rights under the Sale of Goods Act

Kristok

I was in game henry street today and the guy in the que in front of me (eastern european sounding) was told to by that manager to contact atari if his game wasnt working once he opened it because its a pc game its nothing to do with them. Surly once he has a reciept he is entitled to a refund or replacement if its not working under the law, well from what i learned in bueiness class in school. He then to my shock turned to another guy behind the counter and said I bet he stole that after the guy walked away and the guy with the game was being really nice about it and all. It really looked like he was fobbing him off just bacuse he didnt speak great english.

[mod edit: this post and a number of replies were moved here, the above paragraph and consumers’ rights under the Sale of Goods Act is the topic of this thread, the poster can if s/he wishes copy/move the following paragraph to the old thread about the retailer Game]

I had another lovely experience with that manager when I got up to the counter when I wanted to return an unwanted ps2 christmas present still in the shrink wrapping. He told me they dont give refunds after 10 days he would swap it for another game but no refund. I even said i wasnt bothered with cash he could put credit on my game card he said no I said we dont do refunds after 10 days with a really annoyed attitude. Took the game back wasnt going to look for something to replace it with and que again, was a good 10 min queing in the first place. Dosnt say anything about that on the reciept going to email their head office and ask for info on their returns policy hope I can go back in with an email and demand my money back the guy was an absolute a$$hole about it. They obviously dont do secret shopper in game if he is getting away with talking down to people like this, I can understand being pissed off with your job but taking it out on customers is not on.

flogen

Kristok wrote:

I was in game henry street today and the guy in the que in front of me (eastern european sounding) was told to by that manager to contact atari if his game wasnt working once he opened it because its a pc game its nothing to do with them. Surly once he has a reciept he is entitled to a refund or replacement if its not working under the law, well from what i learned in bueiness class in school. He then to my shock turned to another guy behind the counter and said I bet he stole that after the guy walked away and the guy with the game was being really nice about it and all. It really looked like he was fobbing him off just bacuse he didnt speak great english.

Under Irish law you are entitled to a replacement of a faulty item (once it was faulty when bought, not when you used it as a frisbee). generally, unless it's obvious a game has been mistreated by the owner or is outside the 30 day limit for exchanges, they'll be treated well enough. That doesn't include by this asshat.
As for the comment to the staff member, just plain ignorance. I've seen scumbags come in and get aggressive because I won't give them money back for an item they don't have a reciept for and thought that they might be dodgy, but if they're being nice and have a reciept then why would think anything bad of them?

I had another lovely experience with that manager when I got up to the counter when I wanted to return an unwanted ps2 christmas present still in the shrink wrapping. He told me they dont give refunds after 10 days he would swap it for another game but no refund. I even said i wasnt bothered with cash he could put credit on my game card he said no I said we dont do refunds after 10 days with a really annoyed attitude. Took the game back wasnt going to look for something to replace it with and que again, was a good 10 min queing in the first place. Dosnt say anything about that on the reciept going to email their head office and ask for info on their returns policy hope I can go back in with an email and demand my money back the guy was an absolute a$$hole about it. They obviously dont do secret shopper in game if he is getting away with talking down to people like this, I can understand being pissed off with your job but taking it out on customers is not on.

Well game policy used to be that at christmas they'd extend the return time from 10 days to 10 days after christmas or new years, no matter when the game was bought (well, from december 1st or something). Not sure what it is now but I think you'd be entitled to an exchange, especially considering it's still wrapped.. you would need the reciept though.

Game do do secret shopper, but only once a year, I think.

And for the record shops are not obliged to give refunds on anything, but most do (well, most used to).

sprinkles

flogen wrote:

And for the record shops are not obliged to give refunds on anything, but most do (well, most used to).

Correct. A little known fact but retailers AREN'T obliged to refund.

