Consumer Rights

Fey!

Hypothetical situation.

A customer, Mrs A, buys 2 items, B, for her sister from Mr C in shop D as a gift. She says that her sister collects B and she thinks she'd like them. She then pays by credit card.

2 weeks and 6 days later, Mrs A returns to C with B, stating that her sister collects a particular brand of B and that the ones she bought were no good as a result. She is offered a credit note which she refuses, stating that under the Sale of Goods Act she is entitled to a refund.

She is told that she is misinformed as to her rights, as the goods are not defective, to which she replies that the goods are not fit for the purpose they were intended, therefore she was entitled to a refund.

Again it is explained to Mrs A by Mr C that she isn't entitled to a refund, as it is a change of mind rather than a not fit for use. She digs her heals in, stating that she doesn't want to "go down the legal route". She also says that she should have been informed that she couldn't get her money back if the present wasn't right when she bought them in the first place, which would make Mr C responsible for the ensuing problem.

She then takes the goods back (and also attempts to take the credit note, too!) and leaves, saying that she wants Mr Cs boss to ring her.

Who is right and who is wrong? Who has what rights?

I have already read http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=291266, and the SoGA, but would be interested in hearing other peoples interpretations.

I know that Mr C would be better off giving a refund, but should people get away with trying to bully retailers by misusing the SoGA?

calsatron

From my reading of your post it would seem, in this situation, that the problem is that the product's purchased were of a different brand than the one required.

In this situation the shopkeeper would be under no obligation to offer replacement or refund. The argument that the goods are not fit for purpose hinges on the fact that the goods are not fit for your purposes, however the goods are perfectly good for the purpose for which they themselves are intended and that's the important part. To provide an example if a purchase a spade with the intention of chopping wood I couldn't return the spade on the basis that it wasn't fit for the purpose intended.

In this situation the customer would have no recourse to the supplier under the SoGA.

In my experience as soon as a consumer mentions the SoGA to a shopkeeper then they've lost. Your generally get stuck in a circular argument running around SoGA versus Store policy which is almost impossible to resolve without senior intervention. As soon as the consumer mentions the SoGA then they put themselves in the position as the agressor against the shopworker and the store, its far easier to appeal to the compassion of the average shopworker and put yourself on their side against the evil opression of store policy.

As for shopkeepers being bullied with the SoGA, if they are familiar with it then just call the customers bluff. Tell them that if they are that convinced of their consumer rights they should have no problem in legally enforcing them and they're not willing to discuss it further.

seamus

The shopkeeper is 100% right.

The relevant part of the Act is this:

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.

So from the seller's POV, the goods were being bought as a present and were going to be used for the purpose that they are normally used. So they were fit for the purpose.

Just to inject some examples into the above scenario so that it makes more sense, let's say that the items in question are teddies. So the woman tells the shopkeeper, "Oh my sister collects teddies, I'm buying these for her birthday.". The shopkeeper is selling her a teddy, so he can be reasonably sure that, yes, these teddies are fit for use as teddies.
Then it turns out that the sister only collects Teletubbies. Whoops. Tough ****.

*However*, in accordance with the above act, if the woman had said, "Oh my sister collects Teletubbies, that's why I'm buying this", and she had in her hand a plain old teddybear, then the seller either;
1. Tells her, "Well this isn't a teletubby, so it won't suit"
2. Or by maintaining his silence, implies that yes it indeed will suit.

In the case of 1., if the woman goes an buys it anyway, then that's her problem. In the case of 2, the woman does have rights to exercise under the act, because the seller knew that the teddies were not fit for the purpose for which they were being bought.

Sponge Bob

A has no case , they bought the wrong goods but the goods were in themselves 'fit for the purpose'

.

axer

Fey! wrote:

Who is right and who is wrong?

As said earlier, the shop owner is completely right.

Fey! wrote:

Who has what rights?

The SoG act gives rights to both parties but in this instance the buyer cannot exercise any right to get a refund.

Fey! wrote:

I know that Mr C would be better off giving a refund, but should people get away with trying to bully retailers by misusing the SoGA?

No, just like business owners should not be allowed get away with limiting rights. It is people's responsibility to know their rights - if they fooked over because they didnt, well that is their problem.