Posted on 01/01/2009 2:39:21 PM PST by buccaneer81
My wife and I are thinking about this—but hell, we make and sell baby tye dyes... I guess you can by them but not use them.. :)
by= buy
hopefully it will be fixed......sorry. Why didn’t we hear about this earlier?
Not your fault if some 'irresponsible' parent puts one on their actual child.
Can one still REGIFT?
True enough.
These lawyers in Congress know exactly what they are doing when it comes to writing laws.
Unintended consequences are so last Century - this crap’s professionally crafted to achieve what it achieves.
Heads On Pikes!
-PJ
I want you to know what is happening in the marketplace in direct response to the Falvey Opinion. It is my understanding that Wal-Mart has informed its suppliers of children's products that it intends to return all merchandise, regardless of age, that cannot be proven to comply with the new standards. Supposedly, it intends to complete this transfer by February 10. At least two other major retailers are rumored to have taken a similar position. This tug-of-war over existing inventory is actually a game of "hot potato": whoever ends up with the inventory on February 10 has a massive, perhaps fatal financial problem. Thus, no one is talking about how to sell off existing inventory (the old "yard sale" idea) - everyone is focusing on how to stick the inventory (the problem) with someone else. We are deathly afraid that Wal-Mart's plan will trigger a massive inventory "run on the bank" where all of our dealers will demand to return their unsold inventory, a scenario implying a stand-off between thousands of companies over a financial issue triggered by the Falvey Opinion. As previously noted, it is certainly true that we cannot afford to absorb the hit on our existing inventory. The notion that we could somehow survive the burden of absorbing the entire U.S. supply chain's inventory of our products is nonsensical. If this happens, you should expect widespread corporate bankruptcies. No sane person could argue that Congress "intended" this result. Clearly, Congress in its rush to punish the entire children's products industries (shoes, electronics, clothing, toys, sports equipment, novelties, books, lamps, etc.) for perceived "bad acts" drafted a law without regard to consequences. It's time to speak the truth - this was not intended by Congress because it couldn't have been intended by Congress. If that's so, the Falvey Opinion must be reversed. Thank you for considering my views on this urgent matter. Sincerely, Richard Woldenberg Chairman
http://fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3379
The manufacture of the shirts, intended for children under 12, is required to supply you with a certification statement with each shipment. As a retailer myself this certification statement will be stored/filed on-site. How long I don't know yet?
The dyes on the other hand will be much more difficult. You will either need to send each dye for testing or the manufacture will. In reading the law much of the responsibility falls to "manufactures." Your problem comes from the fact that a dye manufacture could possibly say ...you're problem. Instead of the reasonable assessment that dyes made for crafters need testing. Yet, they will need to supply that certification to major clothing manufactures anyway...so the dye manufacture has to test and certify it anyway.
I do see much of this along the lines of getting a MSDS, Material Safety Date Sheet, like industry was forced to years ago.
Except the thing is—lead have been prohibited in US Dyes and inks for some nigh 30 years now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.