cash refunds are not offered?

Sam Vimes

i was just in a shop that had the above on a sign at the till along with a few other terms. Then it had at the bottom "this does not affect your statutory rights"

Does anyone know if it's legal to blanket refuse to give cash refunds?

cunnins4

If the item is faulty you are entitled to a refund or exchange.

If not, the retailer's not obliged to offer a refund.

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Refunds-and-credit-notes/

girlbiker

Used to work in Retail, no matter what, if you make enough of a fuss, you will get a refund. I've seen many a stuck up middleaged bag get her way by throwing a hissy fit. :mad: Legally your not entitled to a refund if you change your mind but it doesnt seem to matter.

The_Conductor

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i was just in a shop that had the above on a sign at the till along with a few other terms. Then it had at the bottom "this does not affect your statutory rights"

Does anyone know if it's legal to blanket refuse to give cash refunds?

Yes its legal.
If its broken- they can replace it, or offer you a refund (at their discretion).

Sam Vimes

ah but it's not necessarily at their discretion. It's generally the retailer who decides but if it was taken to the small claims court a judge could force the retailer to give a refund if the customer has a good enough reason not to want a replacement or repair, e.g. If the product is inferior and no amount of replacing or repairing will change that

Basically afaik there are times that someone is entitled to a refund because a repair or replacement just aren't good enough and by refusing to ever give them a retailer is affecting your statutory rights. No?

The_Conductor

Not under Irish law a judge couldn't/wouldn't. If a purchaser was unhappy enough to take the retailer to the Small Claims Court- a judgement might instruct the retailor to offer reasonable compensation to the purchaser- but it wouldn't be phrased as a 'refund'.

Sam Vimes

well let's put it this way, the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 says that you're entitled to a refund, repair or replacement and he's telling you you're never entitled to a refund. Are you 100% sure on this because it goes against what i've always thought was the law and a lot of what i've seen on this forum

I know that a retailer has the right to repair or replace but what about the case where neither of those are a satisfactory remedy? Can a shop policy remove the refund part of refund, repair or replace and legally say you'll never get your money back under any circumstances?

The_Conductor

If they cannot repair or replace- the only option left is refund......

To be honest- if you cause enough hassle- they'll normally give you a refund just to get the hell rid of you

Sam Vimes

but then we have a catch 22 situation

There are of course times when the only appropriate action is a refund but this guy has a big sign at the till saying he doesn't give them. So the sign must affect your statutory rights no?

MysticalSoul

A lot of retailers offer a refund out of goodwill, and is not the law, so the sign is perfectly legal.

MagicMarker

Erm, I think the sign meant they won't refund you with actual cash, rather a cheque or chargeback onto a credit/laser card. Which they are perfectly entitled to do.

Sam Vimes

irishamethyst wrote: »

A lot of retailers offer a refund out of goodwill, and is not the law, so the sign is perfectly legal.

I'm not talking about somebody returning something they don't want anymore, i'm talking about the case where you buy something that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Goodwill doesn't come into it when a product is mis-sold

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, I think the sign meant they won't refund you with actual cash, rather a cheque or chargeback onto a credit/laser card. Which they are perfectly entitled to do.

That would be perfectly fine but i don't think that is what it means. I know one of the staff who told me this

FX Meister

If the goods are faulty etc. then you are entitled to a full refund. FACT

Thomas_S_Hunterson

The choice of Refund/repair/replace is with the vendor.

They're just saying that they wont give refunds which is fair enough.

FX Meister

Sean_K wrote: »

The choice of Refund/repair/replace is with the vendor.

They're just saying that they wont give refunds which is fair enough.

You're wrong. The sign more than likely refers to the return of goods if the customer changes their mind.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

FX Meister wrote: »

You're wrong. The sign more than likely refers to the return of goods if the customer changes their mind.

Either way, it's fair enough.

Sam Vimes

FX Meister wrote: »

You're wrong. The sign more than likely refers to the return of goods if the customer changes their mind.

You see this is the problem. It doesn't say "cash refunds are not offered unless......." it just says they don't do refunds

Maybe the bit saying "this does not affect your statutory rights" is his way of saying "unless we have to"?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe the bit saying "this does not affect your statutory rights" is his way of saying "unless we have to"?

