Retailer refused refund despite not fit for purpose- waiting 4 months for replacement

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

Not fit for purpose would be if, for example, the arm holes were designed in such a way as to prevent anyone from putting it on!


As for not as described issue, I think it could go either way. I think it could be either of the following (or a bit of both!):

1. The retailers mis-interpreted the sizes (erroneously or intentionally) and flogged a similar match without your elderly mother knowing fully what was going on.

2. Your elderly mother has encountered the same issue you did (your size was not available) and has made an educated guess as to the closest fit, as not to disappoint you (your birthday was probably within 7 days of purchase given time frames). Ie the item was as described and not mis-sold.

As a side note, but the numerous assurances which were given kind of suggests that your mother was actually aware of the sizes chosen upon purchase! Why? Because the shop would not need to give her assurances to set her mind at ease if the suit completely matched the specification which she had handed in!

So I'm possibly thinking that your mother has sadly made a mistake here, and that the item WAS as described. That would mean you have no legal right to "change your mind" and have to rely on their goodwill/returns policies; vouchers.

But you can also read up on unholy's post who covers the other side of the coin. If you do go small claims then maybe the defence will have a similar argument to me?

Tbf though, I think if you know something would be an issue, you would double or even triple check. I know my mum did anytime she bought anything for me - I have quite long legs so nothing from standard ranges will fit and tall ranges can be a hit or miss - leading to a lot of returns. I suspect how hard you find it to get off the shelf stuff that fits versus how much you were paying out would probably have some influence over how much assurances you would need.

Not quite sure I understand your reference to the mum knowing the size though? The material bit (imo anyway) is whether the problem is with the measurements or the suit. If the measurements are right but the suit doesn't fit, then it should have been refunded irrespective of what size is on the suit as she asked for something to match those measurements and thats what the retailer offered rather than the mum selecting that particular suit herself based on size. The contract was basically for a suit to fit xyz measurements rather than a black xyz suit in x size iyswim?

Plus its not like manufacturers sizes are fool proof. If they were, the returns rate on clothing wouldn't be so high compared to other retail sectors

meer53

The OP says they have the gift vouchers, can't see the retailer doing anything about this really. The OP isn't out of pocket, they shot themselves in the foot with the review.

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

The contract was basically for a suit to fit xyz measurements rather than a black xyz suit in x size iyswim?

Yea maybe.

Just a bit thrown off by the fact that OP openly admitted that there were no suits of their size when they re-visited the store. One can fairly confidently assume that mother had no luck in finding these sizes on the first visit either.

Seems to me like it could have either been a case of mis-leading OP's mother, or the mother has actually contracted for a black xyz suit in x size.

Rainbowgirl84

unholyangel wrote: »

Personally, I'd probably be replying to the retailer that failing to provide goods within conformity of the contract & then failing to adhere to statutory legislation with regards to remedy for their breach of contract is not - in any way - reliant on their goodwill, its solely a question of whether they're respectable traders complying with the law & the legal obligations they agreed to accept....or not.

If anything, I'd likely update my review to include them asking me to remove it and I'd probably also add that they're trading practices may possibly amount to a criminal offence/they're not complying with basic consumer protection legislation.


A retailer can refuse your custom, but once a contract is agreed if they refuse to carry it out then they'd be liable for damages for breach of contract. So no, they cant refuse to carry out their legal obligations purely because you've written a review.

Did the seller ask this?