item broken no receipt

SATSUMA

Can somebody please shed some light on the law in this area as i'm a bit confused...

If somebody buys an item from a shop and a week later the item stops working do they have any recourse WITHOUT a receipt/ proof of purchase?

slimjimmc

You only need proof of purchase if the seller requests it. In many cases the seller may not require you to provide any proof of purchase at all, or they may ask you for dates/time of sale and verify this against their till records.

SATSUMA

What if the retailer refuses to deal with the issue without production of a receipt?

hullaballoo

SATSUMA wrote: »

What if the retailer refuses to deal with the issue without production of a receipt?

I'm presuming that you want to know what the legal procedure is in this case because why else would you post here?

If they refuse to deal with it on some contrived basis e.g., "we only accept till receipts as proof of purchase" then your legal option is to sue in contract for damages. Depending on the value of the item, the venue for such a suit could be anything from the Small Claims Court to the High Court.

You would at some point be asked to prove that you bought the item in the shop in question. You would do this by swearing that this is the case, either by way of affidavit or oral testimony. This would shift the evidential burden of proof to the Defendant to show you could not have bought the item in its shop.

If they are seriously contending that you didn't buy the item in their shop, as soon as you issue proceedings, they will issue a motion to dismiss the proceedings. If they are just being awkward, they will have a word with themselves and probably deal with you the way they should have in the first place i.e., repair/replace/refund as per your wishes.

most shops have CCTV, I'm sure you're on it. did you pay cash?? or laser??

FishOnABike

Was it paid for by cash or card?

fishonabike we think alike!! I see where you're going.

Can I just ask also, what's the price range?? is it a vibrator from Anne summers or are we talking a Dyson cordless nifty €400.00 vacuum cleaner type dealy??

Uno my Uno.

SATSUMA wrote: »

Can somebody please shed some light on the law in this area as i'm a bit confused...

If somebody buys an item from a shop and a week later the item stops working do they have any recourse WITHOUT a receipt/ proof of purchase?

I was in a similar situation once, I had paid with a card so I probably could have gotten a statement but it was a fairly minor purchase so I wasn't bothered. the conversation went like this.

Them: Sorry Sir, no receipt no return.
Me: But I bought it here.
T: I don't know that.
M: Are you suggesting I'm lying?
T: Not at all Sir!
M: So you accept that I bought it here?
T: umm... Well Yes.
M: Great, you'll have no problem carrying out the return then?
T: (Through gritted teeth) No problem at all sir.

Fact is you're entitled to a refund, repair or replacement under the Sale of Goods Acts, You aren't trying to pull a fast one and the store isn't losing out, insist on your rights.

Gongoozler

Of course you have to provide proof of purchase. Jesus, how are so many people wrong

Uno my Uno.

Gongoozler wrote: »

Of course you have to provide proof of purchase. Jesus, how are so many people wrong

Why? Where do you get that from?

Losty Dublin

A few cases which have happened to me.

1) Phone cover fell apart. Lost receipt. I printed off my bank account and it was proof of purchase (CompuB).

2) CD was scratched. Lost receipt. I had a shop bag and it was proof of purchase (HMV).

3) Some veggies went mouldy. They were in a Superquinn box and it was proof of purchase.

4) Runners that ripped after 2 months. I rang ahead, brought the faulty goods in their box and the shop expected me; they were satisfied on the spot product was exchanged (Schuh)

5) Printer cartridges wore out after one days use and the receipt was misplaced. Returned to shop in bag with no receipt to the sales assistant who sold them to me. I had my refund refused by the shop manager as they were beyond their "best before date". I asked to see where the said date was on product and was told to contact the manufacturer.

Luckily for me I had a new iPhone, went online in the shop and rang them to be told on speaker phone that it was the retailers problem. The shop manager then said he'd replace them if I produced the originals. I said that I didn't have them as the sales assistant (Who I pointed to.) binned them for me. She sheepishly nodded yes when I ask her.

I got my new cartridges (PC World/Currys.)

6) I got cartridges refilled. They failed after 3 pages of printing. I returned to point of sale and had a second refill, on the house. It worked. (Cartridge World.)

A lot of variation out there.

