I recently took back an item of clothing that I bought for £4. I took it back to exchange for a smaller size and I was told it had been wrongly priced, it should have been £9 and I would be charged an extra £5. I protested that this was unfair as I would not have bought it for that price and as the item had already been sold it was not my mistake. They agreed and exchanged for the same price.
I was only ever insinuating that it was rude and unprofessional, not that it was illegal to charge me the new price. I just thought it was worth fighting my corner. But it got me thinking, whose side was the law on?
i see this as you would have to pay the extra. you were lucky to buy the first item with the incorrect pricing. you are technically returning item a, and buying item b -
(whether it is the kind of the same item, its not the same item as it is in a different size) - no one is making you pay extra to keep the original item.
but i think that some stores would as a gesture of good will allow the exchange.
i see this as you would have to pay the extra. you were lucky to buy the first item with the incorrect pricing. you are technically returning item a, and buying item b -
(whether it is the kind of the same item, its not the same item as it is in a different size) - no one is making you pay extra to keep the original item.
but i think that some stores would as a gesture of good will allow the exchange.
It depends upon the reason for the return. In the case here, the shop is not obliged to swap the goods at all and therefore would be well within their rights to charge the extra. If however the goods were faulty then under the Sales of Goods Act they would have to replace the faulty item if the customer requested.
Note: obviously this is a simplification of the SOGA and other options are available such as repair or refund and certain timescales may apply
It depends upon the reason for the return. In the case here, the shop is not obliged to swap the goods at all
Unless (like I said above) the shop has an advertised policy of allowing such exchanges or refunds, in which case that is impliedly part of your contract with them and they therefore are obliged to exchange the goods.
Good ole Fisher v Bell with that bloody flick knife!
One of the first cases you ever learn if you study law
Only preceded by Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd wasn't it? and followed by Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
God I used to know all those contract law cases off by heart once upon a time. I loved studying law.
Only preceded by Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd wasn't it? and followed by Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
God I used to know all those contract law cases off by heart once upon a time. I loved studying law.
Off tangent a little but I always had a soft spot for Donoghue v Stevenson.
It depends upon the reason for the return. In the case here, the shop is not obliged to swap the goods at all and therefore would be well within their rights to charge the extra. If however the goods were faulty then under the Sales of Goods Act they would have to replace the faulty item if the customer requested.
Note: obviously this is a simplification of the SOGA and other options are available such as repair or refund and certain timescales may apply
yes i agree, if they were returning for the same item - ie not a different size as the poster above stated, and the item is not faulty
If there was freedom of speech, you could say what you like with impunity. You cannot, so there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There is permissable speech within set parameters, parameters that may change from time to time, but that's all.
And the space within parameters gets narrower and narrower. Its seems to have gone from inciting hatred which is unjustifiable to potential to offend which in my view is unacceptable as it often relies entirely on the sensitivity on the part of the complainant.
I believe that if there is a certain number of tables in the food place then there needs to be toilets (a friend of mine once opened a bagette shop and only put in a coffee table as a certain number, can't remember what, of tables warrants customer toilets).
Nope. Not correct. A local authority can introduce their own requirement but that is a building/planning/licensing issue. You can still refuse access to them and there is no national law and no 'right' to use them. Occasionally a local authority may demand that they are there but that gives nobody the right to use them.
Comments
The Clydesdale Bank ones often draw puzzled looks, but BoS and RBS notes hardly draw a second glance.
I can see why an English retailer wouldn't want to give them back to customers in change, but every bank will accept them.
Maybe it's because I look so honest.
i see this as you would have to pay the extra. you were lucky to buy the first item with the incorrect pricing. you are technically returning item a, and buying item b -
(whether it is the kind of the same item, its not the same item as it is in a different size) - no one is making you pay extra to keep the original item.
but i think that some stores would as a gesture of good will allow the exchange.
It depends upon the reason for the return. In the case here, the shop is not obliged to swap the goods at all and therefore would be well within their rights to charge the extra. If however the goods were faulty then under the Sales of Goods Act they would have to replace the faulty item if the customer requested.
Note: obviously this is a simplification of the SOGA and other options are available such as repair or refund and certain timescales may apply
Unless (like I said above) the shop has an advertised policy of allowing such exchanges or refunds, in which case that is impliedly part of your contract with them and they therefore are obliged to exchange the goods.
Only preceded by Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd wasn't it? and followed by Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
God I used to know all those contract law cases off by heart once upon a time. I loved studying law.
Off tangent a little but I always had a soft spot for Donoghue v Stevenson.
yes i agree, if they were returning for the same item - ie not a different size as the poster above stated, and the item is not faulty
And the space within parameters gets narrower and narrower. Its seems to have gone from inciting hatred which is unjustifiable to potential to offend which in my view is unacceptable as it often relies entirely on the sensitivity on the part of the complainant.
Nope. Not correct. A local authority can introduce their own requirement but that is a building/planning/licensing issue. You can still refuse access to them and there is no national law and no 'right' to use them. Occasionally a local authority may demand that they are there but that gives nobody the right to use them.