Raise Your Hand if You Didn't Know That 4 X 4 Lumber is Actually 3 1/2 X 3 1/2

[Revoltingest]

So have the sign say "2x4 (nominal)."

Apparently they'll have to begin doing that in order to avoid being sued
by clueless dolts & their ambulance chasers. I'd go further.....requiring
all customers to go thru a standard terminology training program.
Normal customers could test out of it. Only then could they be permitted
to buy any goods.

I think you know as well as I do that "hamburger" refers to "Hamburg"... as in the style of the patty.

But what if some schlub expects ham?
After all, it says "hamburger".
Or would they expect that a "hamburger" is a person from Hamburg?

Then that could have the same issues as the wood sizes.

Shhhhhh! Don't post too loudly.
The lawyers might hear that what has been standard for a
couple hundred years could mislead the extremely ignorant.
(Henry Maudslay is likely spinning in his grave.)

Makes sense, since "#10" doesn't mean "10 inches"... nominal or actual.

To you.
But to a professional victim with Saul Goodman for a lawyer.....

.., and isn't marketed as such.

A 2x4 isn't marketed as actual 2" by 4".
It's obviously smaller when you see one.

Giving people extra doesn't generally end up with your customers suing you.

You'd never make it as a lawyer....although you're coming close.
If customers expect exactly 10' long, then they'll have to trim every single one.
If they don't own saws, the 2x4 will be useless to them.
The Lional Hutzs of the country will smell money!

Yep. That could be problematic, too.

In a country filled with idiots, victims, lawyers & the kind of politicians we elect....you're right.

Tell me....do you agree with the plaintiff?

 

[Skwim]

It's worth pointing out here that Lowe's lost a similar lawsuit three years ago:

Lowe’s ordered to pay 2x4 settlement

Menard's and Home Depot should have known this was coming. They could have adjusted their product descriptions; they chose not to.

It's silly - anyone who's been even a little bit exposed to carpentry knows that the nominal sizes aren't the actual sizes. Still... after that first lawsuit, they should have known better.

Absolutely!

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely!

.

Not necessarily.
Court has a major random element component, & companies shouldn't conduct business in
order to accomodate every ruling. It matters if the ruling applied to an individual or a class of
plaintiffs...if the amount is large or small...if it's small claims, district, circuit, appeals, etc.
If the judgement doesn't set a precedent, then it's wise to not change standard language that
everyone uses....other than the few ignorant fools & predatory suers. Menards would become
a laughing stock if they sold a 2x4 as a 1.5"x3.5".
(Just looking at a 2x4, it's obvious that it's less than 2.00" by 4.00".)
Without info about the case, we don't know its validity or significance.

Then, there's the question of loss.
Why buy a 2x4?
It's not about volume, ie, to get an 8 square inch cross section. One buys it to get a
1.5" x 3.5" stud, which is compatible with standard walls. If they sold a 2x4 which
were actually 2.00" x 4.00", then it would be incompatible with all construction done
during my entire lifetime. Were it the actual size, it would require being cut down to
be useable, which would cause an expensive loss to the customer.
Lawyers would salivate at the prospect.
We can't have that....floors would become slippery.
And remodel contractors would be especiallly angry....& higher priced.

 

[VioletVortex]

That doesn't surprise me, maybe I should scorn myself for being obligated to raise my hand.

 

[PureX]

Another example of how we are living in an ocean of lies, and don't even realize it. And why our culture is collapsing into the abyss of it's own corruption and deceit.

 

[Skwim]

Came across this while on the Home Depot page

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

MIKHAIL ABRAMOV, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals,
.........................................................Plaintiff,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
.....................................................Defendant
source​

Plaintiff's Allegations begin on page 6.


.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another factor is that Home Depot, Lowe's & Menards are all quite willing to accept
returned lumber. Don't like your 2x4? Just take it back & get a refund Then you
can buy a 4x6 (which is 3.5" x 5.5"), & rip it down on a table saw to 2.00" by 4.00".
(I regularly return material which is excess or bought in error. No problems.)

