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.