Is this legal?

emeldc · 29-11-2013 2:58pm

MYOB wrote: »

You never have any innate legal right to exchange something for 'whatever reason' anywhere, only if its defective, doesn't meet description or similar.

The point I'm trying to make is that, in my experience, most shops will at least exchange goods of all descriptions as long as they are in perfect condition and are returned within a reasonable time with proof of purchase. Does this practice suddenly stop just because the company is in administration. Have you never bought a pair of shoes that felt fine in the shop only to feel that maybe you could have done with a bigger size after you've tried them on at home. They're not defective but I'd be pissed off if they wouldn't exchange them for another pair and used some administration bull sh*t as the reason.

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 2:59pm

MYOB wrote: »

I'm going to take that as a lengthy 'no', then

It is what it is. So far you've provided no evidence for your assertions. I've linked you to the legislation which you've either not read or misread. You've confused the issue of terms and conditions and completely misunderstood how a contract is formed. As I've indicated I will go looking for cases for you but educating you isn't a one way street.

I've also asked for something in return which is some info on receivership - are you going to oblige?

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:00pm

emeldc wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that, in my experience, most shops will at least exchange goods of all descriptions as long as they are in perfect condition and are returned within a reasonable time with proof of purchase. Does this practice suddenly stop just because the company is in administration. Have you never bought a pair of shoes that felt fine in the shop only to feel that maybe you could have done with a bigger size after you've tried them on at home. They're not defective but I'd be pissed off if they wouldn't exchange them for another pair and used some administration bull sh*t as the reason.

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:01pm

Bepolite wrote: »

It is what it is. So far you've provided no evidence for your assertions. I've linked you to the legislation which you've either not read or mis read. You've confused the issue of terms and conditions and completely misunderstood how a contract is formed. As I've indicated I will go looking for cases for you but educating you isn't a one way street.

I've also asked for something in return which is some info on receivership - are you going to oblige?

You've provided legislation of no relevance to this issue - or are refusing to prove relevance. Which is it?

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 3:02pm

MYOB wrote: »

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

Thats not what he/she said. He's suggested that changing one pair of sellable shoes for another pair of sellable shoes seems like BS to him/her. Which of course it is.

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 3:03pm

MYOB wrote: »

You've provided legislation of no relevance to this issue - or are refusing to prove relevance. Which is it?

See the previous posts.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:04pm

Bepolite wrote: »

See the previous posts.

I have.

emeldc · 29-11-2013 3:08pm

MYOB wrote: »

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

Even I know there's a difference between receivership and administration. If you know so much about it can you not just answer the post. Best get off that high horse before you fall off it.

29-11-2013 3:13pm

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html
Specifically:

When you buy goods or services you enter into a contract with the supplier of goods and services. This is called a consumer contract. Specifically a consumer is a person who is buying a service or a product from someone whose normal business it is to sell that product or service.

Contracts may be written or oral. It is easier to know precisely what the terms are in a written contract but an oral contract is also enforceable in law. Consumer contracts may differ and there are no hard and fast rules governing what terms should be in a consumer contract.

An officially stated returns policy is part of the terms of the consumer contract. A retailer cannot unilaterally change these terms after the contract is entered into.

However, the company being in receivership may change things. You may be entitled to an exchange, but that's not much good if you're at the end of a long of people entitled to things

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:16pm

emeldc wrote: »

Even I know there's a difference between receivership and administration. If you know so much about it can you not just answer the post. Best get off that high horse before you fall off it.

Administration is a UK term. In Ireland they're either in examinership or receivership.

emeldc · 29-11-2013 3:26pm

MYOB wrote: »

Administration is a UK term. In Ireland they're either in examinership or receivership.

Nice try but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Administration is the same as examinership ............ but receivership is different to both.
RTE are happy to use the Brit version

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1111/485969-barratts-shoes/

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 3:29pm

Receivership deals with secured creditors generally. I'm still unclear how, if a receiver takes the decision to keep the business running, under what theory they can refuse to honour contracts. Obviously they can breach a contract but is there something that allows them to do this?

I don't expect to get an answer of course.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:29pm

emeldc wrote: »

Nice try but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Administration is the same as examinership ............ but receivership is different to both.
RTE are happy to use the Brit version
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1111/485969-barratts-shoes/

Administration is more serious than Irish examinership. Both are far more serious than you seem to believe. RTE are referring to the UK parent.

emeldc · 29-11-2013 3:41pm

MYOB wrote: »

Administration is more serious than Irish examinership. Both are far more serious than you seem to believe. RTE are referring to the UK parent.

............. so no chance you can answer my original query then.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 3:42pm

emeldc wrote: »

............. so no chance you can answer my original query then.

What query? That you've an expectation that every shop will take returns for change of mind?

emeldc · 29-11-2013 3:53pm

MYOB wrote: »

What query? That you've an expectation that every shop will take returns for change of mind?

It's called customer service and goodwill. Something that's obviously missing from your profession. Maybe that's why you cant answer.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 4:00pm

emeldc wrote: »

It's called customer service and goodwill. Something that's obviously missing from your profession. Maybe that's why you cant answer.

