Alternative Proof of Purchase

Procrastastudy

Having this argument over in the Consumer Issues forum and have rightly been told to get lost as I'm waffling - there do appear to be one or two who at the very least would like to see me proven wrong so I said I'd start a thread over here. I know I should be looking this up myself but it's turned into a massive distraction to doing what I should actually be doing which is Constitutional Law revision!

I'm trying to find some evidence for the assertion that 'Own Brand Products' is sufficient proof of purchase in the case of faulty goods. I was taught this when I was trained by at lest two Irish retailers just so you know where I'm getting it from. Of course additional proof of the date of purchase would be required but that could stem from how long the product has been on sale.

So far I've less than credible sources -

Which.co.uk state that Own Brand Products are proof of purchase (but not date) in of themselves but of course fail to state where they get that from.

NCA.ie during the 2008 Pig Meat recall stated they expected retailers to refund own brand products without receipts. Of course this possibly had more to do with the Liability for Defective Products Act than it did with the SOGASOS Act.

Any guidance (beyond go study!) would be appreciated.

To summarise my waffle - standard of proof in civil cases is 51% or greater. If product says "Tesco" on it there is a possibility it was nicked / bought on ebay but that wouldn't be enough to stop you meeting the 51% threshold.

Having "Tesco" on it is proof of provenance, not purchase. The item certainly may have come from Tesco but how it came to be in your possession is a different matter. Proof of purchase requires evidence to the fact that an item was bought in a particular place, at a particular time for a particular value. Simply having the item would likely be insufficient to qualify as proof of purchase.

I'm unfamiliar with any law on this by the way, I'm speaking from a broad analysis of my own.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Having "Tesco" on it is proof of provenance, not purchase. The item certainly may have come from Tesco but how it came to be in your possession is a different matter. Proof of purchase requires evidence to the fact that an item was bought in a particular place, at a particular time for a particular value. Simply having the item would likely be insufficient to qualify as proof of purchase.

Evidence of time and value of the purchase isn't strictly necessary.

As you quite rightly say, it's a balance of probabilities matter. If an item is Tesco-branded and the person claims to have purchased it from Tesco, then on the balance of probabilities, they did. They could have stolen it, or they could have bought if off ebay, but the most likely explanation is that they bought it in Tesco.

A receipt is very helpful in that it provides fairly steadfast proof, but it is not a requirement in civil cases.

RangeR

seamus wrote: »

Evidence of time and value of the purchase isn't strictly necessary.

As you quite rightly say, it's a balance of probabilities matter. If an item is Tesco-branded and the person claims to have purchased it from Tesco, then on the balance of probabilities, they did. They could have stolen it, or they could have bought if off ebay, but the most likely explanation is that they bought it in Tesco.

A receipt is very helpful in that it provides fairly steadfast proof, but it is not a requirement in civil cases.

True, but a receipt only proves that at least one item was purchased by someone, not the actual item being returned, nor purchased by the returnee

Yeah, I'm just being pedantic [an ass] but also, really, retailers don't [or can't] care either and will take a receipt on face value and nothing else. I suppose the "proof of receipt" is an attempt to skim away the chancers and by god the world is full of them.

Procrastastudy

In the case of faulty goods the scams are limited. I suppose the concern of many retailers are items being stolen and then returned for cash. That's not really the scenario we're dealing with when talking about faulty goods.

An own brand product is being held out as supplied by that retailer. Only proof of date of purchase really become an issue. Bearing in mind that it's not the warranty period but a 'reasonable amount of time' that the item remained fault free. Most manufacturers will, if no receipt is available, repair a product under warranty based on the date of manufacture. Are they under any obligation to do this or is this merely goodwill?

Looking a this from a product liability point of view I cant imagine there would be much of an issue making a case. I suppose product liability having its roots in Tort law negates it usefulness as a comparison as it avoids any issues of establishing who the contract is with.

EDIT Love the sig! I miss my Amiga.

