SKU: 59750327779
car seat vs bassinet in stroller

car seat vs bassinet in stroller Silver Cross Breez Modular Stroller + Bassinet Bundle

$21.51 $23.90
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on realestatemontenegro.me >

Pay in installments of $5.97 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 24 - Jul 29

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

car seat vs bassinet in stroller Silver Cross Breez Modular Stroller + Bassinet BundleSilver Cross Breez Stroller Embrace every special moment with the NEW Silver Cross Breez the mid size, modular stroller that makes parenting a Breez. Compact enough for city living yet tough enough for rural trails, Breez gives you total freedom from day one, adapting effortlessly to whatever your day unfolds. Thoughtfully designed by parents, for parents, its loaded with features you never knew you needed: a folding overnight sleep approved bassinet

Silver Cross Breez Stroller

Embrace every special moment with the NEW Silver Cross Breez – the mid-size, modular stroller that makes parenting a Breez. Compact enough for city living yet tough enough for rural trails, Breez gives you total freedom from day one, adapting effortlessly to whatever your day unfolds. Thoughtfully designed by parents, for parents, it’s loaded with features you never knew you needed: a folding overnight sleep-approved bassinet (sold separately), 2-height elevation system, 22 lbs of storage capacity, seat ventilation, and RideTech multi-terrain wheels. And when the day winds down? Breez stores away like a dream – bassinet or seat still attached – ready for tomorrow’s adventure.

Features

  • Suitable from birth to 55lbs
  • Strolls with bassinet*, newborn apron, rear facing, forward facing or as a travel system*
  • 2-height elevation system brings baby closer in bassinet, stroller or car seat modes
  • Folds one-handed, stands on its own, and carries with a shoulder strap
  • Magnetic Genius 2™ buckle and no-rethread harness for advanced safety and comfort
  • Lie-flat, reversible seat with ventilated seat back, UPF50+ sun peak and crumb-catching, comfort seat liner
  • Adjustable calf support and multi-recline seat positions offer a fully flat recline for extra baby comfort
  • Best in class maneuverability and enhanced suspension with RideTech, multi-terrain wheels
  • Supersized 22 lb capable storage basket
  • Included with purchase: Chassis, seat unit, seat liner, footrest, bumper bar, rain cover that fits both stroller seat and bassinet*

What’s included:

  • Breez stroller, seat liner and rain cover, Bassinet.
  • Included rain cover is compatible with both stroller seat and bassinet.

Ready to stroll from day one
Breez is ready to stroll from newborn to toddler, with a folding, overnight sleep-approved bassinet (sold separately), lie-flat, reversible stroller seat and car seat compatibility. The seat offers day-one comfort with a sculpted crumb-catching seat liner, zip-open ventilation seat back for breezy strolls, and adjustable calf support for growing legs. Transform Breez into a complete newborn travel system by removing the stroller seat using the easy-release memory buttons and attaching the universal car seat adaptors (sold separately), compatible with a range of leading infant car seats.

Game-changing fold
When your day of adventure is complete, Breez stores away like a dream thanks to its agile design and game-changing fold – bassinet or seat still attached. Once folded, there’s a pull-out, cushioned shoulder strap to make transporting the stroller easy, whether you’re climbing stairs or hopping in a uber.

Closer to you
The two-height elevation system keeps baby close whether they’re in the bassinet, reversible seat or a compatible car seat. Perfect for parents of all statures, the two-height system offers easier access and increased interaction with your little one on-the-go.

Pack more, explore more
Heading out on a family trip? Whether it’s snacks, toys, spare clothes and all the other essentials that come along with parenting on-the-go, Breez’s supersized 22 lb capacity basket has room for it all, and some more!

Adventure starts here
Steering between terrains is effortless with Breez’s multi-terrain, lockable RideTech wheels. With responsive, energy-absorbing technology and four-wheel suspension, every ride is smooth, effortless and bump free. And thanks to Breez’s flip flop-friendly brake, there’ll be no more sore toes mid stroll.

An extension of your style
Breez is an effortless extension of your style, crafted with crease-free woven fabric and luxuriously cushioned vegan leather that always looks its best – wherever your stroll takes you. For all-weather comfort, simply extend the oversized UPF50+ hood with its pop-out sun peak and peek window, delivering maximum shade on sunny days and extra protection when the temperature dips.

Specifications

  • Usage: Birth to 55 lbs
  • Stroller Weight: 22.6 lbs
  • Unfolded Dimensions: 28 x 22 x 41
  • Folded Dimensions: 13 x 22 x 26
  • Basket Maximum Capacity: 22 lbs

Silver Cross Breez Compact Bassinet

Create a dreamy sleep space for your newborn wherever your day may unfold with the NEW Silver Cross Breez bassinet. Approved for overnight sleeping, the Breez bassinet brings compact comfort and flexibility from the get-go. The revolutionary bassinet is a storage game-changer, folding effortlessly small while still attached to the stroller frame – ideal for home storage and roadtrip adventures.

Features

  • Suitable from birth to 6 months
  • Overnight sleep approved
  • One-hand compact fold, on and off the chassis
  • Panoramic ventilation panel for cool comfort
  • Naturally antibacterial soft-touch bamboo-lined mattress
  • Full coverage, extending sun hood with UPF50+ finish and airflow window

Game-changing fold
The Breez bassinet is the ultimate storage solution. Designed for life at home and on the move, the Breez bassinet folds in seconds with a simple squeeze of the hand. Whether attached to the stroller or on its own, it collapses effortlessly for compact storage. Perfect for overnight stays and keeping your home clutter-free.

Approved for overnight sleeping
Create a dreamy sleep space for your newborn wherever your day may unfold with the Breez bassinet – approved for overnight sleeping. Its bamboo-lined mattress gently cocoons your newborn, offering naturally antibacterial, hypoallergenic, and temperature-regulating comfort that’s kind to delicate skin. Plus, the zip-open panoramic ventilation panel ensures increased airflow, keeping your little one cool and content on warmer strolls.

Bring baby closer
When attached to the chassis, the Breez bassinet can be adjusted to two heights to keep smiles and chatter within easy reach – ideal for taller parents.

Climate-controlled comfort
For all-season, climate-controlled comfort, unzip the bassinet’s supersized hood and pop-out sun peak for maximum coverage from the sunshine, and extra protection when the temperature dips.

Specifications

  • Usage: Birth to 4-6months (when baby is starting to push up or roll over)
  • Stroller Weight: 9.9 lbs
Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 59750327779

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell car seat vs bassinet in stroller

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.1 ★★★★★
Based on 22 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Chelsea, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
Waukegan, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
B
Verified Purchase
Brenda B.
Bozeman, US
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017
J
Verified Purchase
Jewels
Massapequa, US
★★★★★ 5
Got my 8 year old to read!
Format: Hardcover
My eight year old hated reading and refused to pick up any book, until this arrived in the mail. He as usual refused at first to read it but I made him read a couple of pages, which he did and put it down but the next day he asked to read it and read the entire book in 30 mins. He said he loved it and it was really funny. Already have the 2nd book on its way.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2017

recommand products

Succulent Arrangement
28.27
Luxury Designer's Choice Succulent Arrangement
26.57
String of Pearls (Senecio rowleyanus) – Baton Rouge Succulent Co
26.56
Blooming Live Succulent Arrangement in a Handcrafted Coconut Shell Pot
28.61
String of Pearls Succulent
23.36