No Refunds - Terms and Conditions

Paleblood

Hi everyone.

I'm working on a problem question here. The bulk of it refers to the Sale of Goods Act and is very straightforward. However there are two aspects that I'm unsure of. I feel that they're 'wrong' but I can't say why.

1. The buyer returns goods that were not of merchantable quality (that aspect is fine). However the shop says that he is not entitled to a refund and that he would have realised this if he'd visited the shop's website.

It's my understanding that saying 'no refunds' has no effect if the goods are faulty. The shop could have had it written all over the place but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference because the goods were simply not of merchantable quality. But what is the significance of the shop's website in that regard? I'm tempted to say it's irrelevant but I suspect I'm missing out on something. I assume it's being asked for a reason.

2. The buyer is also told that the terms and conditions of sale are printed on his receipt and this receipt will be emailed to him two days later.

It's my understanding that the terms and conditions should be made obvious before the sale? He can't be informed of the fundamental conditions of the contract after it has taken place? Is that correct? What is the law in this area?

Many thanks!

Samuel T. Cogley

1. Read the Sales of Goods Act. There is a specific section relating to this. (Hint: Don't confuse Section 18 with this and pointing out Section 18 and the differences might yield some extra marks.)

2. Dunno, please enlighten me when you have completed your homework.

Paleblood

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

1. Read the Sales of Goods Act. There is a specific section relating to this. (Hint: Don't confuse Section 18 with this and pointing out Section 18 and the differences might yield some extra marks.)

Section 11! (thanks for the tip re Section 18).

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

2. Dunno, please enlighten me when you have completed your homework.

I'll get back to you later with my conclusions. :P

Thanks again.

cormie

Does it change if it's something like an auction room or somewhere selling second hand goods?

Victor

Paleblood wrote: »

1. The buyer returns goods that were not of merchantable quality (that aspect is fine).

At time of purchase or time of return?

However the shop says that he is not entitled to a refund

Well, that's my contention anyway.

Paleblood

Victor wrote: »

At time of purchase or time of return?

At the time of purchase. He sought a laptop intended for "college use". It broke down within two weeks and he then realised that it was a labelled as "demonstration model only" and not for re-sale. So I'm thinking it's not of merchantable quality and he's entitled to a refund or a replacement.

Samuel T. Cogley

Paleblood wrote: »

At the time of purchase. He sought a laptop intended for "college use". It broke down within two weeks and he then realised that it was a labelled as "demonstration model only" and not for re-sale. So I'm thinking it's not of merchantable quality and he's entitled to a refund or a replacement.

Possible Red Herring alert.

Think 'in course of business'...

CIARAN_BOYLE

Paleblood wrote: »

Victor wrote: »

At time of purchase or time of return?

At the time of purchase. He sought a laptop intended for "college use". It broke down within two weeks and he then realised that it was a labelled as "demonstration model only" and not for re-sale. So I'm thinking it's not of merchantable quality and he's entitled to a refund or a replacement.

Well it depends on if he purchased a laptop marked as demo purpose only and that label was on the box. If a good is advertised as being of poor quality then the expectation of merchantable quality is significantly reduced.

By the way not a lawyer and never really studied law (beyond basics in a business course and tax law) so take my opinions with a pinch of salt.

Paleblood

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Possible Red Herring alert.

Think 'in course of business'...

Yep, the laptop was sold by a shop.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well it depends on if he purchased a laptop marked as demo purpose only and that label was on the box. If a good is advertised as being of poor quality then the expectation of merchantable quality is significantly reduced.

It just said he bought it from a store. He told the seller exactly what purpose it was for and that's what the seller recommended. I think (Section 4) if you tell the seller what the intended purpose is and they sell you a product, then there's an implied term that the product will be fit for that purpose, unless you didn't rely on the seller's remarks or it would be unreasonable to do so.

The question was very light on detail actually. But I suspect that's intentional.

Anyway, I got it done (everything except the terms and conditions aspect). Thanks for your help!

Paleblood

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Possible Red Herring alert.

Think 'in course of business'...

I've just re-read that and think I know what you mean.

Anyway... it's handed in so we'll wait and see! :P

Victor

Paleblood wrote: »

At the time of purchase. He sought a laptop intended for "college use". It broke down within two weeks and he then realised that it was a labelled as "demonstration model only" and not for re-sale. So I'm thinking it's not of merchantable quality and he's entitled to a refund or a replacement.

In 1999, I bought a microwave that was a demonstration model, it still works. Demonstration model suggests it might not have original packaging or paperwork and might have superficial scuffs or marks.

Samuel T. Cogley

Victor wrote: »

In 1999, I bought a microwave that was a demonstration model, it still works. Demonstration model suggests it might not have original packaging or paperwork and might have superficial scuffs or marks.

I wouldn't let the kids/pets near it! :pac: