Told wrong size...can I get refund?

Fittle

Appreciate if someone could give me some advice here please.

I bought a dress in one of those small boutiques in a larger shopping centre (it's not a popular boutique, so no point in naming it). The label said 'Size L'. When I asked the girl what size this was, she said 'About a 16/18' I didn't have time to fit it on so bought it (80euro) and when I tried it on at home, it was obviously at least 2 sizes bigger than she told me (at least a 20/22).
I couldn't get back to the shop myself, but my sister brought it back for me the next day, to be told that they had a 'no refunds' policy and they gave her a credit note.

I don't want to purchase anything else in this particular shop - do I have any rights in relation to getting a cash refund, considering I was given the wrong info by the staff member (who is on 2wks holidays at them moment apparently, so I can't prove/disprove that she gave me the above size!)
Thanks,

the groutch

best imo to take the credit note, and sell it to a friend at a minor loss.
although they might have incorrectly advised you of the exact size, it'd be your word against theirs, and you had ample opportunity to try it on.

RangeR

Not the shops fault you hadn't time to try it on.
Employee gave you a rough size. The very fact they she guessed means it shouldn't be relied on.

Procrastastudy

I take a different view. The shop should have given a refund, but it's too late now - your agent has accepted a credit note.

davo10

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I take a different view. The shop should have given a refund, but it's too late now - your agent has accepted a credit note.

Based on what?

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

Based on what?

Statement made by the retailer relied upon by the purchaser. It's clear that the purchaser did not rely on their own expertise so the SOGA allows for rejection of the goods. When it comes to women's drapery there is an argument that any statement as to size is grounds for repudiation as they are non-standard sizes.

davo10

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Statement made by the retailer relied upon by the purchaser. It's clear that the purchaser did not rely on their own expertise so the SOGA allows for rejection of the goods. When it comes to women's drapery there is an argument that any statement as to size is grounds for repudiation as they are non-standard sizes.

An argument or a law?, large may mean a lot of things, it may be a loose fitting large, a tight fitting large, if it went to SCC and your "argument" was made, might the shop not counter with the fact that fitting rooms are available to try on item prior to purchase and that this is recommended?

finnegan101

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Statement made by the retailer relied upon by the purchaser. It's clear that the purchaser did not rely on their own expertise so the SOGA allows for rejection of the goods. When it comes to women's drapery there is an argument that any statement as to size is grounds for repudiation as they are non-standard sizes.

as above, and as a sales person in a clothes shop, they would be expected to have sound knowledge of clothing sizes, and buyer acted upon statement of seller, which would entitle them to full refund so long as receipt was displayed when returning..

finnegan101

davo10 wrote: »

An argument or a law?, large may mean a lot of things, it may be a loose fitting large, a tight fitting large, if it went to SCC and your "argument" was made, might the shop not counter with the fact that fitting rooms are available to try on item prior to purchase and that this is recommended?

Fitting rooms would surely be a facility or extra perk, not mentioned in sales of goods acts ...

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

An argument or a law?, large may mean a lot of things, it may be a loose fitting large, a tight fitting large, if it went to SCC and your "argument" was made, might the shop not counter with the fact that fitting rooms are available to try on item prior to purchase and that this is recommended?

If the OP hadn't asked then perhaps. She did so relied upon statements made. I'm not sure a three judge panel in the Special Criminal Court would be very interested.

As for the Small Claims Court Registrar who knows what they'd come up with - they're more bonkers than District Court judges.

Shelflife

Well anyone who has ever bought clothes will know that a size 10 in one shop could be an 8 or a 12 in another. Its merely an indicator , only way to know for sure is to try them on.

I would say that the shop had no obligation to even give a credit note.

Procrastastudy

Shelflife wrote: »

Well anyone who has ever bought clothes will know that a size 10 in one shop could be an 8 or a 12 in another. Its merely an indicator , only way to know for sure is to try them on.

I would say that the shop had no obligation to even give a credit note.

Then the shop should have said "I'm afraid the only way to be sure is to try them on".

By your logic if a company had a history of misrep then they could rely on their own dishonesty as a defence. The law really would be an ass.

Shelflife

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Then the shop should have said "I'm afraid the only way to be sure is to try them on".