On a previous point however:

consumer rights wrote:

Return the goods to the supplier who sold it to you (you should not return the goods to the manufacturer)

It's all on there:

http://oasis.gov.ie

steviec

sprinkles wrote:

Correct. A little known fact but retailers AREN'T obliged to refund.

Depends on the situation. If you change your mind they're not obliged, and they like to blur the line when it comes to PC games (it doesn't work on YOUR PC but it isn't faulty)

But if they sell you a damaged item they are obliged to refund you. In the case of PC games, even if the game isn't faulty, if it doesn't work on your PC and your PC matches the requirements on the box(this is important, obviously), you are entitled to a refund regardless of what they say. I had a situation with Maplin selling me RAM before that wasn't faulty, but didn't work with the motherboard they told me it would work with(it fit and everything but the timings were off), it took e-mails to the department of consumer affairs and a threat of taking them to the small claims court to eventually get my money back.

Most shops go way beyond the customer's statutory rights anyway as a matter of customer service, there's always the odd exception though.

sprinkles

steviec wrote:

Depends on the situation. If you change your mind they're not obliged, and they like to blur the line when it comes to PC games (it doesn't work on YOUR PC but it isn't faulty)

But if they sell you a damaged item they are obliged to refund you. In the case of PC games, even if the game isn't faulty, if it doesn't work on your PC and your PC matches the requirements on the box(this is important, obviously), you are entitled to a refund regardless of what they say. I had a situation with Maplin selling me RAM before that wasn't faulty, but didn't work with the motherboard they told me it would work with(it fit and everything but the timings were off), it took e-mails to the department of consumer affairs and a threat of taking them to the small claims court to eventually get my money back.

Most shops go way beyond the customer's statutory rights anyway as a matter of customer service, there's always the odd exception though.

I would have thought that too but if you read up the consumer rights it says that no retailed is obliged to refund you even if the product is faulty. Maybe I'm missing something as I thought they had to refund you but thats what I found.

steviec

sprinkles wrote:

I would have thought that too but if you read up the consumer rights it says that no retailed is obliged to refund you even if the product is faulty. Maybe I'm missing something as I thought they had to refund you but thats what I found.

Well I don't still have the e-mail, but I was told(by the office of the director of consumer affairs) that I was entitled to a refund or replacement(customer's choice) if the item isn't fit for the purpose intended.

I was reading up oasis.gov.ie though and it seems to agree with you. Strange...

Triton

steviec wrote:

Well I don't still have the e-mail, but I was told(by the office of the director of consumer affairs) that I was entitled to a refund or replacement(customer's choice) if the item isn't fit for the purpose intended.

I was reading up oasis.gov.ie though and it seems to agree with you. Strange...

You are under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act.

flogen

From what I have been told and have seen, stores are obliged to provide a replacement of a faulty item, but they don't have to refund you.

As for PC games not working because of your PC, I certainly don't think that's true, mainly because in Game the customer is asked to confirm specs, if they don't know the staff don't make any promises and explain the policy (ok, replace what they do with what they should do, and what I would have done).

The Maplins thing though, if they told you it would work (and if you gave them all the correct info) then they're just idiots.
I'd imagine however that Maplins only refunded on that basis and/or out of customer service issues rather than legal. In Game if you bleet enough to Head office they'll over look all of their policies, on PC return, 10 day return etc., it's annoying as fúck and makes staff look incompetent when you tell a customer "the policy is x,y and z" (because it is) and then head office ring you and say "ignore what we told you, do what they say".

steviec

http://www.odca.ie/cfmdocs/c_query/goods_docs3.cfm

Your rights when things go wrong.

If goods are not of merchantable quality or are not fit for their purpose or are not as described the consumer is entitled to a remedy.

If the reason for the complaint is not trivial and is discovered soon after purchase, the consumer is entitled to reject the goods and insist on a full refund provided prompt action is action is taken.