Kosseegan

Own brand does not prove privity of contract either. In general terms if a person says they bought something from a particular place it is a matter of credibility.
If the person is credible their word will be accepted. A receipt simply lends weight to the persons credibility. Someone else could have bought the item and given or sold it to the person holding the receipt. The person might have bought a similar item and kept the receipt and already be in possession of the defective item without a receipt. They can then produce the defective item and the other receipt as proof of purchase. proof of purchase is in fact a misnomer. It should be evidence of purchase. Proving something means establishing it as a definite fact. evidence simply means that a given proposition of fact is more or less likely to be true.

Procrastastudy

I understand it doesn't provide evidence for privity or date. I suppose a receipt doesn't provide evidence of privity either - sorry if I'm just repeating what you said there.

In your view if I had an €1,000 'Tesco' TV with Manufactured 21/1/2012 and I went to the Small claims / District court because Tesco refused to repair it after it had become faulty - it would come down to how credible I was? Nothing wrong with that in my mind I'm just trying to clarify.

Kosseegan

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I understand it doesn't provide evidence for privity or date. I suppose a receipt doesn't provide evidence of privity either - sorry if I'm just repeating what you said there.

In your view if I had an €1,000 'Tesco' TV with Manufactured 21/1/2012 and I went to the Small claims / District court because Tesco refused to repair it after it had become faulty - it would come down to how credible I was? Nothing wrong with that in my mind I'm just trying to clarify.

If you gave evidence that you had purchased it from Tesco they would be allowed cross examine you and put it to you that you had not purchased it. They might lead evidence of their own that the particula model was never sold in the store you claimed to have bought it from, that the receipt was a forgery. Ultimately it would be for the judge to decide who to believe i.e. credibility.

ComfyKnickers

Wouldn't you think with the way all items are bar-coded etc. that anything bought from supermarkets etc. could be checked when they are brought back to see when they were purchased and from what store exactly. Just a thought!

Procrastastudy

Barcodes don't show anything but the product description - even if it did that wouldn't actually tie it to a particular person which beyond date is the only real obstacle that needs to be over come.

Something like a store loyalty card would - retailers seem reluctant to use these to look up transactions though. I wonder if this would have any bearing on the credibility issue?

It BeeMee

ComfyKnickers wrote: »

Wouldn't you think with the way all items are bar-coded etc. that anything bought from supermarkets etc. could be checked when they are brought back to see when they were purchased and from what store exactly. Just a thought!

That's not the way barcodes work. The number is only a unique identifier for a product so a can of coke will always have the same barcode on it, regardless of whether it was purchased in Tesco, Dunnes or from an ice cream van on the street.

ComfyKnickers

It BeeMee wrote: »

That's not the way barcodes work. The number is only a unique identifier for a product so a can of coke will always have the same barcode on it, regardless of whether it was purchased in Tesco, Dunnes or from an ice cream van on the street.

Yes I did think of that in fairness after my post - I imagine if it were that simple for everything to have different barcodes to ensure they could be traced, it would have been done years ago!!

hullaballoo

Your first problem is getting into a legal argument with the Consumer Issues forum, tbh. They have a very narrow interpretation of consumer rights and put too much emphasis on the Sale of Goods Acts etc. Generally, people who advise on "consumer issues" are not lawyers and do not realise that remedies exist elsewhere or they buy into the consumer myths that get propagated all over the place.


My view is that a receipt is evidence, not proof of purchase. "Proof of purchase" is a term concocted by retailers to refer to the receipt they issue. There are the usual lines around not being able to return things without "proof of purchase" but they're rubbish, in my opinion.


If you are in a situation where you have a defective product, you do not need a receipt to get your remedy. Of course, it is easier to show you purchased an item at a location on a date when you have the receipt; but testimony that you purchased an item at a location on a date also shows this.

MagicSean

Are Tesco stores not incorporated individually?

hullaballoo

MagicSean wrote: »

Are Tesco stores not incorporated individually?

That's a short question with a very lengthy answer!