That's pretty much it yea.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Incognito

Under the sales of goods and supply of services act 1980 (as amended 1998 I think) ,

goods sold or rented must be:

fit for the purpose intended.
as described
conform to sample
of merchantable quality

If they are not you are entitled to a full cash refund. The retailer may offer a repair or replacement but you are under no obligation to accept this.

When you see a sign saying this does not affect your statutory rights this is what this means. They can have a sign saying that they offer credit notes for items returned with a receipt, but in the case of fawlty items you are entitled to a full cash refund and they are not entitled to refuse this.

Guy:Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Under the sales of goods and supply of services act 1980 (as amended 1998 I think) ,

goods sold or rented must be:

fit for the purpose intended.
as described
conform to sample
of merchantable quality

If they are not you are entitled to a full cash refund. The retailer may offer a repair or replacement but you are under no obligation to accept this.

When you see a sign saying this does not affect your statutory rights this is what this means. They can have a sign saying that they offer credit notes for items returned with a receipt, but in the case of fawlty items you are entitled to a full cash refund and they are not entitled to refuse this.

Where does it say a full cash refund is a right? Your taking it to mean that because it's what a customer wants. Using the same act, the retailer can see it from his point of view that he can offer one of the other options.

Sam Vimes

Solitaryman666 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was a thread a while ago about peats doing it for high value items because they didn't keep that much money in the till

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Under the sales of goods and supply of services act 1980 (as amended 1998 I think) ,

goods sold or rented must be:

fit for the purpose intended.
as described
conform to sample
of merchantable quality

If they are not you are entitled to a full cash refund. The retailer may offer a repair or replacement but you are under no obligation to accept this.

When you see a sign saying this does not affect your statutory rights this is what this means. They can have a sign saying that they offer credit notes for items returned with a receipt, but in the case of fawlty items you are entitled to a full cash refund and they are not entitled to refuse this.

well in reality they are because if you're not happy with their offer of a repair or replacement your only option is to bring them to the small claims court, where in all likelihood a judge would side with the retailer as long as a repair or replacement was a reasonable remedy

Sam Vimes

so anyway the answer to my question is that the sign is legal as long as they make the sign meaningless by adding "this does not affect your statutory rights".

What the sign's really saying is "we don't do refunds.....unless the law says we have to in which case we will"

Mr. Incognito

Where does it say a full cash refund is a right?

Luckily, I have a flu and nothing better to do.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie:80/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0010.html

When condition to be treated as warranty.
11.—(1) Where a contract of sale is subject to any condition to be fulfilled by the seller, the buyer may waive the condition, or may elect to treat the breach of such condition as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for treating the contract as repudiated.
(2) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty, the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract.
(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the case of any condition or warranty, fulfilment of which is excused by law by reason of impossibility or otherwise.
Implied undertakings as to title, etc.
12.—(1) In every contract of sale, other than one to which subsection (2) applies, there is—
( a ) an implied condition on the part of the seller that, in the case of a sale, he has a right to sell the goods and, in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass, and
( b ) an implied warranty that the goods are free, and will remain free until the time when the property is to pass, from any charge or encumbrance not disclosed to the buyer before the contract is made and that the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods except so far as it may be disturbed by the owner or other person entitled to the benefit of any charge or encumbrance so disclosed.
(2) In a contract of sale, in the case of which there appears from the contract or is to be inferred from the circumstances of the contract an intention that the seller should transfer only such title as he or a third person may have, there is—
( a ) an implied warranty that all charges or encumbrances known to the seller have been disclosed to the buyer before the contract is made, and
( b ) an implied warranty that neither—
(i) the seller, nor
(ii) in a case where the parties to the contract intend that the seller should transfer only such title as a third person may have, that person, nor
(iii) anyone claiming through or under the seller or that third person otherwise than under a charge or encumbrance disclosed to the buyer before the contract is made,
will disturb the buyer's quiet possession of the goods.
Sale by description.
13.—(1) Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description; and if the sale be by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.
(2) A sale of goods shall not be prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale, they are selected by the buyer.
(3) A reference to goods on a label or other descriptive matter accompanying goods exposed for sale may constitute or form part of a description.
Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness.
14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied condition or warranty as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—
( a ) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or
( b ) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.
(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.
(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.
(5) An implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
(6) The foregoing provisions of this section apply to a sale by a person who in the course of a business is acting as agent for another as they apply to a sale by a principal in the course of a business, except where that other is not selling in the course of a business and either the buyer knows that fact or reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the buyer before the contract is made.
Sale by Sample
Sale by sample.
15.—(1) A contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
(2) In the case of a contract for sale by sample—
( a ) There is an implied condition that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality:
( b ) There is an implied condition that the buyer shall have a, reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample:
( c ) There is an implied condition that the goods shall be free from any defect, rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.