If the goods have been used for some time, or if there is undue delay in making the complaint, or if there is reason to believe that the goods have been accepted, the consumer's entitlement, at best, may be to a repair or to a partial refund.

There are no hard and fast rules as each case has to be considered on its merits.

Credit notes.

Notices saying that only credit notes will be given have no legal effect. Where a retailer accepts a complaint as valid the consumer can refuse a credit note and insist on a refund, or, as appropriate, a replacement of the goods.

monument

sprinkles wrote:

Correct. A little known fact but retailers AREN'T obliged to refund.

sprinkles wrote:

it says that no retailed is obliged to refund you even if the product is faulty.

flogen wrote:

but they don't have to refund you.

This is simply not true.

This is back by the links Steviec posted above, and I have posted similar links before. If anyone posts to the contrary and does not back their claims up with links, they are very much in danger of being banned for repeating bs (although saying 'such and so disagrees', or 'I've been told' is ok).

Lemlin

monument wrote:

This is simply not true.

This is back by the links Steviec posted above, and I have posted similar links before. If anyone posts to the contrary and does not back their claims up with links, they are very much in danger of being banned for repeating bs (although saying 'such and so disagrees', or 'I've been told' is ok).

Well said. Stores have got away with crap like this for too long. If you buy a good that doesn't meet its requirements under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, you are entitled to a full refund, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

This also includes sales people giving you incorrect information. The good must be "as described".

sprinkles

monument wrote:

This is simply not true.

This is back by the links Steviec posted above, and I have posted similar links before. If anyone posts to the contrary and does not back their claims up with links, they are very much in danger of being banned for repeating bs (although saying 'such and so disagrees', or 'I've been told' is ok).

So ban me then, but first see the link below, which I've already posted and quoted.

http://oasis.gov.ie/consumer_affairs/consumer_rights_and_protection/consumers_and_the_law_in_ireland.html


Ps: I was surprised to find this as I was initially convinced that retailers did have to provide a refund.

Hugh Hefner

sprinkles wrote:

http://oasis.gov.ie/consumer_affairs/consumer_rights_and_protection/consumers_and_the_law_in_ireland.html

Eh, that says the same as steviec's stuff.

sprinkles

What it says is:

If things go wrong

If you have a problem with an item that you have bought it is always the seller who should put things right. As a general rule, the seller can either repair or replace the item. Alternatively, they can refund the costs of the item or service to the consumer.

If you are not satisfied with the quality of goods or services you can:

* Return the goods to the supplier who sold it to you (you should not return the goods to the manufacturer)
* Act as soon as you can – a delay can indicate that you have accepted faulty goods or services
* Do not attempt to repair the item yourself or give it to anyone else to repair it
* Make sure that you have a proof of purchase (a receipt, cheque stub, credit card statement or invoice)

You have no grounds for redress if

* You were told about the defect before you bought the item (for example, if the goods were marked 'shopsoiled')
* You examined the item before you bought it and should have seen the defect
* You bought the item knowing that it wasn’t fit for what you wanted it to do
* You broke or damaged the product
* You made a mistake when buying the item (for example, if you bought an item of clothing thinking it was black when it is actually navy)
* You change your mind

Retailers are not obliged to give refunds or credit notes under the above circumstances even if you show proof of purchase.

sprinkles

Read it through again, still can't find the section where it says a refund is a requirement. I could be wrong (hopefully I am tbh)

Hugh Hefner

Well yeah, under the above circumstances, which include you breaking the thing yourself. Basically if it's their fault they are obliged, which is what people have been saying the whole time. I don't think steviec was arguing that they have to give you your money back if you smack your stuff with a baseball bat.

sprinkles

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Well yeah, under the above circumstances, which include you breaking the thing yourself. Basically if it's their fault they are obliged, which is what people have been saying the whole time. I don't think steviec was arguing that they have to give you your money back if you smack your stuff with a baseball bat.

Not talking about breaking it yourself, but it still doesn't say they have to offer a refund.

