Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem was that Lowes was not selling a 2x4 but a 1.5 x 3.5. Lowe's therefore violated California's truth in advertising law regarding building materials. According to the article you cite, Lowe's agreed it violated the law and thought the settlement fair. So what's the controversy?
The problem was that Lowes was not selling a 2x4 but a 1.5 x 3.5. Lowe's therefore violated California's truth in advertising law regarding building materials. According to the article you cite, Lowe's agreed it violated the law and thought the settlement fair. So what's the controversy?
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
A 2x4 has never been 2 inches by 4 inches by whatever length you wish, unless you refer to 'raw lumber' which never sold in stores.
The sizes refer to the UNFINISHED size of the raw stock - and even THAT was not a full 2 inches by 4 inches. That was the distance the cutting blades were apart, meaning one blade width less than that was the actual dimensions.
No 2x4 in my entire life time has been 2 inches by 4 inches. And anyone not knowing that should never be buying lumber in ANY store, not just Lowes.
The problem was that Lowe's was not selling a 2x4 but a 1.5 x 3.5. Lowe's therefore violated California's truth in advertising law regarding building materials. According to the article you cite, Lowe's agreed it violated the law and thought the settlement fair. So what's the controversy?
I think the law suit itself is controversial, the only reason Lowe's settled is because it was cheaper than litigating, which would cost 5 times as much. Lawyers make me sick!
A 2x4 has never been 2 inches by 4 inches by whatever length you wish, unless you refer to 'raw lumber' which never sold in stores.
The sizes refer to the UNFINISHED size of the raw stock - and even THAT was not a full 2 inches by 4 inches. That was the distance the cutting blades were apart, meaning one blade width less than that was the actual dimensions.
No 2x4 in my entire life time has been 2 inches by 4 inches. And anyone not knowing that should never be buying lumber in ANY store, not just Lowes.
Read the law. It is clear what Lowes had to do, how 2x4s were to be marketed and Lowes violated the law. Lowes agreed it violated the law. Your entire argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
At the Lowe's I go to here in Texas they have long had a sign noting the 'actual' size of the piece of lumber. I can't imagine why they weren't doing such in California (note that part of the Court's order was to display such information).
I agree with others: I also can't imagine builders not knowing the actual, in practice, dimensions of lumber after it has been dried.
Read the law. It is clear what Lowes had to do, how 2x4s were to be marketed and Lowes violated the law. Lowes agreed it violated the law. Your entire argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You do realize, don't you, that not just lowes, but EVERYBODY who sold lumber sells them by their true name , 2x4?
You do realize, don't you, that fining Lowes 1.6 million due to the complete demonstrated ignorance of fools, and judges going along with this, means none of these people are intelligent or informed enough to continue the human race?
so some lawyers managed to make over a half million off of peoples ignorance who obviously never picked up a hammer
brilliant
btw, how is this PAOC?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.