Peregrinus

Gongoozler wrote: »

Of course you have to provide proof of purchase. Jesus, how are so many people wrong

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Why? Where do you get that from?

If this ends up in court, you'll need to prove that you purchased the goods from the defendant. But that proof can be your own uncontradicted testimony to that effect.

It won't end up in court if the retailer settles your claim before it gets to that point. It's up to him to decide how much verification he requires from you before he settles, and you have to have some sympathy with retailers, because while you and I are fine upstanding citizens, there are plenty of gurriers out there who will shoplift goods and then bring them in seeking a "refund", and how is the unfortunate retailer to know that we are not such a person? So he has to make a decision about what verification it's reasonable for him to seek, and about how to handle cases where that verification is not produced.

GerardKeating

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Why? Where do you get that from?

Retailers have rights as well as the consumer.

Uno my Uno.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If this ends up in court, you'll need to prove that you purchased the goods from the defendant. But that proof can be your own uncontradicted testimony to that effect.

It won't end up in court if the retailer settles your claim before it gets to that point. It's up to him to decide how much verification he requires from you before he settles, and you have to have some sympathy with retailers, because while you and I are fine upstanding citizens, there are plenty of gurriers out there who will shoplift goods and then bring them in seeking a "refund", and how is the unfortunate retailer to know that we are not such a person? So he has to make a decision about what verification it's reasonable for him to seek, and about how to handle cases where that verification is not produced.

I don't feel all that bad for them, they are the ones in the best position to prevent shoplifting not the consumer so its not fair of them to resist lawful returns on that basis. As far as I'm concerned if my (or indeed any Consumer's) word is good enough for the court, it should be good enough for the shop.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Retailers have rights as well as the consumer.

I suppose they do but they also have responsibilities.

I hang on to my receipts, its sensible to do so but the fact remains that if sods law should strike and you loose the receipt for something you subsequently need to return you are not without recourse or rights despite what the shop might try to suggest.

rock22

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Why? Where do you get that from?

From the consumer forum charter on Boards
As a first step the consumer must be able to establish that the goods or service in question were bought from or were provided by the seller in question, e.g. through the production of a receipt or other form of proof of purchase. [Put simply, the consumer who is making the complaint must be able to show convincingly, as a necessary first step to having their rights vindicated, that they bought the goods where they say they bought them].


No seller will entertain a complaint if they believe the goods were not sold by them.

Del2005

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm presuming that you want to know what the legal procedure is in this case because why else would you post here?

If they refuse to deal with it on some contrived basis e.g., "we only accept till receipts as proof of purchase" then your legal option is to sue in contract for damages. Depending on the value of the item, the venue for such a suit could be anything from the Small Claims Court to the High Court.

You would at some point be asked to prove that you bought the item in the shop in question. You would do this by swearing that this is the case, either by way of affidavit or oral testimony. This would shift the evidential burden of proof to the Defendant to show you could not have bought the item in its shop.

If they are seriously contending that you didn't buy the item in their shop, as soon as you issue proceedings, they will issue a motion to dismiss the proceedings. If they are just being awkward, they will have a word with themselves and probably deal with you the way they should have in the first place i.e., repair/replace/refund as per your wishes.

People don't always remember correctly where they purchased items so what would happen if the shop swore that they didn't sell the item to the person sueing them and the product is sold in loads of shops? Plenty of people have gone back to shops to complain about a product that they bought in a different shop and get even more annoyed when the shop points out that the receipt is for the other shop.

hullaballoo

Del2005 wrote: »

People don't always remember correctly where they purchased items so what would happen if the shop swore that they didn't sell the item to the person sueing them and the product is sold in loads of shops? Plenty of people have gone back to shops to complain about a product that they bought in a different shop and get even more annoyed when the shop points out that the receipt is for the other shop.

This thread has become a mass of misunderstandings at this point.

The original question was whether a buyer has recourse without a receipt (and perhaps this conflated matters) / proof of purchase.

It was pointed out that sometimes, the shop will verify the purchase of the item in their shop by asking for date and time.

The next question was (effectively) about sellers who will not acknowledge any form of proof of purchase other than a receipt.

