Forced to take credit note

bod1467

hollydays wrote: »

The item was in a packet.

The item was in a package not a packet. (Subtle but perhaps significant difference). A package could infer it was wrapped up by the shop, rather than it being a pre-packed item.

stugib

bod1467 wrote: »

The item was in a package not a packet. (Subtle but perhaps significant difference). A package could infer it was wrapped up by the shop, rather than it being a pre-packed item.

It's irrelevant. You're not expected to test things out in the shop so you don't void your right to rejection.

unholyangel

hollydays wrote: »

The item was in a packet.
Listen to stugibs advice

If you read stugibs post that I was replying to, he was speaking generally and not specifically about OP. Ergo, I was replying to a general comment and not specifically about the OP.

stugib wrote: »

It's irrelevant. You're not expected to test things out in the shop so you don't void your right to rejection.

Again, not if they were invited to carry out an inspection and they fail to notice a fault that would be apparent upon such an inspection. Its not about losing their right to reject the item as a whole, but rather losing their right to reject the item based on a specific fault that would've been apparent.

As a comment on OP's case though....if the modelled costume was of much better quality than the one they received, they'd have grounds to reject on the basis of it not being of satisfactory quality/not conforming to contract. If there wasn't one in the shop to give customers an idea of the quality they'd receive......OP would probably be in a worse off position given (as I said in my original post) quality is subjective depending on a range of factors.

hollydays

Twaddle..............
Stubibs comment was directly below a question " did your daughter .." Etc

unholyangel

hollydays wrote: »

Twaddle..............
Stubibs comment was directly below a question " did your daughter .." Etc

You do realise how inane that sounds, right?

This is the comment in question:

Wrong. Acceptance doesn't occur when you leave the shop, otherwise it would be a pretty worthless concept and everyone would have to test everything in the shop before they left.

Now I have to wonder, if he was talking about the OP, why there is no mention of OP and why they mention "everyone would" instead of just "op would".

Sounds like a generalisation rather than a comment on OP's specific circumstances to me.

hollydays

[QUOTE

A question though - did your daughter see the product (to inspect it) BEFORE buying? (This will determine whether Acceptance has occurred. If it has then a credit note is fine, as the return would effectively be a change of mind).[/QUOTE]

No , THIS is the quote stugib responded below...
Post number 5

stugib

unholyangel wrote: »

If you read stugibs post that I was replying to, he was speaking generally and not specifically about OP. Ergo, I was replying to a general comment and not specifically about the OP.

Again, not if they were invited to carry out an inspection and they fail to notice a fault that would be apparent upon such an inspection.

It was a general point that therefore applies to the OPs case. You are not expected to inspect the goods in store. Not spotting something in the shop does not mean you cannot reject it if you spot the fault when you have the opportunity to inspect it later.

What does "invited to carry out an inspection" mean?

Consider the implications of what you're saying...

unholyangel wrote: »

Its not about losing their right to reject the item as a whole, but rather losing their right to reject the item based on a specific fault that would've been apparent.

If something is sold with a fault that's made clear to the customer and they make a decision to purchase based on that knowledge, then yes you couldn't then change your mind later. That is categorically not the same as "well you should've looked closer before you bought it"

stugib

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf

Acceptance
Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty
(do not match the description, are not of satisfactory quality,
or are not fit for purpose) and receive a full refund if they have
not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods
they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable
opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should
take place within a reasonable time.

For items sold in a shop, it is important for retailers to know
that inspecting them in a shop is often not considered a
reasonable opportunity. This is due to the restrictions of
packaging and in-store display in allowing a customer to
identify a problem or a fault.

The law does not give a time limit for acceptance.
When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable
opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial
person in a court would think reasonable for that product in
the circumstances.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/faulty_goods_e/whats_meant_by_accepting_the_goods.htm

What is meant by accepting the goods

When you buy goods from a shop or some other kind of business, the Sale of Goods Act says you have time to examine the goods after you've bought them, to make sure there's nothing wrong with them. This is because you might not realise there's something wrong with them until you get them home and unpack them or start to use them. If you find there's something wrong, you can take them back.

The law doesn't say exactly how much time you have to examine the goods. Instead, it says you have a reasonable time. What's 'reasonable' depends on the type of goods and the circumstances. For example, if you buy a scratched table you should spot that quite quickly but it might take you longer to spot a fault with a computer's hard-drive.

If they are goods you use everyday, you may only get a relatively short time, for example, a week to examine them before you lose the right to take them back and get a full refund.

unholyangel

stugib wrote: »

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf





http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/faulty_goods_e/whats_meant_by_accepting_the_goods.htm

What you've quoted doesn't support what you said earlier. You said "Acceptance doesn't occur when you leave the shop" and "You're not expected to test things out in the shop so you don't void your right to rejection".

That's quite different to what OFT say above:

For items sold in a shop, it is important for retailers to know
that inspecting them in a shop is often not considered a
reasonable opportunity. This is due to the restrictions of
packaging and in-store display in allowing a customer to
identify a problem or a fault.

Its often not considered a reasonable opportunity, but often is not always. Which means it is sometimes considered reasonable, ergo as I said before.....you can lose your right to reject based on a fault that would've been apparent upon such an inspection - if you were given/had the opportunity to do so. Thanks for changing your mind and supporting what myself and bod said.

bod1467

Badoom TIsh