Consumer Rights w.r.t Returns/Refunds?

[Whiternoise]

I was having a discussion with a friend at uni about how you can get refunds/returns for faulty goods. He implied that if you had something object that was faulty, you could take it to any shop you liked - under law - and ask for a refund, even without proof of purchase or a reciept or indeed anything that linked it to that store. I was under the impression that the shop is not under any pressure to give you a refund if you don't have the proof that you bought it from there (although a reciept isn't necessary):

"Q7. Do I have to produce a receipt to claim my rights?

No. In fact the trader doesn't have to give you a receipt in the first place so it would be unfair to say that you had to produce one. However, it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase, so look to see if you have a cheque stub, bank statement, credit card slip etc., and this should be sufficient."

Now, i'm not sure, but he seems adamant that you can do this - and it makes no sense to me at all. It appears to be implying that you can buy, say, a faulty iPod from eBay, take it into Dixons and then ask for a refund (assuming the fault isn't user caused). Now surely if this was the case then consumers would abuse it horrendously.

When i worked in GAME, we were told very strictly by our managers that we could only give refunds if the item in question conformed to all the stuff on the reciept (ie bought within 30 days, full refund if the goods are faulty and/or the seal is still intact on the product - or of course if it was hardware within warranty or covered under GAMEcare et al). Which makes sense to me because otherwise you could just buy a 360 from a shop where it's selling for less and go into somewhere else and get a refund for higher.

I imagine it's a lot more complicated than this (well i KNOW it's more complicated than this), but there's no way you can just go into a shop with a faulty item and demand that you get a refund for it right?

[moogle]

Saracen! Get in here...

My thoughts on it though, I don't think you can do that but I think if you can't produce a receipt but you have evidence of payment directly to the shop ie on the credit card then it could be used as proof of purchase. (I've read about it somewhere)

Does your friend do law?

[Hicks12]

You dont need a receipt but you need proof of purchase which can be anythign really, even a bag from the store can count(you have to fight that though).

If it isnt purchased from the store they are under no obligation to help you with refund/credit. If you have purchased from there and all they say is you can have credit or a replacement, demand a refund in CASH or to however you paid(card etc) as that is their legal requirement that they tend to say isnt true.

PS:Saracen will give you alot more info and probably tell me im wrong but oh well, hes clever .

[Whiternoise]

He's doing CompSci

That was the part that i wanted clarification from, he seemed to be saying that you can march into any store you like (provided they sell it) with a legitimately faulty item and demand a refund, and that if the store doesn't then they're breaking the law.

And yes i suspect the mighty Saracen will have done his research on this

[SiM]

Be patient guys, he is probably still typing a reply

[Lanky123]

I don't think a long answer is really needed on this one. As has been mentioned, common sense pretty much rules out what your friend says.

Did you ask where your friend got the information? I have a suspicion the word 'pub' might be involved somewhere...

[Saracen]

Your consumer rights against a store in relation to faulty goods, given by the Sale of Goods Act (and amendments to it) work by embedding some implied conditions into the contract between buyer and seller. Those conditions include the things we all know of, such as that goods much be of satisfactory quality (used to be merchantable quality in the original '79 Act), fitness for purpose, etc.

So you can only enforce those rights against the seller (and that means business seller because the same rights don't exist between buyer and private seller) as part of the contract of sale. And, if you didn't buy the goods from a particular shop, you don't have a contract with them, so can't enforce it.

In other words, the notion that you can take faulty goods back to any shop is, as far as I'm concerned, utter cobblers. It simply isn't true.

Do you need e receipt? No, but it's very helpful. Ultimately, if a shop refuses to do anything, the way those consumer rights are enforced is via the courts and, to do that, you need to be able to prove you have a contract. Clearly, the easiest way to do that is usually a receipt, but there are other ways.

As for insisting on a cash refund, as per Hicks12 (who was doing well until that point ), well, that depends on the situation. You do get a brief period to ensure that goods conform to contract, but the crunch point is whether you've "accepted" goods. You do can that in several ways, such as indicating to the seller that you do, or by doing anything inconsistent with not having done so (like modifying or selling the goods), or simply by not rejecting them within a "reasonable" period.

How long "reasonable" is is not defined. It is likely to be sufficiently long to allow you to ensure that the goods do conform to contract, but you must act promptly. Circumstances would also be taken into account, and the oft-given example is that if you were taken into hospital immediately after buying the goods and didn't get a chance to inspect them for months, a court would very likely deem that you hadn't run out of time to inspect until you'd had a decent chance to inspect once you were out of hospital and physically able to.