No honest rational person would ever file a suit over the notion that "2x4" is just a
label, ie, nominal size.

 

[Skwim]

Another factor is that Home Depot, Lowe's & Menards are all quite willing to accept
returned lumber. Don't like your 2x4? Just take it back & get a refund Then you
can buy a 4x6 (which is 3.5" x 5.5"), & rip it down on a table saw to 2.00" by 4.00".
(I regularly return material which is excess or bought in error. No problems.)

No honest rational person would ever file a suit over the notion that "2x4" is just a
label, ie, nominal size.

Not necessarily.
Court has a major random element component, & companies shouldn't conduct business in
order to accomodate every ruling. It matters if the ruling applied to an individual or a class of
plaintiffs...if the amount is large or small...if it's small claims, district, circuit, appeals, etc.
If the judgement doesn't set a precedent, then it's wise to not change standard language that
everyone uses....other than the few ignorant fools & predatory suers. Menards would become
a laughing stock if they sold a 2x4 as a 1.5"x3.5".
(Just looking at a 2x4, it's obvious that it's less than 2.00" by 4.00".)
Without info about the case, we don't know its validity or significance.

Then, there's the question of loss.
Why buy a 2x4?
It's not about volume, ie, to get an 8 square inch cross section. One buys it to get a
1.5" x 3.5" stud, which is compatible with standard walls. If they sold a 2x4 which
were actually 2.00" x 4.00", then it would be incompatible with all construction done
during my entire lifetime. Were it the actual size, it would require being cut down to
be useable, which would cause an expensive loss to the customer.
Lawyers would salivate at the prospect.
We can't have that....floors would become slippery.
And remodel contractors would be especiallly angry....& higher priced.

Ah, don't know if it makes any difference to you, but he was looking for a 4 X 4 X 6'.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, don't know if it makes any difference to you, but he was looking for a 4 X 4 X 6'.

.

It makes no difference.
If a 4x4 weren't 3.5" x 3.5", it wouldn't fit all the parts designed for it, eg, post attachment devices.
The slime ball could've just returned it, & bought a 6x6 to rip down to 4.00" by 4.00".
He could also go to a mill to buy exactly what he wants.
Someone who knows nothing of construction shouldn't be buying construction materials.

No wonder lumber is so expensive.
So much of the price finances lawyers' boat payments.

Hey, if you ever buy a tarp, you'll find that the size listed is actually the material size
before the edges are sewn over to strengthen them. So the finished size is smaller.
Some lawyer will possibly get rich over that....if not already.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily.
Court has a major random element component, & companies shouldn't conduct business in
order to accomodate every ruling. It matters if the ruling applied to an individual or a class of
plaintiffs...if the amount is large or small...if it's small claims, district, circuit, appeals, etc.
If the judgement doesn't set a precedent, then it's wise to not change standard language that
everyone uses....other than the few ignorant fools & predatory suers. Menards would become
a laughing stock if they sold a 2x4 as a 1.5"x3.5".
(Just looking at a 2x4, it's obvious that it's less than 2.00" by 4.00".)
Without info about the case, we don't know its validity or significance.

Then, there's the question of loss.
Why buy a 2x4?
It's not about volume, ie, to get an 8 square inch cross section. One buys it to get a
1.5" x 3.5" stud, which is compatible with standard walls. If they sold a 2x4 which
were actually 2.00" x 4.00", then it would be incompatible with all construction done
during my entire lifetime. Were it the actual size, it would require being cut down to
be useable, which would cause an expensive loss to the customer.
Lawyers would salivate at the prospect.
We can't have that....floors would become slippery.
And remodel contractors would be especiallly angry....& higher priced.

Nobody's suggesting any of that, but thanks for the trip through your imagination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Revolitingest

Here's how the Home Depot addressed the issue (at least online):

2 in. x 4 in. x 96 in. Premium Kiln-Dried Whitewood Stud

Description
[...]

• Common: 2 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft.; Actual: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 96 in.

