High st jeweller refusing to refund

Manxman_in_exile

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

That's a surprisingly definite and confident answer.  The OP made an in-store purchase - for which there is no legal right to cancel, the shop will argue - and voluntarily opened up an "account" with the jeweller by giving them £400.  They weren't asked to do this.

You may be right or you may not.  I admire your certainty in giving someone you don't know and have never met such definite advice without any doubts.

lincroft1710

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

Should you go to court a judge may (and I stress may) find in your favour, but he/she will not be giving any money back to you

gettingtheresometime

Perhaps I'm showing my age here ( and perhaps social-ecomonic status lol) but could the jeweller be treating the £400 as some sort of savings club deposit and the ring would be reserved until full payment had been made?
That's the only reason that I can think of that the jeweller would suggest opening up an account with them.

Manxman_in_exile

gettingtheresometime said:

That's the only reason that I can think of that the jeweller would suggest opening up an account with them.

I don't think the jeweller suggested anything.  The OP voluntarily "gave them" £400 so she wouldn't have so much to pay when she picked up the purchase.  The jeweller didn't ask for any money.

The jeweller will argue it was an instore purchase so can't be cancelled - despite the fact they were happy to cancel the order and at no cost to anyone.  That seems to me to be good enough reason to give the money back, but I dunno.  Is an instore order for something that work hasn't even started on yet to be treated the same as an instore purchase that you take home and decide you don't want?

GS..

Nope. The OP purchased nothing, albeit suits your argument to say so, she gave them some money, which caused then to do absolutely nothing and incur not one penny in damages, and it's for those reasons I am totally confident the judge will reiterate my words

Manxman_in_exile said:

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

That's a surprisingly definite and confident answer.  The OP made an in-store purchase - for which there is no legal right to cancel, the shop will argue - and voluntarily opened up an "account" with the jeweller by giving them £400.  They weren't asked to do this.

You may be right or you may not.  I admire your certainty in giving someone you don't know and have never met such definite advice without any doubts.

GS..

There no question the OP should get HER MONEY back because of the reasons I have already given, and for sure any judge (or professional retailer) would find this same reasons to give HER MONEY back
lincroft1710 said:

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

Should you go to court a judge may (and I stress may) find in your favour, but he/she will not be giving any money back to you

. 

Aylesbury_Duck

GS.. said:

There no question the OP should get HER MONEY back because of the reasons I have already given, and for sure any judge (or professional retailer) would find this same reasons to give HER MONEY back
lincroft1710 said:

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

Should you go to court a judge may (and I stress may) find in your favour, but he/she will not be giving any money back to you

. 

The point being made was that if the OP wins in court, it's the jeweller that would be expected to return her money, the judge doesn't just give the OP £400.  Winning doesn't guarantee payment, either, although a high street retailer is unlikely to not comply.

Given you are certain the court would find in OP's favour, perhaps you should privately message the OP and offer to underwrite the cost of filing the small claim.  I'm sure she'd appreciate it.

Manxman_in_exile

GS.. said:

Nope. The OP purchased nothing, albeit suits your argument to say so, she gave them some money, which caused then to do absolutely nothing and incur not one penny in damages, and it's for those reasons I am totally confident the judge will reiterate my words

Manxman_in_exile said:

GS.. said:

Poor customer service and surprised they haven't give you your money back since they haven't incurred any expenses as a result of you handing over some cash. Seems really petty. You'll have to take them to court. Judge will give you your money back.

That's a surprisingly definite and confident answer.  The OP made an in-store purchase - for which there is no legal right to cancel, the shop will argue - and voluntarily opened up an "account" with the jeweller by giving them £400.  They weren't asked to do this.

You may be right or you may not.  I admire your certainty in giving someone you don't know and have never met such definite advice without any doubts.

It doesn't suit my argument at all.  If you actually read what I posted you will see that I say that that is what the shop will be arguing.  And as I've said on more than one post on here, I don't know if the shop's argument would prevail or not - and neither do you.  Indeed, I even accept that you may be right - or you may not be.  Certainly the shop's argument seems wrong to me, but a judge may very well agree with it.

Again, I admire your self-confidence and certainty in an uncertain world.  Now, why not do as the previous poster suggested - you will have nothing to lose, will you?

GS..

Seriously? Or are you just playing semantics

Aylesbury_Duck said:

..... it's the jeweller that would be expected to return her money, the judge doesn't just give the OP £400.....

Aylesbury_Duck

Seriously.

And have you offered to underwrite OP's costs?