Since this question was asked in Legal Discussion as opposed to another forum, the presumption must be that the OP is seeking to know the legal procedure by which a buyer who is faced with such an issue would have it resolved.

The answer is, they would sue for their rights. It might not be the most practical thing to do in the first instance - many people would take the more pragmatic approach of trying to reason with the shop first - but it is the next step in the legal process.

The other issue giving rise to confusion is that most people see the words "proof of purchase" and read "receipt". This includes shops. However, in the legal sense, the purchase can by proven by making a sworn statement that the purchase was made, which statement is not controverted by the sworn evidence of the person seeking to disprove the allegation.

Adequately knowledgeable retail operators will know that purchases may be proven by consumers by means other than a receipt - such as reference to card payments, the date and time of the purchase or even knowing the name or description of the staff member who dealt with them, which can be vouched by other means such as reference to the staff member/sales records.

It is impossible and pointless to entertain a discussion around the innumerable scenarios in which someone alleging in the first instance that they bought goods in a particular shop turns out to be either lying or confused. I also don't think that's what the OP, or anyone else for that matter, wants answered.

MarkAnthony

The thing that always gets me is the fact people think that a receipt is some sort of magic spell. A retailer doesn't have to do anything for someone they have no contract with, where on a receipt is the contract proven?

The fact is the whole process works on the word of the person returning the goods. The only reason this receipt myth is out there is it's easy to train into retail staff.

rock22

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The thing that always gets me is the fact people think that a receipt is some sort of magic spell. A retailer doesn't have to do anything for someone they have no contract with, where on a receipt is the contract proven?

The fact is the whole process works on the word of the person returning the goods. The only reason this receipt myth is out there is it's easy to train into retail staff.

It was stated that proof of purchase was not needed.

Quote:
Uno my Uno
Originally Posted by Gongoozler View Post

Of course you have to provide proof of purchase. Jesus, how are so many people wrong

Why? Where do you get that from?

It was that post I was replying to. Without proof of purchase there is no proof of contract with the seller. Receipt was not mentioned by me but it provides more than training material for staff. it would normally be accepted by the court as proof that a contract did exist.

Can you point to a case where the proof of purchase is disputed and the court accepts a 'sworn' assertion by purchaser?

Peregrinus

That's a no-brainer. If you have sworn evidence from person X brought item Y in shop Z, and no evidence to contradict this, and no argument to suggest that this is implausible or improbable ("We never sold item Y! Shop Z was closed on that day!") then the court is going to accept the sworn evidence. Why wouldn't they? The plaintiff only has to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, and there is nothing at all to suggest that what he testifies to is improbable.

I can't point you to a reported decided case. This is such a basic point that it would never be appealed beyond the District Court, so it won't make it to the law reports. But talk to any practitioner.

Yes, you need proof of purchase. But, yes, the evidence of the purchaser, if uncontradicted, is quite sufficient as proof.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

This would shift the evidential burden of proof to the Defendant to show you could not have bought the item in its shop.

But you're saying the shop has to prove a negative, how on earth are they supposed to do that?

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

You aren't trying to pull a fast one

So you say, but does the shop know this? Its not like the country isn't full of people happy to pull a fast one.

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I don't feel all that bad for them, they are the ones in the best position to prevent shoplifting not the consumer so its not fair of them to resist lawful returns on that basis.

And what if it was shoplifted from a different shop, how exactly were they supposed to prevent shoplifting from a different company entirely?

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

But you're saying the shop has to prove a negative, how on earth are they supposed to do that?

No, I never said anything like that. I said the evidential burden is shifted to the shop in the face of sworn testimony that the item was bought in their shop.

Shifting the burden of proof is an entirely discrete legal concept.

So you say, but does the shop know this? Its not like the country isn't full of people happy to pull a fast one.

And what if it was shoplifted from a different shop, how exactly were they supposed to prevent shoplifting from a different company entirely?

I said it in my last post; we're not exploring every possible scenario that could arise through dishonesty or misbelief.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, I never said anything like that. I said the evidential burden is shifted to the shop in the face of sworn testimony that the item was bought in their shop.

The burden has shifted and now the shop has to prove a negative. Is that not correct?