What all that means, basically is that there are implied conditions on which the contract or sales is based. If these conditions are broken then the consumer is entitled to cancel the contract. As the contract has been cancelled both parties are entitled to be in the same position as they were before the contract was made, i.e a refund of the consideration.

The next section expressively sets out that any notices or attempts to limit this are also illegal.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie:80/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0011.html

11.—(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to any statement likely to be taken as indicating that a right or the exercise of a right conferred by, or a liability arising by virtue of, section 12, 13, 14 or 15 of the Act of 1893 is restricted or excluded otherwise than under section 55 of that Act.
[GA]
(2) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to do any of the following things in relation to a statement to which subsection (1) refers:
[GA]
( a ) to display on any part of any premises a notice that includes any such statement, or
[GA]
( b ) to publish or cause to be published an advertisement which contains any such statement, or
[GA]
( c ) to supply goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, any such statement, or
[GA]
( d ) otherwise to furnish or to cause to be furnished a document including any such statement.
[GA]
(3) For the purposes of this section a statement to the effect that goods will not be exchanged, or that money will not be refunded, or that only credit notes will be given for goods returned, shall be treated as a statement to which subsection (1) refers unless it is so clearly qualified that it cannot be construed as applicable in circumstances in which the buyer may be seeking to exercise a right conferred by any provision of a section mentioned in subsection (1).
[GA]
(4) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to furnish to a buyer goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, or any document including, any statement, irrespective of its legal effect, which sets out, limits or describes rights conferred on a buyer or liabilities to the buyer in relation to goods acquired by him or any statement likely to be taken as such a statement, unless that statement is accompanied by a clear and conspicuous declaration that the contractual rights which the buyer enjoys by virtue of sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1893 are in no way prejudiced by the relevant statement.

well in reality they are because if you're not happy with their offer of a repair or replacement your only option is to bring them to the small claims court, where in all likelihood a judge would side with the retailer as long as a repair or replacement was a reasonable remedy

This is mis-informed and incorrect. The legislation is clear.

Sam Vimes

well let's just say that that's not how it works in practice in ireland today. As anyone on these boards who works in retail will tell you, retailers will pretty much always attempt to repair something first (where applicable) and the only ways around it are to scream the shop down so they give you a refund to get rid of you or take it to the small claims court, who are well aware that every retailer in the country will always attempt to repair something first

Mr. Incognito

well let's just say that that's not how it works in practice in ireland today. As anyone on these boards who works in retail will tell you, retailers will pretty much always attempt to repair something first (where applicable) and the only ways around it are to scream the shop down so they give you a refund to get rid of you or take it to the small claims court, who are well aware that every retailer in the country will always attempt to repair something first

Retailers are not lawyers. Neither are most consumers. Whether it works or not is immaterial. That's what you're entitled to.

In my experience whenever I have had to return faulty goods I've gotten a full cash refund.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Retailers are not lawyers. Neither are most consumers. Whether it works or not is immaterial. That's what you're entitled to.

In my experience whenever I have had to return faulty goods I've gotten a full cash refund.

well there are times when retailers will give refunds subject to their policy. most places i worked in had a 14 day or 28 day policy. Some are more generous but in all cases it was store policy and not the law.


also, you pasted a massive chunk of text that said in a very long winded way that the goods must be of merchantable quality, fit for purpose and as described but we already know that. which is the bit that says you're entitled to a refund and can in all cases refuse a repair or replacement?

this bit

(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.

says to me that once you've accepted the goods any problems can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not grounds for rejecting the goods

Mr. Incognito

also, you pasted a massive chunk of text that said in a very long winded way that the goods must be of merchantable quality, fit for purpose and as described but we already know that. which is the bit that says you're entitled to a refund and can in all cases refuse a repair or replacement?