By your logic if a company had a history of misrep then they could rely on their own dishonesty as a defence. The law really would be an ass.

But its not misrep, it was the assistants opinion that it was a 17 its the Ops opinion that its a 21. The only thing thats certain is that its a Large.

Procrastastudy

Shelflife wrote: »

But its not misrep, it was the assistants opinion that it was a 17 its the Ops opinion that its a 21. The only thing thats certain is that its a Large.

It was the offerors offer and the OPs acceptance. Basic contract law.

Even if it wasn't its just good customer service to offer a refund under these circumstances. If in doubt the customer is always right. It wont be in business long if this is the sort of practise it has to re-sought to so doesn't matter either way really.

davo10

Procrastastudy wrote: »

It was the offerors offer and the OPs acceptance. Basic contract law.

Even if it wasn't its just good customer service to offer a refund under these circumstances. If in doubt the customer is always right. It wont be in business long if this is the sort of practise it has to re-sought to so doesn't matter either way really.

Are you a student by any chance?, when you have your own business you can give back as much money as you want to every client who questions the advice you give, your perspective on refunds may change. Remember the OP said she would not be interested in buying anything else there so it is not as if giving her a refund would retain her business. I have tried on large tops which have been too big and too small, as "large" is not a definable size even for the retailer, surely the onus is on the purchaser to try it on. Also, I do not know anything about dress sizes but perhaps large may fit the bust but not the tummy of some and vice versa, it may be too long for a short person and too short for a tall person, all may be 16-18 but may require a slightly different fit, hense the need to try it on. If the shop were to show another purchaser who is size 16-18 and happy with the large dress, where would this leave your argument that fee paid should be refunded?

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

Are you a student by any chance?, when you have your own business you can give back as much money as you want to every client who questions the advice you give, your perspective on refunds may change. Remember the OP said she would not be interested in buying anything else there so it is not as if giving her a refund would retain her business. I have tried on large tops which have been too big and too small, as "large" is not a definable size even for the retailer, surely the onus is on the purchaser to try it on. Also, I do not know anything about dress sizes but perhaps large may fit the bust but not the tummy of some and vice versa, it may be too long for a short person and too short for a tall person, all may be 16-18 but may require a slightly different fit, hense the need to try it on. If the shop were to show another purchaser who is size 16-18 and happy with the large dress, where would this leave your argument that fee paid should be refunded?

I'm a law student yes... with a decade of retail management experience.

It leaves my "argument" the law. You've two choices really - take back the item, resell it and have a happy customer and no loss to yourself or act the maggot over your own mistake, loose a customer and potentially be on the receiving end bad publicity.

It's very clear the retailer in this case was the one trying things on.

davo10

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm a law student yes... with a decade of retail management experience.

It leaves my "argument" the law. You've two choices really - take back the item, resell it and have a happy customer and no loss to yourself or act the maggot over your own mistake, loose a customer and potentially be on the receiving end bad publicity.

It's very clear the retailer in this case was the one trying things on.

Had a quick look at a few clothes measurement websites, large is typically size 14-18 blouse size, shop assistant would seem to have given correct info, it just may not have fitted OPs shape, hence the need to try it on, the law does not require the seller to resell it nor will it recognise her acting the maggot.

In time you will give advice based on knowledge and experience, it may be your interpretation of the law and it may be within acceptable and recognised standards, as the shop assistant did, you may have a client who returns to you because he does not like the advice given and demands your fees back. You may say that the advice given is the norm but what the hell, here is all your money back.

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

Had a quick look at a few clothes measurement websites, large is typically size 14-18 blouse size, shop assistant would seem to have given correct info, it just may not have fitted OPs shape, hence the need to try it on, the law does not require the seller to resell it nor will it recognise her acting the maggot.

In time you will give advice based on knowledge and experience, it may be your interpretation of the law and it may be within acceptable and recognised standards, as the shop assistant did, you may have a client who returns to you because he does not like the advice given and demands your fees back. You may say that the advice given is the norm but what the hell, here is all your money back.

Please let me know what shop/business you run so I and others can avoid you.

If you make statements which the buyer relies, which turn out to be false or even unknowingly inaccurate, you are in the wrong - very, very simple. That happens I've done it myself. Where it shows the true colours of a retailer/business is when they don't admit their mistake and use pub lawyering to get out of doing the decent thing and saying "Sorry - here's the money back. I hope to do business with you in the future."