Its incredibly easy to think of scenarios where a shop does sell a particular item but the so called customer did not actually buy that item from the shop in question. You are saying that with the burden now shifted the shop has to prove that the customer did not buy the item from them. You are asking them to prove a negative.

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

The burden has shifted and now the shop has to prove a negative. Is that not correct?

No, it's totally incorrect.

As above, shifting the evidential burden and reversing the burden of proof are entirely different.

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

The burden has shifted and now the shop has to prove a negative. Is that not correct?

Its incredibly easy to think of scenarios where a shop does sell a particular item but the so called customer did not actually buy that item from the shop in question. You are saying that with the burden now shifted the shop has to prove that the customer did not buy the item from them. You are asking them to prove a negative.

At it's simplest it comes down to one word against another. At the end of that day that's not fatal to a case. It's a 51% standard for a reason.

Example:

All other things being equal you've two respectable looking people in dispute over one fact, that the item was purchased in that store. No audit trail exists (unheard of in retail but for the sake of argument). Anything can get you over that 1%. The branding on the box, the fact that the person was able to describe the sales assistant. The reverse is also true, the fact that the shop had a naked day that day and the purchaser doesn't remember that. (Crap example :pac:)

People forget legal professionals, more specifically barristers (although unlikely to be involved in a case like this) are experts in getting to the truth in oral testimony.

In the end though a retailer would have an audit trail of whether the item was purchased around the time the alleged purchaser says it was. Failure to accurately describe the time of purchase could be detrimental to the believability of the purchasers statement.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, it's totally incorrect.

As above, shiftung the evidential burden and reversing the burden of proof are entirely different.

You aren't answering my point at all.

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

You aren't answering my point at all.

There's only so much of a lesson on the Law of evidence you're going to get for free :pac:

In all seriousness an answer has been given, you'll need to do some googling of the concepts. They're not complicated just a bit abstract.

bucketybuck

MarkAnthony wrote: »

At it's simplest it comes down to one word against another. At the end of that day that's not fatal to a case. It's a 51% standard for a reason.

Example:

All other things being equal you've two respectable looking people in dispute over one fact, that the item was purchased in that store. No audit trail exists (unheard of in retail but for the sake of argument). Anything can get you over that 1%. The branding on the box, the fact that the person was able to describe the sales assistant. The reverse is also true, the fact that the shop had a naked day that day and the purchaser doesn't remember that. (Crap example :pac:)

People forget legal professionals, more specifically barristers (although unlikely to be involved in a case like this) are experts in getting to the truth in oral testimony.

In the end though a retailer would have an audit trail of whether the item was purchased around the time the alleged purchaser says it was. Failure to accurately describe the time of purchase could be detrimental to the believability of the purchasers statement.

How is this not completely open to abuse though? Again, I can easily posit situations in which a liar could game that system, I'm sure anybody could, so why even allow that possibility when it would be much simpler and perfectly fair to place the burden on the customer by requiring proof of purchase?

Are there any cites or examples of this being demonstrated in court?

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

You aren't answering my point at all.

You haven't made a point for me to answer.

You said, "The burden has shifted and now the shop has to prove a negative. Is that not correct?" I told you that this is totally incorrect.

The of proof has not been reversed by the adduction of evidence that the item was bought in the shop in question. It is only the evidential burden that moves onto the shop to rebut the evidence already adduced.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

You haven't made a point for me to answer.

You said, "The burden has shifted and now the shop has to prove a negative. Is that not correct?" I told you that this is totally incorrect.

The of proof has not been reversed by the adduction of evidence that the item was bought in the shop in question. It is only the evidential burden that moves onto the shop to rebut the evidence already adduced.

The sole evidence is the customers claim to have bought the item.

The shop now needs to prove that he did not buy the item. Is this incorrect?

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

How is this not completely open to abuse though? Again, I can easily posit situations in which a liar could game that system, I'm sure anybody could, so why even allow that possibility when it would be much simpler and perfectly fair to place the burden on the customer by requiring proof of purchase?

Are there any cites or examples of this being demonstrated in court?

Liars frequently have things go their way in court, that's why when discovered perjury should be severely punished. The check and balance is highly qualified and talented professionals.