[...]
Specifications:
[...]
Actual product Length (ft.) :
8
Actual product thickness (in.) :
1.5
Actual product width (in.) :
3.5
[...]
Nominal Product H x W (In.) :
2x4
Nominal Product Length (ft.) :
8
Nominal Product Thickness (in.) :
2
Nominal product width (in.) :
4

2 in. x 4 in. x 96 in. Premium Kiln-Dried Whitewood Stud-161640 - The Home Depot


Please explain how Home Depot's product description confused you. Please explain how this product would need any more prep work than an 8' pine 2x4 from any other lumber store.

 

[jonathan180iq]

150 years ago a 2x4 was BIGGER than 2 inches x 4 inches. I know because I've done remodeling on very old homes. My understanding is that a lot of it has to do with economics. As building practices have become more advanced, structurally sound buildings can be built using smaller dimensions of wood.

Cool OP!

They were also made out of real hardwoods. I've remodeled a few homes built before 1950 and you couldn't knock them down with a tank...

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody's suggesting any of that, but thanks for the trip through your imagination.

You're lucky.
That was just a teensie weensie sampling of the horrors running thru me noggin.

 

[Revoltingest]

150 years ago a 2x4 was BIGGER than 2 inches x 4 inches. I know because I've done remodeling on very old homes. My understanding is that a lot of it has to do with economics. As building practices have become more advanced, structurally sound buildings can be built using smaller dimensions of wood.

I've done a whole lotta remodeling work on houses with old lumber. (Me own shack was built around 1870, & then molested over its lifetime.) The wood sizes were non-standard, the species varied greatly in strength & workability, & no 2 boards were the same size. Modern lumber is a comparative joy to work with. Sure, sure, it's only plain sawn, which is more prone to warping, but it's predictable & strong because species are limited to SPF (spruce, pine & fir) & they're kiln dried to exact dimensions. And thank Cthulu that we now use platform instead of balloon framing...a big improvement which is suited to modern dimensional lumber.

Another modern advance (beginning in the 1930s) is that construction workers can communicate using 3 Stooges sound effects.

 

[Revoltingest]

They were also made out of real hardwoods. I've remodeled a few homes built before 1950 and you couldn't knock them down with a tank...

I've worked on many too, & I find them less structurally stable than more modern construction. This isn't just due to innovations like hurricane ties, joist hangers, nail guns, glulam beams, trusses, OSB, etc. It's also a result of better foundation standards. Much of my work on old houses was dealing with uneven sinking of walls, especially load bearing walls in the middle of the house. (I've had many doors with a 1" drop from the hinge to the jamb side, & annoyingly tilted floors.)

I wonder if any gun owner ever sued over his 38 special ammo only being 0.357" diameter?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anybody who doesn't know what the standard size of lumber actually is, probably has no need to work with it. If you do, then you quickly learn what standard sizes actually are, and you move on with life ("oh, I didn't know 4 actually meant 3.5. Now, I know").

If they actually started making them 2x4, it would cause a lot of problems with people trying to replace old 2x4s (4x4s, whatever). Calling them 3.5x3.5 serves no useful purpose other than to arbitrarily change a standard naming convention that's been around forever and to make the label unnecessarily unwieldy.

This has got to be one of the dumbest lawsuits I've heard about it awhile and a sign of the crookedness of lawyers, who will be the only ones to profit from this ridiculous, time and money wasting exercise.

 

[Revoltingest]

I ran across another dasterdly fraud.....
A 24" bicycle wheel (1.5" wide) is only 23" in diameter!

More info on bike tire fraud....
Tire Sizing Systems

 

[Wu Wei]

Raise Your Hand if You Didn't Know That 4 X 4 Lumber is Actually 3 1/2 X 3 1/2

Seriously!?

wow...even bears know that

 

[Revoltingest]

Future headline......
LAWYER FILES CLASS ACTION SUIT!
ALL DAY SUCKER LASTED ONLY 2 HOURS

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I discovered my box of "Froot Loops" cereal contains absolutely no fruit. I can't tell you the mental anguish and suffering I've endured since finding this out. Somebody has to pay.