If you want to stand over a "Unless you try it on we can't take any responsibility for it not fitting" policy then say that to the person. They may very well not have time and not buy which is I'm sure why you wouldn't say that.

Getting money and keeping it in the till is one way to run a business - I've worked for outfits like that. Non-principled business practises like that make money for a while - then everyone figures it out. Cost Plus Sofas is the current big one.

Fittle

Thanks for info everyone - so it seems I have no comeback and should have fit it on?

TherapyBoy

Can you use the credit note to buy the dress in a smaller size?

Procrastastudy

Fittle wrote: »

Thanks for info everyone - so it seems I have no comeback and should have fit it on?

Just be more wary of where you buy, ask about returns policies and above all do your own returning.

As said above just get it in a smaller size.

Fittle

They don't have it in the smaller size unfortunately.
Ok thanks.

RoboRat

It's very clear the retailer in this case was the one trying things on.

Clearly, as the customer didn't bother :-P

RoboRat

They don't have it in the smaller size unfortunately.

Can they order it in for you? They might be willing to do that if you point out in a friendly manner that you were misled.

davo10

RoboRat wrote: »

Can they order it in for you? They might be willing to do that if you point out in a friendly manner that you were misled.

Again, how was OP mislead?, large is a size "range" according to measurement websites is 14 to 18 blouse size, the shop assistant gave correct info, the dress just did not fit the purchaser the way she wanted it to.

Procrastastudy, again as a solicitor if you give advice as per accepted standards, why would your clients be entitled to a refund on your fees if the advice does not benefit them in the way they want it to? It's business, not philanthropy.

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

Again, how was OP mislead?, large is a size "range" according to measurement websites is 14 to 18 blouse size, the shop assistant gave correct info, the dress just did not fit the purchaser the way she wanted it to.

Read the scenario given by the OP. The key is that she asked the sales assistant. If she had breezed in picked it up and breezed out then she would not be entitled to a refund. However she asked and a mistake / misrep was made.

davo10 wrote: »

Procrastastudy, again as a solicitor if you give advice as per accepted standards, why would your clients be entitled to a refund on your fees if the advice does not benefit them in the way they want it to? It's business, not philanthropy.

If a solicitor gave incorrect advice they would be on the receiving end of a negligent misstatement case and/or sanction from the Law Society. The NCA (or what ever it is in the process of morphing into) should be in a position to come in and investigate retailers in the same manner. Hefty fines might actually get retailers to start respecting a consumers statutory rights.

davo10

I've read the OP, the dress said "size L", she asked what size this was and was told "about 16-18", in fashion retail size L is a range 14-18 so assistant gave correct info.

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

I've read the OP, the dress said "size L", she asked what size this was and was told "about 16-18", in fashion retail size L is a range 14-18 so assistant gave correct info.

You cant have read the OP very well as the OP is aserting it's more like a 20/22; that aside...

And as I have already stated unless there is a correct measurement given there is an arguable case that any women's drapery that doesn't fit is returnable under the doctrines of mistake/misrep.

Even taking the legalities out of this given the situation the best practise would be to offer a refund. The retailer even seems to accept that if the person was there to be questioned an had given the info the OP describes they may have made a different decision.

If the retailer wanted to cover themselves they should have been honest and said that they didn't know and the person should try it on as they dont give refunds.

TL;DR at best poor service at worst illegal.

There is little point in continuing this conversation as you've clearly made up your mind. I'd suggest a read of the SOGA and the accompanying SIs

davo10

I take a size 9 and a half shoe, not all nine and a half shoes fit my feet the way I want them to, some are to narrow some are too wide so I try them to see if they fit, has the shoe shop assistant missold or misrepresented the size of shoe because it does not fit my foot if I do not choose to try them before I purchase? Is this an offence under the sale of goods act?

Procrastastudy

davo10 wrote: »

I take a size 9 and a half shoe, not all nine and a half shoes fit my feet the way I want them to, some are to narrow some are too wide so I try them to see if they fit, has the shoe shop assistant missold or misrepresented the size of shoe because it does not fit my foot if I do not choose to try them before I purchase? Is this an offence under the sale of goods act?

Did you ask? What did they say?