It's patently unfair though to require that and most responsible retailers don't as, anecdotally, indicated by this thread.

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

The sole evidence is the customers claim to have bought the item.

The shop now needs to prove that he did not buy the item. Is this incorrect?

Prove by moving the preponderance of evidence back by 1%

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

The sole evidence is the customers claim to have bought the item.

The shop now needs to prove that he did not buy the item. Is this incorrect?

No, it's totally incorrect.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

The shop now needs to prove that he did not buy the item. Is this incorrect?

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Prove by moving the preponderance of evidence back by 1%

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, it's totally incorrect.

So not totally then?

You know hullaballoo, you don't have to answer my question, you could just move on and do something else so the snark seems quite unnecessary. At least there are others prepared to explain their points.

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

So not totally then?

You know hullaballoo, you don't have to answer my question, you could just move on and do something else so the snark seems quite unnecessary. At least there are others prepared to explain their points.

I have answered your question at least three times now. The shop is not required to prove a negative. It is not required to prove anything.

In order to rebalance the weight of evidence against it, it must bring in evidence of its own but it does not have to prove anything. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

So not totally then?

You know hullaballoo, you don't have to answer my question, you could just move on and do something else so the snark seems quite unnecessary. At least there are others prepared to explain their points.

I've absolutely no need to stick up for Hullaballoo he/she is more than capable of doing that his/her self but as I've been here a while (longer than my current membership suggests) I'd just like to point out how helpful a poster he/she (getting bored of this now you're a he until I'm corrected :P) is.

You have to bear in mind you get answers to the questions posed. Not everyone has verbal diarrhea like me. I'm also much more likely to be wrong than H.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

It is not required to prove anything.

In order to rebalance the weight of evidence against it, it must bring in evidence of its own but it does not have to prove anything. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

So if the shop does not bring in evidence of its own, if it does not prove anything, is the customers claim of purchase likely to be accepted?

This is assuming a simple case, where the customer claims he bought a Widget in shop A, and the shop simply responds that the customer did not do so.

MarkAnthony

bucketybuck wrote: »

So if the shop does not bring in evidence of its own, if it does not prove anything, is the customers claim of purchase likely to be accepted?

This is assuming a simple case, where the customer claims he bought a Widget in shop A, and the shop simply responds that the customer did not do so.

Then you're at 50/50 and theoretically stuck. But of course that never happens.

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Then you're at 50/50 and theoretically stuck. But of course that never happens.

The shop has to put it to the customer that he did not buy in in the shop. The judge can either believe the customer or the shop. Usually the shop will have to ask other questions to try and undermine the claimant.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

The shop has to put it to the customer that he did not buy in in the shop. The judge can either believe the customer or the shop. Usually the shop will have to ask other questions to try and undermine the claimant.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course but I'm trying to illustrate a point that before that happens (and it would happen) there is a moment of 'dead lock'. Just for the sake of Hullabaloo's new friend :pac:

Uno my Uno.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course but I'm trying to illustrate a point that before that happens (and it would happen) there is a moment of 'dead lock'. Just for the sake of Hullabaloo's new friend :pac:

There is no deadlock, 50/50 is not proved on the balance of probabilities and the plaintiff is unsuccessful.

MarkAnthony

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

There is no deadlock, 50/50 is not proved on the balance of probabilities and the plaintiff is unsuccessful.

There is in the 1.5 seconds between breaths. Anyway as I say it was to illustrate a point that didn't seem to be going over at the time.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. The customer, who has the widget, is obviously in a position to know where he got it, and if he says he bought it in X shop, why would you disbelieve that?

If the manager of X shop says "no, he didn't", I think you'd want a bit more detail before you would reject the manager's evidence. How does the manager know that the customer did not buy the widget in X shop? If he says that they don't sell that particular widget, or the shop was closed on the day the customer claims to have bought it, or offers some other plausible reason for his belief that the customer didn't buy it as claimed, that's one thing. But if he just says "I don't believe him. No reason, I just don't like the cut of his jib" that's quite another. In that case the court is more likely to find the customer's evidence more persuasive than the manager's, and to find that the customer has established his case on the balance of probabilities.