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

29-11-2013 4:02pm

MYOB wrote: »

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

But if they do offer it as a condition of the sale, they are legally bound by it

emeldc · 29-11-2013 4:07pm

MYOB wrote: »

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

You need to stop repeating yourself.
You should also hope that no one buys you a pair of shoes for Christmas that might be a bit tight.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 4:30pm

28064212 wrote: »

But if they do offer it as a condition of the sale, they are legally bound by it

Has this actually been upheld in court?

emeldc wrote: »

You need to stop repeating yourself.
You should also hope that no one buys you a pair of shoes for Christmas that might be a bit tight.

If you didn't stop asking the same thing you wouldn't keep getting the same answer.

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 4:44pm

MYOB wrote: »

Has this actually been upheld in court?

Yes it has. This is an absolute basic of contract law.

emeldc · 29-11-2013 4:48pm

MYOB wrote: »

If you didn't stop asking the same thing you wouldn't keep getting the same answer.

What 'same answer'. Come on, which politician are you. Only politicians can avoid questions like you do.

I'll ask the question in a way that even a politician could understand it.

Do you think it's right that the OP can not exchange a perfectly good pair of shoes for another pair just because the company is in administration/examinership. And if it isn't possible, then why not?

Please refrain from the legal lecture. Nobody cares. It's about customer service and common sense. It's just a pair of shoes after all.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 4:51pm

Bepolite wrote: »

Yes it has. This is an absolute basic of contract law.

So show me some examples then. Specific examples of a voluntary extension of consumer rights being upheld in court.

L1011 · 29-11-2013 4:52pm

emeldc wrote: »

What 'same answer'. Come on, which politician are you. Only politicians can avoid questions like you do.

I'll ask the question in a way that even a politician could understand it.

Do you think it's right that the OP can not exchange a perfectly good pair of shoes for another pair just because the company is in administration/examinership. And if it isn't possible, then why not?

Please refrain from the legal lecture. Nobody cares. It's about customer service and common sense. It's just a pair of shoes after all.

I've answered this question, so often that you claimed I was repeating myself.

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 4:58pm

MYOB wrote: »

So show me some examples then. Specific examples of a voluntary extension of consumer rights being upheld in court.

You are looking for specific cases that won't be reported on because they are heard in the district and circuit courts.

What you are suggesting is that because someone is buying something in a shop that consumer legislation (which you seem to think is only the Sale of Goods Acts) somehow trumps basic contract law. Can you provide any basis for this assertion? The consumer legislation over the years has been in addition to common law contract, except where it expressly provides extra protection.

If you must have contract cases spoon fed to you google the Carbolic Smoke Ball.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this. I'm sorry that so many of the forum regulars don't seem to understand this either. It's a disservice to people who post here looking for help to be quite frank.

You've still not answered my question about the legal basis for varying contracts when a business is under receivership. I assume you simply don't know?

dudara · 29-11-2013 4:59pm

Posters - enough of the personal attacks, sniping & oneupmanship. You've filled three pages on this post with your back and forth.

Legal technicalities can be discussed in the Legal Discussion forum.

Continue to snipe & I will infract.

dudara

29-11-2013 4:59pm

MYOB wrote: »

Has this actually been upheld in court?

I don't know. Has a ruling been found the other way? Which part do you believe does not apply?

Is there a contract of sale between the retailer and the consumer?
Does the contract include the terms explicitly laid out by the retailer?

1: "A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price" - That's a yes
2: "a contract of sale may be made in writing (either with or without seal), or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be implied from the conduct of the parties" - That's a yes

It's up to you to demonstrate that such laws do not apply

foggy_lad · 29-11-2013 5:00pm

The offer to exchange goods that is made by retailers is usually made after the contract of sale has been completed and the terms of the offer are usually printed on the consumers receipt, so it is not then part of the sales contract and is usually stated as being a discretionary offer which means it may be changed or removed at any time by the retailer.

Bepolite · 29-11-2013 5:02pm

dudara wrote: »

Posters - enough of the personal attacks, sniping & oneupmanship. You've filled three pages on this post with your back and forth.

Legate technicalities can be discussed in the Legal Discussion forum.

Continue to snipe & I will infract.

dudara

Apologies - may the conversation continue as to the status of terms and conditions and whether a receiver may vary contract terms if it can happen in a more civilized fashion?

L1011 · 29-11-2013 5:03pm

28064212 wrote: »

I don't know. Has a ruling been found the other way? Which part do you believe does not apply?
Is there a contract of sale between the retailer and the consumer?

Does the contract include the terms explicitly laid out by the retailer?

1: "A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price" - That's a yes
2: "a contract of sale may be made in writing (either with or without seal), or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be implied from the conduct of the parties" - That's a yes

It's up to you to demonstrate that such laws do not apply

2, primarily. That the voluntary offer does not form part of the contract nor does it convince the average person to form the contract.

Is this legal?

Comments