Legislation is couched in particular terms. The Sale of Goods Act is to do with Contract Law and is phrased in this particular way as a result. The word "repudiated" is a technical term for cancelling the contract. There are a number of ways a contract can be cancelled, all with their own particular jargon but I don't want to drag this down to a lecture on contract law but basically as I've stated above once the contract is repudiated you're entitled prima facie to your consideration back, i.e you're entitled to a full cash refund of the consideration. This does not need to be expressly stated as it's a tenant of contract law.

You can refuse a repair or replacement on this ground. The contract is cancelled. A repair is a recognition that the contract is valid, which is not the case.

this bit
Quote:

(3) Where a contract of sale is not severable, and the buyer has accepted the goods, or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty, and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there be a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
says to me that once you've accepted the goods any problems can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not grounds for rejecting the goods

You're reading this wrong. You'll note that it says, "where the contract of sale is not severable". We've already learned that the contract is invalid under the terms listed above so this is not applicable when the goods are faulty. What this relates to is where there is a breach of warranty. This is contract law again. A warranty is a condition of the contract that does not automatically cancel the contract. An example might be that the shop may offer to deliver the goods within three days. You may not be able to cancel the contract for sale if the goods turn up on day four unless such a term is written into the contract as grounds for termination.

well there are times when retailers will give refunds subject to their policy. most places i worked in had a 14 day or 28 day policy. Some are more generous but in all cases it was store policy and not the law.

well Sam, retailers can make all the policies they want but when they are illegal, they are illegal. Any policy that denies a consumer his cash refund when the goods are dodgy under the terms above is illegal. Most places will offer refunds on items with a receipt within a certain time but they are under no obligation to. Once you have purchased something the retailer is under no obligation to refund you unless the item is faulty. Add to that the fact that most of the staff working there have no idea as to the actual law, misinterpretations will happen, heck I've seen it myself. But the Sale of Goods Act has been around a long time and people that have been in retail for anything longer than the odd summer job will generally have a good understanding of the law.

No I hope that helps.

FX Meister

Solitaryman666 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was offered a cheque as refund from the Great Outdoors. I bought a pair of climbing shoes that were faulty. The manager wanted to repair them. I wouldn't trust a repaired shoe when my safety is at stake. He was an absolute cock about the whole thing. I waited until he had the cheque sritten until I told him I paid in cash and would only accept a cash refund.

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Legislation is couched in particular terms. The Sale of Goods Act is to do with Contract Law and is phrased in this particular way as a result. The word "repudiated" is a technical term for cancelling the contract. There are a number of ways a contract can be cancelled, all with their own particular jargon but I don't want to drag this down to a lecture on contract law but basically as I've stated above once the contract is repudiated you're entitled prima facie to your consideration back, i.e you're entitled to a full cash refund of the consideration.

Please do drag it down to a debate on contract law because you're saying that every retailer in the country, every company i've ever worked for and every person who's ever posted about the matter on this board are all wrong and in the text you posted i can't see the part that makes them all wrong

Nody

FX Meister wrote: »

I was offered a cheque as refund from the Great Outdoors. I bought a pair of climbing shoes that were faulty. The manager wanted to repair them. I wouldn't trust a repaired shoe when my safety is at stake. He was an absolute cock about the whole thing. I waited until he had the cheque sritten until I told him I paid in cash and would only accept a cash refund.

And he could then have said no leaving you only with the choice of going to SCC over it (and waiting another 3+ months for your money) if you don't accept it.

Sam Vimes

to give an example:you buy something and it works for 3 months and then stops working. You go back to the shop and ask for a refund. The shop insists on either replacing it or repairing it.

The above would be the scenario in pretty much every retailer in the country. What happens then? Do you call the gardai? Do you sue them? Do you take them to the small claims court, guaranteed of winning?

Mr. Incognito

I don't know how you intend speaking for every shop in the country but if they refuse to give you a refund the small claims court is the correct forum.

MysticalSoul

FX Meister wrote: »

You're wrong. The sign more than likely refers to the return of goods if the customer changes their mind.

Exactly. My experience, I have seen this sign in mostly clothes shops such as Warehouse etc.

Kensington

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If they are not you are entitled to a full cash refund.

...

you are entitled to a full cash refund and they are not entitled to refuse this.

Just to point out that while you may be entitled to a refund in certain circumstances, you are not entitled to receive it in cash. The retailer can choose not to give cash, if they choose, and instead refund via cheque in the post, or back onto a card if you paid via plastic originally. Powercity and DID are two examples of this, due to the often large amounts of money that may be involved in a refund.

Consumer Connect website wrote:

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/FAQs/Refunds-and-credit-notes/

Q2. Does a refund have to be in cash?

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 makes no distinction about how refunds are paid. They can be paid by cash, cheque or refund to a credit card. In general, refunds are paid in the same way as the original method of payment for the goods.

Freddie Cork

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Under the sales of goods and supply of services act 1980 (as amended 1998 I think) ,

goods sold or rented must be:

fit for the purpose intended.
as described
conform to sample
of merchantable quality

If they are not you are entitled to a full cash refund. The retailer may offer a repair or replacement but you are under no obligation to accept this.

When you see a sign saying this does not affect your statutory rights this is what this means. They can have a sign saying that they offer credit notes for items returned with a receipt, but in the case of fawlty items you are entitled to a full cash refund and they are not entitled to refuse this.

Exactly - I bought a pair of runners in a shop in The Pavilions a few years ago, and after wearing them twice, the top loop you put the lace through broke through - I brought them back and some dumb clerk said "oh sorry, we don't do refunds" - I just calmly laughed and assured her she does - she just doesn't know it yet. I didn't want a repair as they were clearly crap/cheapo quality to start with, and I didn't want a replacement for the same reason - so the only option left was a refund. She insisted it was against store policy.... but I just didn't take her seriously because I knew my rights, and I got a full refund back onto my Laser Card after she had to ring the manager.

In some cases, like goods not being of merchantable quality, a repair or replacement will not suffice, for obvious reasons.

girlbiker

Freddie Cork wrote: »

- I brought them back and some dumb clerk said "oh sorry, we don't do refunds" - I just calmly laughed and assured her she does - she just doesn't know it yet. She insisted it was against store policy.... but I just didn't take her seriously because I knew my rights, and I got a full refund back onto my Laser Card after she had to ring the manager.



No need to take it out on the clerk, I know from experience that the managers sometimes insist on the till staff saying to the customer there is no refunds and telling the customer that it is the policy, when, after the customer gets antsy, the shop assisant has to get the manager who will smile sweetly and give a refund leaving the assistant looking like a twat.

People have to pay the bills so ask for the manger before you start berating some young one behind the counter eh?

Guy:Incognito

Freddie Cork wrote: »

In some cases, like goods not being of merchantable quality, a repair or replacement will not suffice, for obvious reasons.

Why? Is it not possible for one or a batch of something to be faulty?

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I don't know how you intend speaking for every shop in the country

Well i don't actually know about every single retailer in the country to be honest but i know an awful lot of them, mostly electronics shops, and they all follow that policy. Someone really should tell them they're breaking the law because they don't seem to know they are

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

but if they refuse to give you a refund the small claims court is the correct forum.

And would you definitely win?

Where have you been the last few hundred times there have been threads of people asking if they're entitled to a refund when everyone told them that the retailer is entitled to repair or replace it?

Freddie Cork

girlbiker wrote: »

People have to pay the bills so ask for the manger before you start berating some young one behind the counter eh?

Where did I berate her exactly? I laughed at her suggesting that the shop doesn't do refunds! Yes, I LAUGHED! i.e. "hahahaha" - not 'grrrrrr'. Subtle difference, I know.
Then, I calmly (<-notice that word, which I used in my original post) told her that she had clearly been misinformed, and to get a manager (notice the part of my story, where I said I got a refund "after she had to ring the manager"). :rolleyes:
So I 1) didn't "berate" her, 2) I spoke to her calmly (hell, I even had a laugh), and 3) asked to her to get a manager. I made all that clear in my first post - how did you miss it??

Stekelly wrote: »

Why? Is it not possible for one or a batch of something to be faulty?

Why would I care? And why would I want to waste more time finding out? You're suggesting I try a few more pairs or something, and hope I get lucky? Get serious, mate. When it's your money, feel free to be a sucker.

Guy:Incognito

Freddie Cork wrote: »

Why would I care? And why would I want to waste more time finding out? You're suggesting I try a few more pairs or something, and hope I get lucky? Get serious, mate. When it's your money, feel free to be a sucker.

Get lucky? If your buyign cheap crap in the first place then maybe you can hope to get lucky and get something decent. Assuming your buyign decent stuff then yes, the odd few will be defective.

People need to realise that the odd few of something will have to be returned from time to time and replaced. But this thing of throwing the toys out of the pram and deciding that te whoel world is broken because you bought somethign that has to be replaced is stupid. Assumign you actually like what you bought and are not just tryign to get your money back for something you dont really want , surely the best and easiest solution for everyone involved is to get it replaced.

girlbiker

Freddie Cork wrote: »

Where did I berate her exactly? I laughed at her suggesting that the shop doesn't do refunds! Yes, I LAUGHED! i.e. "hahahaha" - not 'grrrrrr'. Subtle difference, I know.
Then, I calmly (<-notice that word, which I used in my original post) told her that she had clearly been misinformed, and to get a manager (notice the part of my story, where I said I got a refund "after she had to ring the manager"). :rolleyes:
So I 1) didn't "berate" her, 2) I spoke to her calmly (hell, I even had a laugh), and 3) asked to her to get a manager. I made all that clear in my first post - how did you miss it??
.

Yes clamly laughing at some "dumb clerk" sounds like your a great guy truely, I'm just suggesting that next time your going back to Champion sports to return your Cica trainers for a 16.99 refund that you have a bit of consideration for the girl behind the counter who loves to be calmly laughed at by a type of person everyone who's ever worked in retail hates, so your trainers were faulty, hard luck, shes not an idiot for saying what she is told to say.

And yes a laugh can be as good as a grrr if your a passive agressive cica trainer wearer like yourself....or were they those really cool adidas trainers with four stripes?

Freddie Cork

Stekelly wrote: »

Get lucky? If your buyign cheap crap in the first place then maybe you can hope to get lucky and get something decent. Assuming your buyign decent stuff then yes, the odd few will be defective.

I'd maybe expect this with electronics - but not footwear or solid non-mechanical/electrical items - you can tell when it's a problem with the general craftsmanship & materials, and that they were just badly made to start with. No point trying another pair - if it was a Camcorder I would have though.

But this thing of throwing the toys out of the pram and deciding that te whoel world is broken because you bought somethign that has to be replaced is stupid.

Sorry - who did that? Did you post that in the wrong topic, because it can't possibly be directed at me, since I went in and calmly asked for a manager after the sales girl was clearly incapable of handling a simple & standard customer request RE a refund.

girlbiker wrote: »

Yes clamly laughing at some "dumb clerk" sounds like your a great guy truely

Eh, she was clearly dumb. She works in Retail - yet she doesn't know how to handle a returned item, a refund, or anything about Consumer Retail Law. And I never actually said "dumb clerk" to her - I only referred to her as that in my post - do you know the difference?

next time your going back to Champion sports to return your Cica trainers for a 16.99 refund

:rolleyes: Yes, generalising based on nothing is very clever & hilarious. Should I generalise about you being poorly educated based on your crappy spelling?

Sam Vimes

Freddie Cork wrote: »

Eh, she was clearly dumb. She works in Retail - yet she doesn't know how to handle a returned item, a refund, or anything about Consumer Retail Law.

I missed the bit that required a qualification in consumer law to work a till in champion sports. She was told the store policy by her manager and she followed it. Whether that policy is correct or not says nothing about the girl's intelligence or lack thereof

Freddie Cork

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I missed the bit that required a qualification in consumer law to work a till in champion sports. She was told the store policy by her manager and she followed it. Whether that policy is correct or not says nothing about the girl's intelligence or lack thereof

I never said you need a qualification - I don't have one in consumer law, but I still know it, and I don't even work in retail. Most of it is secondary school bus. org. FFS!

