AHI in AR Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Gotta get those state government revenues up somehow! http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/c ... ttlement_o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Right. It isn't about a violation that resulted in damage to consumers, it's about milking the cow. Dang bastards. The least the 'weights and measures' folks could have done is remind the store of the importance of the adjective 'nominal' as in 'nominal dimensions'. Instead, they did the equivalent of charging 1.6 million to tell them that. Marc EDIT: Grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjr6550 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 You are right. California seems to delight in stupid things like this. The Attorney General acts like this is some type of new think Lowes decides to do. 2x4s have not been 2" by 4" for about 75 years. Maybe Lowes should have shown them Table 3 from the PS-20 standard. Minimum size of a 2x4: 1-1/2"by 3-1/2", just like it has been since I think the 1971 (or earlier standard). The only thing that surprises me is that they did not run over the HD and fine them too. http://www.alsc.org/greenbook%20collection/ps20.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 The title is so damn accurate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 Well, Guess every California home inspector that has ever reported that the home he inspected was built with 2 by 4's is going to be in some lawyer's sights now because he will have lied to his clients and caused them to unknowingly buy a home with framing members that are smaller than they thought they were getting. It will be about safety as the lawyer convince everyone that the home is not as structurally strong as the poor buyer thought it was going to be; especially in earthquake country. It's a unicorn lawsuit. Throw spaghetti at the wall to see if it will stick. If it does, it will open up pandora's box the way the $34M award for so-called "Toxic Mold" did in Texas. We never hear about how the judge in that mold case vacated $30M of that award because they hadn't ever proven that "toxic mold" existed or that the so-called victim had been sickened by mold (Since she displayed classic stress symptoms). There will be a rash of lawsuits like this as lawyers hope to find the unicorn that will fill their bank accounts and enable them to retire and then eventually it will fade and never be heard about again. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted September 15, 2014 Report Share Posted September 15, 2014 As is so often the case, the press got it wrong. Here's the actual injunction: http://cdnassets.hw.net/8f/fa/17292adc4 ... gement.pdf As far as I can see, they were selling wood that was less than 1.5x3.5 and calling it a 2x4. The injunction clearly allows them to use nominal dimensions in their labeling and advertising as long as the product meets the commonly understood actual dimensions for that product. If they want to sell something that doesn't meet the commonly understood actual dimensions, then they can't label or advertise the wood using nominal dimensions; they have to use actual dimensions. This seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted September 15, 2014 Report Share Posted September 15, 2014 Interesting. The press got it entirely wrong. Lowes was trying to remake the standard without telling anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjr6550 Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 As is so often the case, the press got it wrong. Here's the actual injunction: http://cdnassets.hw.net/8f/fa/17292adc4 ... gement.pdf As far as I can see, they were selling wood that was less than 1.5x3.5 and calling it a 2x4. The injunction clearly allows them to use nominal dimensions in their labeling and advertising as long as the product meets the commonly understood actual dimensions for that product. If they want to sell something that doesn't meet the commonly understood actual dimensions, then they can't label or advertise the wood using nominal dimensions; they have to use actual dimensions. This seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling. That would seen reasonable, but it is not clear to me that that is what Lowes was doing. I suppose saying they are not allowed to do that implies that they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 The article like most is extremely short in details. Even one example of the exact dependency/variation in expected standard would have made a tremendous difference in quality of the article. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but maybe Home Depot had something to do with it. Naaaaaaa they wouldn't be that devious. Nor have people in their pockets. 50 years ago I learned the differences in sizing of wood. Even with nominal sizing standards the actual dimensions vary by mill and processor. So what happened with Lowes begs for quite a few questions to be answered. But then it is Calf and anything goes there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 If that's the case, I'd suspect the mill operator. Mill operators have known for more than a century that milled wood shrinks and thus the nominal sizes. A miller cutting smaller lumber could increase his bottom line substantially over a year by getting one or two extra 2 by 4s out of every trunk. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjr6550 Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 It would be interesting to know ho far off the dimension were, and for how many pieces. Also, kiln-dried wood is size based on a 19% moisture content. If for some reason the wood has a significantly lower moisture content it may have been sized correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Seems that everything in the Link in the OP is just a repeat of the same information all stemming from one Marin Co press release. http://www.marincounty.org/main/county- ... settlement The final judgement : http://cdnassets.hw.net/8f/fa/17292adc4 ... gement.pdf Can not find any information/detail on the actual complaint/problem found with Lowe's. Was it their signage, wording, actual product or something else? My interpenetration is that it boils down to Dumber meeting Dumbest . A sign says 2 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft. Prime Kiln Dried SPF and we all know what it means. We don't need the sign to say[ "Commonly described as" 2 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft. Prime Kiln Dried SPF] as part of the signage. There is no misunderstanding unless you just called out of a cave or live in Calif. Really think it's just a pissy little bureaucrat looking to obtain a gold star to justify their job. http://www.sbcmag.info/news/2014/sep/di ... -using-2x4 "The complaint, flied in the Superior Court of California for Marin County, referred to advertising of dimenstional products on in-store shelf tags, flyers, signage, newspapers and on the Internet. The accepted actual size of a softwood 2x4 is 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. In other words, if the 2x4 measured 1 in. by 3 in., then you?d have a problem,? Perez said. In California, it's not permitted to use the same nominal terms to describe composite dimensional products. These composite products require actual dimensions to be used in labeling. " "Lowe's spokeswoman said the dimensions of the company's products are not changing -- just the labeling. Using the 2x4 as an example, ?our products have always measured 1.5 inches x 3.5 inches, said Amanda Manna. The change we are making is that product information will now include the actual dimensions of a product (example, 1.5 inches x 3.5 inches), in addition to the commonly used measurement (example, 2 inches x 4 inches)." http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/d ... riptions_o "...problem arose when California inspectors found that Lowe's advertised dimensional building products under nominal descriptions when they didn't actually fit the standards set forth by the NIST. Some of those descriptions, ?were provided to Lowe's by the manufacturers or other suppliers of the lumber." "...if a dimensional building product fails to meet the NIST nominal standards, or lacks a nominal dimension standard?as is the case with composite wood?you must include actual dimensions in the advertisement." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 I see it as Lowes was selling lumber that was a smaller dimension that most likely cost them less than the larger standard dimension. This could allow them to market and offer the lumber at a lower price than the competition who was selling the standard size lumber. Yes, the is deceitful advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.