Sale goods

Jakg

In short - in store you have no right to a refund / exchange if you change your mind, so the shop are well within their rights.

bingo_bango

fthl wrote: »

Actually, trading standards are wrong there - the 1976 order to which they refer has been repealed. The replacement law - the consumer protection from unfair trading regs, talks in generalisms and so whilst it still might be an offence, there are more caveats which makes it not so straight forward. For example the statement might be misleading but it still needs to entice the buyer into making a 'transactional decision' because of it. The argument would need to be that the buyer will not seek to enforce rights he has, I suppose.

Got to give the old trading standards chaps pops for sticking with tradition...

I agree the order has gone (although CPR's are not strictly a replacement), and the CPR's are now the way forward, but I can't agree with your view above (emboldened). I need to introduce a little pedantry of my own

If you actually read the relevant section of CPR's you'll see that it states at S.5(2)(b) 'it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'

I can assure you that a consumer does not need to have been misled for an offence to have been committed. It is enough that in the opinion of the investigating officer it may be likely to mislead to prove the offence. There is no requirement to prove that a consumer has actually lost out.

I don't see that aspect as sticking with tradition....do you?

ThinkingOfLinking

Jakg wrote: »

In short - in store you have no right to a refund / exchange if you change your mind, so the shop are well within their rights.

Yes, although many shops do offer this as a sign of goodwill. Nothing to do with the OP, but it does annoy me the way so many consumers think it's their RIGHT to a refund in particular.

fthl

it states at S.5(2)(b) 'it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'

I can assure you that a consumer does not need to have been misled for an offence to have been committed. It is enough that in the opinion of the investigating officer it may be likely to mislead to prove the offence. There is no requirement to prove that a consumer has actually lost out.

Agreed. I was just taking the broad brush approach. That said, mounting a successful prosecution on those terms would be tricky. I think most traders would argue that something isn't likely if it has never happened. I can see a bench having sympathy ewith curry's or sainsbury's if they argued it. Slightly different perhaps if it was a very small trader with few transactions.