But generally, that inspection period will be, at most, a few weeks and rarely goes beyond a month or so. And often, it'll be nowhere near that long. After that period, or after any other form of acceptance, the automatic right to a full refund is lost, and there's a procedure (which I won't bother to go into in detail, having done so before) which involves either repair or replacement, subject to either or both being both possible and not being disproportionately expensive, and if that fails, then a refund which can take account of any benefit you've had from using the product.

What the store can't do, if faced with faulty goods, is to insist on a credit note instead of a refund, but it may well be that they can insist on either repair or replacement. There are limits though, and one of them is that their chosen option must not put the consumer at significant inconvenience. Exactly what that means, like the term "reasonable period" is a moving target. How long is a delay before it becomes significantly inconvenient? Well, it a wedding dress is delivered on Tuesday for a Saturday wedding, suggesting a replacement is available in three weeks is goingto be REALLY inconvenient, but if it's a broken power drill, it probably isn't.

Anyway, to get back to the original point, Whiternoise, can I suggest you ask your friend to supply ANY evidence to support the claim that you can take faulty goods back to any shop and expect them to be required to deal with it, because I call that as absolute bullpoop.

What he MIGHT have meant, or read and misinterpreted, however, is that you can take goods back to any branch of a given chain. If you bought from Marks and Spencer, for instance, do you have to take the goods back the the actual branch you bought from? In that case, then he's right providing the chain is owned by a single company and not a franchise where each "branch" is actually a separate legal entity. Even if they are separate legal entities in a franchise, you might be able to take goods back to any branch, but only, I rather suspect, if that's a result of store policy and some internal arrangement within the franchise chain. but otherwise, when you buy from M&S, the contract is with M&S, not an individual branch.

I hope that covers it.

Usual caveat applies .... I am not a lawyer, and this is opinion, not advice.

[Hicks12]

I learnt something there , not taught much in a level business it has to be said.

Thanks for the clarification as always .

[Saracen]

One thing I might have mentioned and didn't.

If you take goods back just because you've changed your mind, then the shop aren't under any legal obligation at all to take them back unless the ability to do so was part of the purchase contract. For example, Argos and their 14day (or 16-day, whatever it is) return period. Or my tailor, who'll take anything (except certain specified sale items) back, worn or not, damaged or not, for 90 days.

However, unless that kind of condition exists when you buy (in which case you can rely on it), then if you take non-faulty goods back because you changed you mind, then the shop can offer a credit note as the only way they'll take them back, and refuse to issue cash. That is perfectly legit. But it's a different situation to when goods are faulty, because it's a goodwill gesture that they're doing it at all.

[BlackDwarf]

On Saracen's point...

If you bought something at Walmart in the US, you're allowed to return it to any ASDA store in the UK.

Bonus

[SiM]

On Saracen's point...

If you bought something at Walmart in the US, you're allowed to return it to any ASDA store in the UK.

Bonus

Do they refund in $ then?

[Clunk]

Do they refund in $ then?

Turkey Twizzlers.

[kalniel]

Turkey Twizzlers.

That's a higher valued currency. Especially among schools in the North East

[cmjrees]

even a bag from the store can count(you have to fight that though).

Because it's not proof? A bag from a store 'proves' that you have a bag from the store; you or someone you know has maybe bought something from that store. Or walked in and begged one because another carrier you had broke.

Just to add to Saracen's point, the refund rule only applies if the goods were faulty *at the time of purchase*.

Wonderful resource, this:

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/c...V0043-1011.txt

[Saracen]

......

Just to add to Saracen's point, the refund rule only applies if the goods were faulty *at the time of purchase*.
....

Indeed. Though we can expand a bit on that. Two points :-

1) For the first 6 months after purchase, the law assumes they were faulty at the time of purchase and it's for the store to prove otherwise. After 6 months, the burden of proof switches, and the assumption is that they weren't faulty at time of purchase, and the buyer would have to prove (beyond balance of probability) that they were.

2) "Faulty" is a vague term, and includes something, like a below standard component, that means they don't have a reasonable durability. For instance, a sub-standard capacitor on a motherboard might last 15 months, which would probably be a lot less than is "reasonable", and though it worked for 15 months, it was "faulty" at time of purchase because that inherent sub-standard component should have lasted a lot longer than that if it hadn't been sub-standard. In other words, the "fault" might have been there at time of purchase, though not evident for some time after that.

It's for that reason that "conform to contract" is a better and more apt, if also slightly more pompous term, than "faulty".

[format]

Saracen can you start doing a tl;dr at the end of yours posts?

Thanks