Hugh Hefner

As long as you weren't an idiot and it's a valid complaint they do.

sprinkles

Hugh Hefner wrote:

As long as you weren't an idiot and it's a valid complaint they do.

Thats what thought but as I've said I can't find proof that that's the case.

Either way it's not going to stop me demanding a refund whilst shouting "I know my rights"

Hugh Hefner

sprinkles wrote:

Thats what thought but as I've said I can't find proof that that's the case.

Wha... bu.... cha.... It's in the quote! It lists the exceptions! And none of them exclude valid complaints. Proof found. I give up.

sprinkles

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Wha... bu.... cha.... It's in the quote! It lists the exceptions! And none of them exclude valid complaints. Proof found. I give up.

I've obviously read into it different.

If i'm told I CAN replace something OR I CAN refund it I would take the view that they are not madatory and I can choose which one to provide. Ergo the quote tells me that the retailer is not obliged to give a refund. If my reading of this is wrong then I do apologise.

monument

sprinkles wrote:

If my reading of this is wrong then I do apologise.

Thank you. I am now asking you to not repeat such claims again unless you have new materials to support such...

- We'll exchange the product

If you are happy with a replacement product, take it. If not, remember you are not legally obliged to accept an exchange.

- We'll give you a credit note

A credit note is a voucher for the same amount you paid for the product, which can be spent in the store or in others in the same chain. If goods are defective, you do not have to accept a credit note - you are entitled to a refund. If you do accept a credit note, check if there is a time limit on using it.

- We'll repair it free of charge

If goods are not of merchantable quality, you do not have to accept a repair. You can insist on a refund or a replacement.

- We don't give refunds

Stores cannot simply say they do not give refunds. Under the Sale of Goods Act, you are entitled to a refund, a replacement or a repair if a product is not of merchantable quality, fit for its purpose or as described. A retailer cannot take away those rights.
http://www.consumerassociation.ie/rights_retailers.html

If a retailer gets thick after this, I suggest going where this woman did long before she did...

The claimant then contacted the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs (ODCA), and in the newspaper's own words, she was told, “that when she returned to the shop in June 2003, it was not a question of warranty but the Sale of Goods Act and she should have received a replacement or a refund” (ie the choice would have been hers!,)
http://gamestoaster.typepad.com/games_toaster/2005/06/post_2.html

sprinkles

Thank you. That's cleared it up for me anyway, but the oasis.ie site should clarify it better imo, can lead to a misinterpretation.........(see above)

Absolam

Actually.. it's not open to misinterpretataion at all. This has been covered on BOARDS ad nauseum, but;

The Sale of Goods Act confers certain rights to a consumer with regards to the freedom from faults, functionality and suitability of goods purchased. It places a specific obligation on a retailer with regards to those rights; that the goods MUST be replaced or refunded if they do not meet the requirements of the Act (not neccasarily the consumers opinion of those requirements eg suitability for the purpose for which the goods were sold).
The Act does not specifically confer a right of choice between a refund or a replacement to the consumer; the right of that choice remains with the retailer.
Only if a retailer cannot immediately offer a fully functional exact replacement of the goods a consumer contracted to purchase, are they then obliged to provide a full refund.

Of course, most retailers choose to provide better terms than those provided in the Act.. because they want repeat custom!

jaggeh

if for instance a game has starforce on it you CAN return it as i have seen several games with a notice on the back saying it has to install software that can disable functionality on your computer regarding writeable media.

so if you were to install a game that had starforce and it didnt say so on the outside of the box (i beleive bards tale has the notice). I returned Splinter Cell 3 to game with a headache. the guy behind the counter said i agreed to take it because i said my pc met the specs (which it does esily)
i offered to go home and do a printout of DxDiag he replied 'what?'
took me about 20 minutes to describe starforce to him and what it did and after that he gave me a refund. to be honest i think he gave me the refund more to clear up the que that had formed behind me.

