's 2x4 Case Documents Add to Allegations About Undersized Lumber
Remodeling: Previously unreported documents in the Lowe's 2x4 case, combined with additional comments by a key attorney in the case, have shed new light on the role that nonstandard lumber played in what ultimately led to a $1.6 million in fines against the home center's California operations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Even though I heard about this case several weeks ago, I still find it absolutely absurd. If you're in charge of building, or remodeling, on a large standard such that there's potential for a 1.6 million dollar muck up, you should damn well know what the actual size of a 2x4 is! It doesn't help that this article makes the report about as clear as mud, good thing I had already done some previous reading on this, and this writer makes things about this case even more ambiguous that they already were. One thing that remains unclear completely unclear: is Lowe's selling their 2x4 lumber at a smaller size than 1.5x3.5? Or are people honestly expecting to get a piece of lumber dimensioned at 2 inches by 4 inches? Either way, this just makes it even more abundantly clear that we have too many people out there undertaking jobs that they are quite obviously unqualified for.
This article did clarify that the issue with Lowe's lumber supplies is that they were not selling actual 1.5"X3.5" but across an entire supplies order people were getting varying actual size and many of which did not meet the minimum standard. When I saw the first article about this law suit and I was blown away that they were actually being sued for people not knowing that a 2X4 was not a 2X4. This makes a lot more sense and presents a grave concern with such a company not being accountable or responsible for their material. These new details also clarify that it is not an issue of Lowe's being willing ignorant but instead that they are not doing their due diligence of ensuring that they are selling proper materials that meet certain standards. I am still curious though where the beginning of this line of confusion started, who is supplying lowe's with this improperly cut and sized lumber?
Reading Sean's comment above was more clear than reading the article that it's responding to. I previously understood that Lowe's was being sued because 2x4s aren't 2x4, so I decided to read this article because it's been a while since the lawsuit initially happened and I wonder what new developments had happened. The article did a good job letting me know that the whole actual nominal thing wasn't that big a part in the lawsuit and that it was something else, but after that it did absolutely nothing for me. It wasn't all that clear or concise, and left me wondering what exactly it was trying to say after I finished reading it. Reading Nick's comment let me know that I wasn't the only person who thought that the article could use some clarity, and thankfully Sean was there to enlighten me. So thank you, Remodeling, for taking an entire article for telling me that Lowes was sued for something else, and thank you Sean for telling me what it was sued for in just a couple sentences.
I think that this complaint against Lowes may actually be more valid than I initially thought. At first, it seemed that the only complaint was that Lowes used nominal dimensions to describe lumber, a practice which I understood to be legal and not deceptive at all.
It seems that actually Lowes may have used nominal dimensions to describe more than just softwood dimensional lumber. Sure, you should probably be able guess that something labeled as a 2x4 likely has the same dimensions as a 2x4, or at least verify the measurements of something before you use it, but I suppose I understand the complaint. I wouldn’t go as far as the plaintiff in the case to state that Lowes was willfully and knowingly deceptive, but I suppose I understand the desire to get them to advertise a little more accurately.
This is a very curious topic. When I was little--pretty little--I remembering being confused about why the actual dimensions of lumber did not meet their nominal sizes. It was something I had to learn and now it makes a lot of sense. I can see how the average user may not understand this but it did not seem like this issue should be worth $1.6 mil. After reading this article though, it seems, although the article was very confusing, that the main issue is not the discrepancy between actual and nominal dimensions but rather an inconsistent and fraudulent product that met neither standard. That puts the case into perspective and makes the judicial not as ludicrous as it first seemed.
This article seriously changed my opinion about this case. When I first heard about it I, like Sean, thought it was completely ridiculous. Selling things in nominal sizes is common and expected, and anybody buying lumber should have known better before stepping into a store. Now that it has been revealed that the issue was not nominal vs. actual but rather actual vs. expected actual I am a lot less peeved at the government and more-so at Lowes. If I buy a 2x4 I want it to be ~1.5x3.5 and if there is any significant difference I could very well not be able to use the lumber.
Post a Comment