Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Not happy with bespoke Hat.. have I any rights?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    2RockMountain wrote: »

    This has no basis in law.

    .

    Now, you're just taking the biscuit. The category of Change of Mind is enshrined in statues. Shy do you persist in giving incorrect and potentially harmful information?


  • Options
    #63
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    Fernando Putrid Second wrote: »
    ...potentially harmful information?

    Eh, its a hat. I dont think anyone will be harmed.


  • Options
    #64
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    This isn't about 'change of mind'. This is about goods not fit for purpose, not meeting the design specification. There is nothing in law to suggest that because she took the item away from the shop, she has automatically accepted that they were fit for purpose.

    Have you seen the hat? Have you seen it doesn't function as a headpiece? No.
    Very difficult to convince a court that a facinator isn't fit for purpose if it sits on one's head at any angle.
    It's quite clear the OP just doesn't like it.


  • Options
    #65
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Eh, its a hat. I dont think anyone will be harmed.

    Hilarious . Harmful in the actions taken to seek a remedy based on said advice. Harmful carries many meanings.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #66
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    davo10 wrote: »
    Again you are missing the point, again, the op is unhappy with how it looks, it is there in the opening post. When you buy something and take it home, if you don't like how it looks on your head, that is change of mind.

    If this was an 'off-the-shelf' product, I would agree with you, but it's not. It was a one-off request, with a particular design spec - the photos provided by the OP to the milliner.
    Fernando Putrid Second wrote: »
    Now, you're just taking the biscuit. The category of Change of Mind is enshrined in statues. Shy do you persist in giving incorrect and potentially harmful information?

    Your conclusion that this scenario is a 'change of mind' scenario has no basis in law. Why do you continue to avoid my question about "What law distinguishes between design and function in consumer goods?" to stand up your claim that " It's a style and design issue and that is so different in law"?
    Fernando Putrid Second wrote: »
    Have you seen the hat? Have you seen it doesn't function as a headpiece? No.
    Very difficult to convince a court that a facinator isn't fit for purpose if it sits on one's head at any angle.
    It's quite clear the OP just doesn't like it.

    Have you seen the hat? Have you seen that it DOES function as a headpiece? You seem to have decided for yourself that a Court would only rule in one direction, but you have no basis for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    If this was an 'off-the-shelf' product, I would agree with you, but it's not. It was a one-off request, with a particular design spec - the photos provided by the OP to the milliner.



    Your conclusion that this scenario is a 'change of mind' scenario has no basis in law. Why do you continue to avoid my question about "What law distinguishes between design and function in consumer goods?" to stand up your claim that " It's a style and design issue and that is so different in law"?


    Have you seen the hat? Have you seen that it DOES function as a headpiece? You seem to have decided for yourself that a Court would only rule in one direction, but you have no basis for that.

    The op said, in the very first post that she took it home and now does not like the way it looks. There is no mention of poor quality of materials or that it is defective, she just does not like the way it looks on her head. She was offered a refund but refused it, I'm not sure if you are trolling or just ...........


  • Options
    #68
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    davo10 wrote: »
    The op said, in the very first post that she took it home and now does not like the way it looks. There is no mention of poor quality of materials or that it is defective, she just does not like the way it looks on her head. She was offered a refund but refused it, I'm not sure if you are trolling or just ...........

    Actually that is not what the very first post says at all.

    Its says:
    sporina wrote: »
    ...when i brought it home I realised how it was nothing like what I had asked for - no structure - It looked a mess on my head..

    No structure. Sounds defective to me.


  • Options
    #69
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    davo10 wrote: »
    The op said, in the very first post that she took it home and now does not like the way it looks.

    That's not what the OP said. She said " I realised how it was nothing like what I had asked for".

    It is not fit for purpose, it does not meet the design specification.


  • Options
    #70
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    That's not what the OP said. She said " I realised how it was nothing like what I had asked for".

    It is not fit for purpose, it does not meet the design specification.

    There is a very apt quote from Mark Twain which is fit for purpose in reply to that post.


  • Options
    #71
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    davo10 wrote: »
    There is a very apt quote from Mark Twain which is fit for purpose in reply to that post.

    You can be as obtuse and philosophical as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. The OP commissioned a product to a particular design, and the product delivered doesn't meet that design. It is not fit for purpose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    You can be as obtuse and philosophical as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. The OP commissioned a product to a particular design, and the product delivered doesn't meet that design. It is not fit for purpose.

    OP accepted it and rejected a refund. It doesn't really matter what the original commission was as the OP accepted what they got.

    I had a look at it - was in two minds about it - but left the money <-- acceptance

    Eventually she calmed down = offered money back <-- refund rejected.

    Best scenario here is for the op to request a refund (politely).


  • Options
    #73
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    OP accepted it and rejected a refund. It doesn't really matter what the original commission was as the OP accepted what they got.

    I had a look at it - was in two minds about it - but left the money <-- acceptance

    Eventually she calmed down = offered money back <-- refund rejected.

    Best scenario here is for the op to request a refund (politely).

    I'm not aware of any definition in consumer law of 'acceptance'. The fact that she took the product and left the money does not affect her consumer rights to a product that is fit for purpose.

    Yes, the fact that she rejected a refund is unusual, but still doesn't affect her rights. They both agreed that the milliner would try again, but that still doesn't affect her rights to a product that is fit for purpose.


  • Options
    #74
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any definition in consumer law of 'acceptance'. The fact that she took the product and left the money does not affect her consumer rights to a product that is fit for purpose.

    Yes, the fact that she rejected a refund is unusual, but still doesn't affect her rights. They both agreed that the milliner would try again, but that still doesn't affect her rights to a product that is fit for purpose.

    I'd say its is almost certain that it is fit for purpose, the op just doesn't like it from what i see. That's all good and well, op doesnt like it, seller offered a refund or rework. Buyer rejected refund and has now rejected 2 reworks. I am not seeing here where the seller is at fault in any way.

    Op is asking after her rights as if the seller is ignoring them when they clearly are not.

    Op didn't reject the product (so they daccpeted it), therefore this is pretty much a change of mind.


  • Options
    #75
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I'd say its is almost certain that it is fit for purpose...

    How can a fascinator with no structure be fit for purpose?

    Surely its a ribbon in that case and not a fascinator?


  • Options
    #76
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I'd say its is almost certain that it is fit for purpose, the op just doesn't like it from what i see.

    Which part of "nothing like what I had asked for" are you having difficulty understanding?
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Op didn't reject the product (so they daccpeted it), therefore this is pretty much a change of mind.
    There is no basis in law for this.


  • Options
    #77
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    intheclouds wrote: »
    How can a fascinator with no structure be fit for purpose?

    When it has structure, it is fit for purpose but you just don't like it.


  • Options
    #78
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Which part of "nothing like what I had asked for" are you having difficulty understanding?
    The bit were is wasn't anything like she asked for, but she decided to accept it, take it home, then changed her mind, rejected a refund and then rejected 2 subsequent offers to change it.
    2RockMountain wrote: »
    There is no basis in law for this.

    Of course there is :/

    You have no rights under the Sale of Goods Act if you simply change your mind about wanting the goods. You also have no rights if faults are due to misuse of the product after purchase, or if faults should have been seen on examination or were pointed out at the time of purchase.


  • Options
    #79
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    When it has structure, it is fit for purpose but you just don't like it.

    Im not the OP.

    The OP stated it had no structure.

    If it has no structure then I do not see how it can operate as a fascinator. It is not fit for purpose.


  • Options
    #80
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The bit were is wasn't anything like she asked for, but she decided to accept it, take it home, then changed her mind, rejected a refund and then rejected 2 subsequent offers to change it.
    Again, there is no basis in law for 'decided to accept it'. She took the product home. That doesn't affect her consumer rights.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Of course there is :/
    Nope, still not.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    You have no rights under the Sale of Goods Act if you simply change your mind about wanting the goods.
    That's correct.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    You also have no rights if faults are due to misuse of the product after purchase,
    That's correct.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    if faults should have been seen on examination[/B]
    That's not correct. You've just made it up, right? What is the legal basis for this?


  • Options
    #81
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,954 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Ultimately, if it sits on your head and remains intact the fascinator is fit for purpose.
    According to the Sale of Goods Act a product must be
    fit for purpose
    of merchantable quality
    as described.
    If it fails to meet one of those criteria you have a case.

    The area of the Sale of Goods Act that will be looked at here will more likely be is the fascinator "as described". The test a court will apply to determine that will be what would the ordinary man in the street think.

    Does the fascinator look like an approximation of the design you supplied in the photos? If not at all,and several different people agree with you on this, then you're probably good to go, legal action is open to you.

    Did she say "you do realise I can't do an exact copy?" at any time or did she promise you an exact replica? Is there anything in writing?

    If it looks structurally quite like it but there are small details or decorations that do not look similar you might be in trouble. If the one in the picture has high-end finishes but you paid for a cheaper product and didn't specifically request those exact finishes, you might be in trouble.

    I think a court will look favourably on her offer to refund you or remake the hat again for you. That paints her as reasonably accomodating.

    I'd have a chat with her and calmly explain and see if she's open to refund you. If she's not then write her a letter asking again and saying you're considering legal action, give her a set date to reply to you by. Send it by registered post and keep a copy.

    You could take your chances with the Small Claims Court which would only cost you an initial outlay of 25 euro but they can rule against you and I think in some situations they have the power to make you liable for the other person's legal costs if you have been unfair in your expectations of the product or service. Not positive of that but I'd look into it.

    You'd want to be sure of your ground, this has to be a matter or fact, not one of taste. See if several independent people agree with your assessment before you start talking legal action.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Again, there is no basis in law for 'decided to accept it'. She took the product home. That doesn't affect her consumer rights.


    Nope, still not.

    That's correct.


    That's correct.


    That's not correct. You've just made it up, right? What is the legal basis for this?

    I didn't make any of that up, that's direct from the consumer association of Ireland.

    Taking the product home does affect her consumer rights, as detailed above.

    CI agrees

    You have no grounds for redress if

    You were told about the defect before you bought the item (for example, if the goods were marked 'shopsoiled')
    You examined the item before you bought it and should have seen the defect
    You bought the item knowing that it wasn’t fit for what you wanted it to do
    You broke or damaged the product
    You made a mistake when buying the item (for example, if you bought an item of clothing thinking it was black when it is actually navy)
    You change your mind


  • Options
    #83
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Im not the OP.

    The OP stated it had no structure.

    If it has no structure then I do not see how it can operate as a fascinator. It is not fit for purpose.

    Yeah i know you are not the OP. The OP doesn't like the product, if it was faulty she'd have said it. "no structure" doesn't mean faulty, its means they don't like the design.


  • Options
    #84
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Which part of "nothing like what I had asked for" are you having difficulty understanding?


    There is no basis in law for this.

    Found the section

    Acceptance.

    35. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him, and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.


  • Options
    #85
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The OP doesn't like the product, if it was faulty she'd have said it. "no structure" doesn't mean faulty, its means they don't like the design.

    How do you know what the OP would have said?
    You know better than her what she meant is it?

    The OP stated it had no structure.

    Do you actually know what a fascinator is? If it had no structure then it cannot be a fascinator. It might be a hair decoration, but she didnt ask for a hair decoration, she asked for a fascinator.

    She didnt say anything about the design of it. She said it looked a mess, but it would if it had no structure. Thats a red herring. How can you be expected to like or dislike something when it doesnt actually operate as the thing it is supposed to be?

    This is a bit like saying that someone knitted you a scarf but when you went to pick it up it was simply a 2 inch square of cloth. It couldnt operate as a scarf. Nor would you like the design, but that is because it couldnt be worn as a scarf and not because it looked bad as a piece of cloth. You simply cant really apply "didnt like the design" to it when it simply is not what it is supposed to be.


  • Options
    #86
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Found the section

    Acceptance.

    35. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him, and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.

    Where is this from (a link would be great)?


  • Options
    #87
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Where is this from (a link would be great)?

    Look it up. Irish Statutes. Sale of Goods Act 1979 and amendments. Section 35


  • Options
    #88
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,954 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Found the section

    Acceptance.

    35. The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or when the goods have been delivered to him, and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them

    The OP told the seller she was not happy with the hat initially. She's only recently got the newly made hat and now she's going to approach the seller to communicate her dissatisfaction. By taking it home she hasn't voided any of her rights. The pertinent piece there is "reasonable lapse of time", the OP is acting within that.


  • Options
    #89
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    The OP told the seller she was not happy with the hat initially. She's only recently got the newly made hat and now she's going to approach the seller to communicate her dissatisfaction. By taking it home she hasn't voided any of her rights. The pertinent piece there is "reasonable lapse of time", the OP is acting within that.

    You are paraphrasing the OP so much just to get the argument you want. She said it was 'only when I got home' that she decided it was not for her.

    This is all moot anyway. Nobody here has seen the item and argument for arguments sake has taken over.


  • Options
    #90
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,954 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Fernando Putrid Second wrote: »
    You are paraphrasing the OP so much just to get the argument you want. She said it was 'only when I got home' that she decided it was not for her.

    This is all moot anyway. Nobody here has seen the item and argument for arguments sake has taken over.

    Not so, taking something home does not void any right here as long as she complains within a reasonable time frame. That's just fact, it's outlined in the piece of legislation you quoted yourself. No manipulation of the story required.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    Not so, taking something home does not void any right here as long as she complains within a reasonable time frame. That's just fact, it's outlined in the piece of legislation you quoted yourself. No manipulation of the story required.

    I'm finished here as this is getting stupid but I referred to your paraphrasing f the OP, not the legislation.



    Over and out of this nonsense.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement