Baby bouncer: fit for the purpose it was manufactured for?

[macneil]

We have a Svan baby bouncer, made of curved maple wood with satin walls and seat. It's very pretty. The baby can't bounce it herself, despite being a 15 pound lardarse. I used to bounce it from the front, although the instructions say to bounce from the base, because if I'm sitting on the floor with her, it's impossible to reach round and bounce from the base, and easier to push from the front, which a 22 pound baby (max weight) would more or less be able to do, weight-wise. But perhaps I was a little rough. But I don't think I was very rough, I was actively avoiding giving my baby whiplash. I was just bouncing it. From the front.

Anyway, the maple cracked and it's in pieces. British law (sale of goods act) says goods should be suitable for the purpose they were manufactured for, and I don't think I'd have any qualms about walking into a British shop and asking them what the hey? But I'm in Canada and don't know the law so well. Law aside, would you take it back? It was pretty expensive, about £85. I did not operate as specified. But I just pushed it back into the bounce. So I don't know.

www.svanusa.com/bouncer.cfm

Oh, up to 30 pounds, even. It's not like I got in it and tried to rock myself to sleep.

well it looks swanky eniough for the manufacturers to be intrerested in their reputations - think you have a good chance

I would. It shouldn't break!!!

yes take it back, law wouldn't be that different in canada

Take it back but don't tell them you bounced it from the front. How will they know and anyway it's crap if the baby can't bounce herself

Each Canadian province has its own Sale of Goods Act, but I think that they are (apart from Quebec)pretty similar. Here is the legislation for one province:

Implied conditions as to quality or fitness

16 Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows,

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for the purpose: Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose,

(b) where goods are bought by description from the seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality: Provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed,

(c) an implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade,

(d) an express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.

Oh thank you! Well that seems the same as our law (although I can of course go on and lie like shoppingbags suggests!) This is what happens when one's husband buys a poncey bentwood chair that subtly quivers rather than a nice lively one that actually bounces, because he thinks it's chic.