Am I entitled to a full refund?

JJ_Egan

Thought that would be the word .
Reasonable as usual .

YDK84

Seems like I've opened a can of worms here lol...

Thanks all, going to call Tesco Bank today regarding the claim.

shaun_from_Africa

YDK84 wrote: »

Seems like I've opened a can of worms here lol...

Just a lively discussion.
As the law is not generally 100% clear cut and is very often open to interpretation, there are often a lot of varying opinions about the rights and wrongs of different problems on here.

The discussions/opinions are normally very good natured and very rarely descend into name calling and abuse, and the posters that do throw their toys out of the pram don't usually last too long before getting removed from the site.

peachyprice

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I don't agree that simply wearing the jacket implies acceptance of it.
The SOGA states that you must have a reasonable time to inspect goods to ensure that thet conform to contract and if you were not able to wear clothing as part of this inspection how would you know for sure that it was correctly described? If something was described as 100% waterproof, how could you confirm this without wearing it in the rain?

Where would you draw the line. You've bought a car and driven it home so have accepted it? Or purchased a tv and turned it on therefore acceptance has occurred?

I agree that the washing of the jacket has shown that the OP had accepted ownership of the jacket but I don't agree that simply wearing it has the same effect.

There's a difference between trying clothes on and wearing them. You can't wear clothes for a day, decide you don't like them, them take them back, otherwise there would never be the need to buy clothes. I think that's pretty much accepted under SOGA

unholyangel

peachyprice wrote: »

There's a difference between trying clothes on and wearing them. You can't wear clothes for a day, decide you don't like them, them take them back, otherwise there would never be the need to buy clothes. I think that's pretty much accepted under SOGA

https://www.sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/content/boots-not-made-walking

Q: A customer has returned a pair of boots she bought for £20 a week ago. She's worn them twice to go out clubbing and I can tell they've had some hard wear. She says the material is coming away at the front of the boot and she cannot do up the laces properly. She is demanding her money back - but honestly what can she expect for £20? She's already had some wear out of them. Is she entitled to a full refund?

A: It appears likely that the boots are faulty, as they are not of satisfactory quality, having not proved durable after only a week's wear. You are in breach of your contract with the customer and as she has rejected the boots within a reasonable time, she may be entitled to a full refund under law. If she prefers, she may ask for a repair or replacement. However, if you can prove that the customer misused the item and caused the fault (the material coming away) then she may not have a right to a refund.

The key is in using it in a manner that is inconsistent with the retailer being the owner of the goods (the phrase used in relation to how acceptance occurs in section 35 of SoGA) . Would you wear something belonging to someone else? Yes. Would you wash it? Possibly. But would you send it away to have it modified/altered? No.

shaun_from_Africa

peachyprice wrote: »

You can't wear clothes for a day, decide you don't like them, them take them back,

Agreed, but we are not talking about taking something back because you don't like it, the discussion is about returning something because it is faulty.

Trading standards are of the opinion that simply wearing something (a watch in their example) for a couple of days doesn't deem acceptance and if it goes faulty during this time then it can be rejected for a refund.
If a watch, why not a jacket?

For example, if you bought a watch and it stopped working after a couple of days, you should explain the problem to the trader and seek a refund. The trader may want to examine the watch. You should also produce your proof of purchase if it is requested

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV1024-1011.txt

peachyprice

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Agreed, but we are not talking about taking something back because you don't like it, the discussion is about returning something because it is faulty.

The OP had the jacket for months, not days or weeks.

OlliesDad

peachyprice wrote: »

The OP had the jacket for months, not days or weeks.

But after waiting this long for a resolution.. they are definitely entitled to a refund.

gik

OlliesDad wrote: »

But after waiting this long for a resolution.. they are definitely entitled to a refund.

Really? Any chance of providing a link to legislation that states that?

JJ_Egan

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just a lively discussion.
As the law is not generally 100% clear cut and is very often open to interpretation, there are often a lot of varying opinions about the rights and wrongs of different problems on here.

The discussions/opinions are normally very good natured and very rarely descend into name calling and abuse, and the posters that do throw their toys out of the pram don't usually last too long before getting removed from the site.

Plus we all learn more .