cash refunds are not offered?

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.

Sam Vimes

axer wrote: »

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.

ah yeah we've established that aaaages ago. we've move onto more pressing matters now

axer wrote: »

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.

this is true but as i'm sure you'll agree, just as it doesn't say the choice is with the retailer, it doesn't say it's with the customer either. and if it goes to a judge there's no guarantee of a refund, it's not as simple as "no refund=law broken"

axer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

this is true but as i'm sure you'll agree, just as it doesn't say the choice is with the retailer, it doesn't say it's with the customer either. and if it goes to a judge there's no guarantee of a refund, it's not as simple as "no refund=law broken"

nobody is claiming it is with the consumer just that it is not at the seller's discretion which remedy has to be taken.

foggy_lad

axer wrote: »

Chill out lads.
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).

this is not the correct way to read this

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

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.

this is!

goods/services which are ordered specially or custom built are covered in the same way as all other goods/services unless there are special conditions written into the contract.

axer

foggy_lad wrote: »

this is not the correct way to read this

this is!

goods/services which are ordered specially or custom built are covered in the same way as all other goods/services unless there are special conditions written into the contract.

11. (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.

basically custom built goods i.e. non-severable goods cannot be rejected once accepted. Any breach is treated as a breach of warranty and not as a breach of condition.

Sam Vimes

axer wrote: »

nobody is claiming it is with the consumer just that it is not at the seller's discretion which remedy has to be taken.

Mr. Incognito is. he says you're entitled to a refund, full stop and you don't have to accept a replacement or repair. whether he just meant that you can take them to the small claims court and let a judge decide rather than you can take them to the small claims court where you will definitely win because the law has been broken remains to be seen

axer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Mr. Incognito is. he says you're entitled to a refund, full stop and you don't have to accept a replacement or repair. whether he just meant that you can take them to the small claims court and let a judge decide rather than you can take them to the small claims court where you will definitely win because the law has been broken remains to be seen

He is right except when the goods are non-severable and accepted as can be read from the part of the sale of goods act 1980 quoted above - where the term that would normally be treated as a condition e.g. merchantable quality is to be treated as a warranty instead once the goods have been accepted.

Sam Vimes

axer wrote: »

He is right except when the goods are non-severable and accepted as can be read from the part of the sale of goods act 1980 quoted above - where the term that would normally be treated as a condition

non-serverable basically meaning not custom?

so if you buy a pair of standard shoes and they're faulty three months later, you're not automatically entitled to a full refund as he said?

axer wrote: »

e.g. merchantable quality is to be treated as a warranty instead once the goods have been accepted.

which is what i took from the text he posted but he said i was wrong

Mr. Incognito

Originally Posted by Mr. Incognito
but if they refuse to give you a refund the small claims court is the correct forum.
And would you definitely win?

What do you think? If you think a judge is going to overturn 20 years of standard commercial law take it to conspiracies my friend.

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?

I didn't realise I've been appointed Boards consumer champion. Do I get paid? I've been in bed, or on the john, or snorting coke off of hookers. Sheesh. :rolleyes:A nice quote comes to mind "I didn't come on the Mayflower but I got here as soon as I could". I wish I could remember the source but it's some American politician. It's up to people to inform themselves. When I tell people the law, 99% of the time I charge them.

Now, this is the only reason I've come bak to this thread and sorry if this is off topic which it is.

Axer, you'll have to explain this one to me

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).

Fair enough, I've never come across this definition of goods but the legislation points to

Where a contract of sale is not severable

Totally different things.

Also, it is incorrect to quote the Sale of Goods Act section that refers to a breach of warranty as applicable. Custom made goods will conform to the laws of contractual sale like any other. There has to be an offer, and acceptance of the goods. There are many, many cases in contract law on custom made goods and custom orders that were disputed and one party subsequently sued to enforce their rights, a 4 line paragraph in the sale of goods Act is not going to cover all these scenarios. If you order custom goods and they are not up to spec you're totally entitled to reject the goods as not being what was ordered. The case law will allow you to do this if the breach is a breach of condition, i.e something that goes to the heart of the contract and not a mere breach of warranty. The sale of goods act does NOT legislate this distinction. It merely points out that once the goods have been accepted by the buyer then any subsequent dispute is a breach of warranty and not a breach of condition. In the second the contract is void, in the first it is not, unless of course it is a breach of a written contractual term. The logic behind this is that once the seller has discharged his obligations and the seller has accepted the goods without dispute the seller is allowed to rely on this and should not be put in a position the he will have to have his goods rejected and have to go to the expense of going to collect them. This is why in most places that deal with invoices I've advised that if the person that accepts the goods does not have time to check the delivery they should write "unchecked" on the invoice with their signature so they have an option should the delivery not be what was ordered to go back to the deliveror.

so if you buy a pair of standard shoes and they're faulty three months later, you're not automatically entitled to a full refund as he said?

You seem to have a bit of a foot fetish with all these shoes
I cannot remember for the life of me where I picked it up but I know there is an implied warranty on shoes for 6 months normal use, i.e they should not fall apart for 6 months. I seem to remember a table with different goods and their average life usage but it was a few years ago, someone with more ingenuity than I might be able to dig it out, also you seem to be trying to overturn 20 years of standard commercial reality. The law is pretty easy straightforward. I posted the sections, explained them and you still seem to have some difficulty accepting them. Can I ask why?

Sam Vimes

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

What do you think? If you think a judge is going to overturn 20 years of standard commercial law take it to conspiracies my friend.

well you see it's not that he'd be overturning 20 years of standard commercial law, it's that he's following the law as i see it, which as fvar as i know does not guarantee a refund if something is faulty after a few months. if this is illegal, why are so many retailers allowed to publicly display policies that deny this right? for example maplin has it printed right above the till

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I didn't realise I've been appointed Boards consumer champion. Do I get paid? I've been in bed, or on the john, or snorting coke off of hookers. Sheesh. :rolleyes:A nice quote comes to mind "I didn't come on the Mayflower but I got here as soon as I could". I wish I could remember the source but it's some American politician. It's up to people to inform themselves. When I tell people the law, 99% of the time I charge them.

well you see topics such as that come up every few days and it's surprising that you've never felt the need to tell everyone they were wrong before

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

you seem to be trying to overturn 20 years of standard commercial reality. The law is pretty easy straightforward. I posted the sections, explained them and you still seem to have some difficulty accepting them. Can I ask why?

well firstly, you didn't really explain it. you posted the act and said "basically it means this" but i couldn't see how you got that from the act. it didn't seem to support what you were saying

and secondly, the reason i have trouble accepting it is that you're going against everybody who's ever posted on the matter and every retailer i've ever dealt with. it just seems unlikely to me that they're all wrong and you're right. and what's even more odd is that they are still allowed to follow these illegal policies years after they've been implemented. surely someone must have challenged them by now?

Mr. Incognito

if this is illegal, why are so many retailers allowed to publicly display policies that deny this right? for example maplin has it printed right above the till

Yes, and as pointed out these signs state "This does not affect your statutory rights".

well you see topics such as that come up every few days and it's surprising that you've never felt the need to tell everyone they were wrong before

Because, franky, I couldn't give a ****. I have better things to do. I only waded in because I had a flu on Sunday and thought, hey, why not this will be fun.

well firstly, you didn't really explain it. you posted the act and said "basically it means this" but i couldn't see how you got that from the act. it didn't seem to support what you were saying

and secondly, the reason i have trouble accepting it is that you're going against everybody who's ever posted on the matter and every retailer i've ever dealt with. it just seems unlikely to me that they're all wrong and you're right. and what's even more odd is that they are still allowed to follow these illegal policies years after they've been implemented. surely someone must have challenged them by now?

Well on the first point I thought I explained it pretty thouroghly, perhaps you should re-read my posts, and if you still don't get it, get a friend to read them for you. I interpret legislation every day at work and there is a knack to it. If you both still have difficulty go for a beer and write me off as an idiot.

On the second point, I doubt I'm overturning everyone who's ever spoken on the matter. There have been a number of posters, in this thread alone who agree with me.

I've posted the legislation, explained it, given examples. I'm not going to go over it again. If you don't believe it, fine. You're right and the legislation is wrong. Best of luck.