Absolam

This is actually a strange one; it's not covered under the sale of goods act. It is covered in common contract law as a failure to disclose pertinant information, but as the retailer cannot reasonablybe expected to be aware of the information (since it isn't disclosed!) the recourse is to the manufacturer and not the retailer!

jaggeh

Absolam wrote:

This is actually a strange one; it's not covered under the sale of goods act. It is covered in common contract law as a failure to disclose pertinant information, but as the retailer cannot reasonablybe expected to be aware of the information (since it isn't disclosed!) the recourse is to the manufacturer and not the retailer!

http://www.consumerassociation.ie/rights_knowrights.html wrote:

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, anything you buy from a retailer must be:

of merchantable quality
fit for its normal purpose, and reasonably durable
as described, whether the description is part of the advertising or wrapping, on a label, or something said by the salesperson.

so by ommission this product does something outside of its description which you are not satisfied with then you are entitled to a refund.

Absolam

NO..if it as described (which it is) then there is no obligation. The retailer is not expected to be aware of any features of a product which are not disclosed by the manufacturer. The manufacturer being aware, however, is liable (but not under the sale of goods act; under common contract law).

jaggeh

if its doing something thats not on the labeling or explained to you then the product IS NOT as described.

Absolam

Not quite.. actually not at all. If it does what it says on the label it is 'as described'. If it does something else as well then it is more than as described; the description is not an absolute limitation of what the product may do, it's an indication of what it will do; and what it must do if it is 'as described'.

monument

Absolam wrote:

Actually.. it's not open to misinterpretataion at all. This has been covered on BOARDS ad nauseum, but;

It looks like you and the Consumer Association have a different interpretation of it.

Absolam wrote:

This is actually a strange one; it's not covered under the sale of goods act. It is covered in common contract law as a failure to disclose pertinant information, but as the retailer cannot reasonablybe expected to be aware of the information (since it isn't disclosed!) the recourse is to the manufacturer and not the retailer!

If it was not “disclosed” at the time, to the retailer or any one, it can easily be seen as a fault, and then the consumer’s recourse is legally with the retailer.

Absolam

monument wrote:

It looks like you and the Consumer Association have a different interpretation of it..

It's not interpretation; the text of the Act states:
Remedy for breach of warranty. [s. 53: 71/1893]
(2) Where—
(a) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and
(b) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not inconformity with the condition,
then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:
(i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or
(ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an
action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him.
The buyer requests that the retailer should either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not inconformity with the condition; the retailer therefore can choose whatever option they wish.

monument wrote:

If it was not “disclosed” at the time, to the retailer or any one, it can easily be seen as a fault, and then the consumer’s recourse is legally with the retailer.

Non disclosure of a feature is not a 'fault' in a product, as it doesn't prevent the product from fulfilling its function as described.

monument

Absolam wrote:

It's not interpretation;

Yes, that is what you are doing. That is what the Consumer Association has done, and that's what judges do...

interpretation
noun
an explanation or opinion of what something means
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=41557&dict=CALD

If Absolam can not interpret simple English, who here will trust his interpretation of law?

I for one I'm going to trust people like the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, before I trust some who was interpreting something but says he was not.

Absolam

monument wrote:

Yes, that is what you are doing. That is what the Consumer Association has done, and that's what judges do...

If Absolam can not interpret simple English, who here will trust his interpretation of law?

I for one I'm going to trust people like the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, before I trust some who was interpreting something but says he was not.

The English used in a legal document is constructed so as not to be open to interpretation.
gram·mar
n.
The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.
The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

Instead of trying to 'interpret' the meaning simply take the grammatical construction of the sentence, and there is only one meaning.

monument

point....









your head


I'll make it simple - Like it or not, you are interpreting the law (not something you really should be doing in public unless you’re a lawyer), like it or not, your interpretation differs from that of the Consumer Association, and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs.