Tile shop wont allow return of tiles

darc

Its very difficult to answer when very little information has been provided.

What were the measurements given?
Hove many sq yards of tiles were sold?
What percentage did the leftover stock represent of the total order?
Was the tile bought in specially for the OP or was it a stock item?
How many edges are there in the bathroom (this affect the number of off cuts there would be)

If the measurements pan out to be 10% less than the sold quantity, then this is acceptable. - Over 15% and the store could be accused of over selling.

If the left overs represent less than 15% of the total purchase, then its sort of acceptable, as the amount left would depend on how accurate the cutting was.

seamus

A retailer has a responsibility to ensure that goods sold are fit for the purpose for which they're being sold. This would include a customer asking, "Is there enough here to fit my bathroom?", "Will this rain cover, cover my people carrier?", and so forth. If the retailer gets it wrong, then the goods sold are not fit for the purpose for which they were intended and the customer is entitled to return it.

Of course, this is on the edge of that - does the customer have to bring all of the product back, or just the bit which was fit for the purpose. There is also "acceptable wastage" to factor in, as darc points out. Other factors include the size of the tile; If the tile was a 5cm edge, then I'd say that have 2 sq.m. left over (80 tiles) is ridiculous. However, if the tiles are huge 50cm edge, then you only have 8 tiles left over, which probably wouldn't even be a single box and would be perfectly acceptable IMO.

Joey the lips

seamus wrote: »

A retailer has a responsibility to ensure that goods sold are fit for the purpose for which they're being sold. This would include a customer asking, "Is there enough here to fit my bathroom?", "Will this rain cover, cover my people carrier?", and so forth. If the retailer gets it wrong, then the goods sold are not fit for the purpose for which they were intended and the customer is entitled to return it.

Of course, this is on the edge of that - does the customer have to bring all of the product back, or just the bit which was fit for the purpose. There is also "acceptable wastage" to factor in, as darc points out. Other factors include the size of the tile; If the tile was a 5cm edge, then I'd say that have 2 sq.m. left over (80 tiles) is ridiculous. However, if the tiles are huge 50cm edge, then you only have 8 tiles left over, which probably wouldn't even be a single box and would be perfectly acceptable IMO.

Hi Sheamus, The product is not unfit. Check consumer law No the shop does not have to take the goods back.

seamus

Joey the lips wrote: »

Hi Sheamus, The product is not unfit. Check consumer law No the shop does not have to take the goods back.

It's a fine line. "It's a tile, therefore it's suitable for tiling" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Check the regulations on it - it's up to the retailer to ensure that the product being sold is appropriate for what it's being used for.

To give a slightly relevant example, let's say a guy goes into Halford and picks up a rain cover clearly marked as a rain cover for a sports hatchback car. He tells the retailer that he's buying it for his hi-ace. If the retailer sells the cover and it inevitably doesn't fit, the retailer is obliged to take it back and replace it (or refund it) because the goods sold were not fit for the purpose for which they were bought and the retailer knew this.

This is a slightly different situation, purely because there appears to be an error in calculation either on the OP's side or on the retailer's side. However, if the error is on the retailers side, then the retailer sold goods which were not fit for their specific purpose - i.e. he sold too much of it. But I imagine you would have something of a battle on your hands to get anything out of it because it's such a specific grey case. If it's a box or more of tiles, I'd be surprised that the retailer wouldn't take them back in exchange for something else in the shop. If it's less than a box, throw it in your garage as spares.

vms7ply9t6dw4b

seamus wrote: »

It's a fine line. "It's a tile, therefore it's suitable for tiling" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Check the regulations on it - it's up to the retailer to ensure that the product being sold is appropriate for what it's being used for.

To give a slightly relevant example, let's say a guy goes into Halford and picks up a rain cover clearly marked as a rain cover for a sports hatchback car. He tells the retailer that he's buying it for his hi-ace. If the retailer sells the cover and it inevitably doesn't fit, the retailer is obliged to take it back and replace it (or refund it) because the goods sold were not fit for the purpose for which they were bought and the retailer knew this.

Does the law not state that the goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for thier INTENDED purpose? I dont remember seeing anywhere that the goods must be fit for what the consumer wants them to do.

i.e. using your example,the cover is INTENDED to be used on a hiace and therefore of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose. The salesman is just dishonest if he tells him its for a hatchback and thats where Caveat emptor comes into it.
It would be a different story if the customer bought a cover for a hatchback and inside the box there was a cover for a hiace... then the goods would be unfit for the intended purpose and not of merchantable quality.

Caveat emptor - Let the buyer beware..

Lets assume his measurements were correct,

The person who bought the tiles put his trust in the person estimating the amount he would need. They either deliberately or unintentionally got this wrong and unless the person buying the tiles was paying for an estimation service i cant see the tile shop having a legal duty of care to ensure that the estimations are accurate?

The OP should have worked it out himself if he wanted a more accurate estimation on how many tiles he would need but he chose to take the word of sombody else. Nobody in the shop held a gun to his head and forced him to buy x amount of tiles.

People can make thier own minds up as to weather or not the people selling the tiles knew he would have way too much. I think 12 months ago they would have taken them back anyway, its just a sign of the times business is becoming scarce and goodwill comes at too high a price these days.
Its also a sign people need to keep thier wits about them when throwing money around the place, cant see the first post but was it €300 for two boxes of tiles?!:eek:

edit: €165 a square metre on tiles!!?? No recession in your house, or at least not in your bathroom anyway!

seamus

Jayden Victorious Shredder wrote: »

Does the law not state that the goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for thier INTENDED purpose? I dont remember seeing anywhere that the goods must be fit for what the consumer wants them to do.

The goods must be fit for the purpose for which they're being bought, not the purpose for which they were manufactured. The relevant bit is this:

Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, Section 10. 14(4) wrote:

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.

Which basically means that if the guy tells the retailer what he's using the goods for, the retailer is required to ensure that they are fit for that purpose. So in my example, the guy says he wants a cover for his hi-ace, the retailer is aware that it's not suitable for a hi-ace, so is required to tell him (or take it back when it doesn't fit the hi-ace).

Caveat Emptor doesn't hold the same pedestal in consumer law as it does in business or private sales.

Lets assume his measurements were correct,

The person who bought the tiles put his trust in the person estimating the amount he would need. They either deliberately or unintentionally got this wrong and unless the person buying the tiles was paying for an estimation service i cant see the tile shop having a legal duty of care to ensure that the estimations are accurate?

In light of the above paragraph can you see how the seller may be deemed liable because he may have sold too much tile to the buyer when he knew the buyer wanted less?

Joey the lips

seamus wrote: »

It's a fine line. "It's a tile, therefore it's suitable for tiling" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Check the regulations on it - it's up to the retailer to ensure that the product being sold is appropriate for what it's being used for.

To give a slightly relevant example, let's say a guy goes into Halford and picks up a rain cover clearly marked as a rain cover for a sports hatchback car. He tells the retailer that he's buying it for his hi-ace. If the retailer sells the cover and it inevitably doesn't fit, the retailer is obliged to take it back and replace it (or refund it) because the goods sold were not fit for the purpose for which they were bought and the retailer knew this.

This is a slightly different situation, purely because there appears to be an error in calculation either on the OP's side or on the retailer's side. However, if the error is on the retailers side, then the retailer sold goods which were not fit for their specific purpose - i.e. he sold too much of it. But I imagine you would have something of a battle on your hands to get anything out of it because it's such a specific grey case. If it's a box or more of tiles, I'd be surprised that the retailer wouldn't take them back in exchange for something else in the shop. If it's less than a box, throw it in your garage as spares.

Hi Sheamus

If you think this the case when dont you go to the shop with the poster I am sure he will split the money returned.

and if you waste the posters time pu your money down and you return it.

But if you dont believe me contact consumer relations.

Sam Vimes

To all the people who are saying they don't have to return it because it's fit for purpose, what about my example of a sales person lying by telling a customer he needs to buy an add on for a product to work? In that case the add on works perfectly and is fit for its purpose but the customer was misled into buying it so should he not be allowed return it?

The law says it should be fit for it's intended purpose but the intended purpose is to cover his room. The tiles he got were meant to cover a much larger room so they are not fit for their intended purpose. It's like telling someone they need a chainsaw to cut paper. They're also not as described because they were described as the number of tiles needed to cover his room

Of course as seamus says it depends on how many boxes were left over. If it's only one or maybe two boxes it could be seen as taking account of odd cuttings and breakages but loads of boxes would be over selling

coco06

OP Providing did you give them the correct measurements for your bathroom. If you post them here we could work it out. Usually you need to add 10-15% for cutting and waste

The shop should have said that because they were special order they couldnt take any returns and make this clear to you. I have come across this before and was happy to accept this.

Usually though if they can resell them they will take them back and charge a restocking fee of 10% (which is rediculus anyway).

You can see where they are coming from, but if they made the mistake and admit it then they should take them back, if not and its not on your t&c's then it looks like you could be stuck with them.

You should always keep some spare incase u need to repair some or move something in your bathroom. Or you could try and sell them?

seamus

Joey the lips wrote: »

If you think this the case when dont you go to the shop with the poster I am sure he will split the money returned.

I never said that I specifically think it's the case, but I think it's a possibility. Why would I put my own money down on it?

See the piece of legislation I've quoted and you'll see why I'm putting it in a possibility.

vms7ply9t6dw4b

seamus wrote: »

Which basically means that if the guy tells the retailer what he's using the goods for, the retailer is required to ensure that they are fit for that purpose. So in my example, the guy says he wants a cover for his hi-ace, the retailer is aware that it's not suitable for a hi-ace, so is required to tell him (or take it back when it doesn't fit the hi-ace).

I dont interpret that to cover quantity though, especially since the customer wasnt paying for it to be quantified. The shop could claim that it was standard practice for them to over estimate by two boxes to allow for breakage and wastage.

I think its bad form on the part of the tile store at wost but I personally dont think the has a legal right to return the tiles but clearly you do and a judge might, there would only be one way to find out OP