So what you're saying is, that it's okay for people to be ignorant to aspects of their job roles, thus encouraging the poor customer service you all love to moan about on this forum? You're saying it's okay that she didn't know how to handle a basic refund request situation, yeah? So next time you come accross someone who isn't equipped to do their job, you'll be cool with it?

Nody

Freddie Cork wrote: »

So what you're saying is, that it's okay for people to be ignorant to aspects of their job roles, thus encouraging the poor customer service you all love to moan about on this forum? You're saying it's okay that she didn't know how to handle a basic refund request situation, yeah? So next time you come accross someone who isn't equipped to do their job, you'll be cool with it?

It is a minimum wage job; hence no I don't expect someone there or in a place like McD or a call centre to go out and educate themself on their spare time. If you want to put blame some where then point it to the company for not having it in their training material and not the individuals hired with minimum training.

Freddie Cork

Nody wrote: »

It is a minimum wage job; hence no I don't expect someone there or in a place like McD or a call centre to go out and educate themself on their spare time. If you want to put blame some where then point it to the company for not having it in their training material and not the individuals hired with minimum training.

I see - so assuming you read my original post, what should I have done differently? I didn't actually call her "dumb" to her face or anything - I only said that on here. I was calm & polite to her, and when I realised she wasn't equipped to handle a refund, I asked for a manager.

Kensington

Freddie Cork wrote: »

I see - so assuming you read my original post, what should I have done differently?.

Not laughing at her would be a start.

Sam Vimes

Freddie Cork wrote: »

I never said you need a qualification - I don't have one in consumer law, but I still know it, and I don't even work in retail. Most of it is secondary school bus. org. FFS!

personally i didn't do bus org. in secondary school and i don't think i'm alone

Freddie Cork wrote: »

So what you're saying is, that it's okay for people to be ignorant to aspects of their job roles, thus encouraging the poor customer service you all love to moan about on this forum? You're saying it's okay that she didn't know how to handle a basic refund request situation, yeah? So next time you come accross someone who isn't equipped to do their job, you'll be cool with it?

no, in fact what i'm saying is:
she was told the store policy by her manager and she followed it. Whether that policy is correct or not says nothing about the girl's intelligence or lack thereof

which is nothing like what you said

axer

Chill out lads.

Its as simple as this. The sign is fully legal as it does not affect your statutory rights. It ONLY applies to situations where you are not covered by law (or your agreed contract) as stipulated by "this does not affect your statutory rights". It does not say you cannot get a cash refund if you are so entitled to.

There are many posts of incorrect information on this thread.

Firstly non-severable goods are goods that are custom built or goods that cannot be reclaimed for whatever reason (they are not regular goods e.g. pair of shoes - unless they were custom built shoes).

smccarrick, the choice of replacement, repair or refund is not at the discretion of the retailer. If both parties of the contract cannot come to an agreement then it is a judge that intreprets the law. Nowhere in consumer law does it state that the seller makes the final decision.

With regards refunds, the law does not say refunds it says "rescind the contract" or "extinguish the contract" which basically means everyone goes back to precontract positions. You only have to accept legal tender for a debt i.e. a cheque is not legal tender thus you can insist on legal tender. A reason why one might not want to accept a cheque is that if the company closes down before you cashed the cheque then you could be at the end of the list to get paid.

Consumer law should be explained to shop assistants and they should understand it fully but that would be in the ideal world since there is often a relatively high turnover of staff in retail businesses.

axer

Freddie Cork wrote: »

Exactly - I bought a pair of runners in a shop in The Pavilions a few years ago, and after wearing them twice, the top loop you put the lace through broke through - I brought them back and some dumb clerk said "oh sorry, we don't do refunds" - I just calmly laughed and assured her she does - she just doesn't know it yet. I didn't want a repair as they were clearly crap/cheapo quality to start with, and I didn't want a replacement for the same reason - so the only option left was a refund. She insisted it was against store policy.... but I just didn't take her seriously because I knew my rights, and I got a full refund back onto my Laser Card after she had to ring the manager.

In some cases, like goods not being of merchantable quality, a repair or replacement will not suffice, for obvious reasons.

There is no reason to be arragant in situations like this. They could have argued with you that you misused the goods e.g. plugged the cord too hard and made you pay for the small claims court to get your refund.