Faulty earring

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Emmia said:

You don't normally get "right to reject" for earrings due to hygiene issues and these were bought in-store, so already have more limited refund rights generally.

You're confusing the right to cancel rather than the right to reject, two separate pieces of legislation, earrings or purchased in store has no bearing (or reduced rights) in this instance.  

Okell

Emmia said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

They have demonstrated what the issue is, not who caused it and I don't see how they possibly could. Entitlement is to a repair/replacement and if one is not forthcoming reject for a full refund (within 6 months of delivery).

(Short term right to reject best avoided due to the lack of reverse burden of proof). 

You don't normally get "right to reject" for earrings due to hygiene issues and these were bought in-store, so already have more limited refund rights generally.

No.

Traders can argue that their is no right to cancel a distance contract for earrings because of hygiene concerns - although they are quite probably mistaken in that assertion - but they certainly can't "refuse" a rejection of faulty goods on those grounds

Emmia

Okell said:

Emmia said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

They have demonstrated what the issue is, not who caused it and I don't see how they possibly could. Entitlement is to a repair/replacement and if one is not forthcoming reject for a full refund (within 6 months of delivery).

(Short term right to reject best avoided due to the lack of reverse burden of proof). 

You don't normally get "right to reject" for earrings due to hygiene issues and these were bought in-store, so already have more limited refund rights generally.

No.

Traders can argue that their is no right to cancel a distance contract for earrings because of hygiene concerns - although they are quite probably mistaken in that assertion - but they certainly can't "refuse" a rejection of faulty goods on those grounds

This isn't a distance sale. The OP purchased them in a shop.

The earrings are faulty, the trouble is the OP proving that this was the case at the point they left the shop, and that the OP didn't damage the earrings themselves.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Emmia said:

This isn't a distance sale. The OP purchased them in a shop.

The earrings are faulty, the trouble is the OP proving that this was the case at the point they left the shop, and that the OP didn't damage the earrings themselves.

They don't need to due to the reverse burden of proof afforded under the CRA. 

Okell

Emmia said:

Okell said:

Emmia said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

They have demonstrated what the issue is, not who caused it and I don't see how they possibly could. Entitlement is to a repair/replacement and if one is not forthcoming reject for a full refund (within 6 months of delivery).

(Short term right to reject best avoided due to the lack of reverse burden of proof). 

You don't normally get "right to reject" for earrings due to hygiene issues and these were bought in-store, so already have more limited refund rights generally.

No.

Traders can argue that their is no right to cancel a distance contract for earrings because of hygiene concerns - although they are quite probably mistaken in that assertion - but they certainly can't "refuse" a rejection of faulty goods on those grounds

This isn't a distance sale. The OP purchased them in a shop.

The earrings are faulty, the trouble is the OP proving that this was the case at the point they left the shop, and that the OP didn't damage the earrings themselves.

Again "No".

Within 6 months of purchase the burden of proof is on the trader to prove the goods were not faulty at purchase.  The OP has to prove nothing.

(It's you who raised distance contracts by raising the issue of "hygiene".  That is only ever relevant when cancelling a distance sale and it might not even apply to earrings at all.  It's never relavant to non-conforming faulty goods)



[Edit: I accept that the OP hasn't said it's within 6 months of purchase, but if it isn't her query makes no sense.  Mind you, her comment that the earrings "were sold as faulty" also makes no sense]

Emmia

Okell said:

Emmia said:

Okell said:

Emmia said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

They have demonstrated what the issue is, not who caused it and I don't see how they possibly could. Entitlement is to a repair/replacement and if one is not forthcoming reject for a full refund (within 6 months of delivery).

(Short term right to reject best avoided due to the lack of reverse burden of proof). 

You don't normally get "right to reject" for earrings due to hygiene issues and these were bought in-store, so already have more limited refund rights generally.

No.

Traders can argue that their is no right to cancel a distance contract for earrings because of hygiene concerns - although they are quite probably mistaken in that assertion - but they certainly can't "refuse" a rejection of faulty goods on those grounds

This isn't a distance sale. The OP purchased them in a shop.

The earrings are faulty, the trouble is the OP proving that this was the case at the point they left the shop, and that the OP didn't damage the earrings themselves.

Again "No".

Within 6 months of purchase the burden of proof is on the trader to prove the goods were not faulty at purchase.  The OP has to prove nothing.

(It's you who raised distance contracts by raising the issue of "hygiene".  That is only ever relevant when cancelling a distance sale and it might not even apply to earrings at all.  It's never relavant to non-conforming faulty goods)



[Edit: I accept that the OP hasn't said it's within 6 months of purchase, but if it isn't her query makes no sense.  Mind you, her comment that the earrings "were sold as faulty" also makes no sense]

Most jewellery counters in shops state no refunds for pierced jewellery for hygiene. That isn't a distance sale.  However the item is faulty/broken.

The shop is refusing to refund as they're stating the OP damaged the jewellery, and won't refund because of this. The OP states the item was faulty/broken at the point of sale when they left the shop. 

Currently the OP has no refund,  which is what they want 


Whatever.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Emmia said:

Most jewellery counters in shops state no refunds for pierced jewellery for hygiene. That isn't a distance sale.  However the item is faulty/broken.

The shop is refusing to refund as they're stating the OP damaged the jewellery, and won't refund because of this. The OP states the item was faulty/broken at the point of sale when they left the shop. 

Currently the OP has no refund,  which is what they want 


Whatever.

Which is why section 19, paragraph 14 of the CRA is of relevance.  

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Emmia said:

Most jewellery counters in shops state no refunds for pierced jewellery for hygiene. That isn't a distance sale.  However the item is faulty/broken.

The shop is refusing to refund as they're stating the OP damaged the jewellery, and won't refund because of this. The OP states the item was faulty/broken at the point of sale when they left the shop. 

Currently the OP has no refund,  which is what they want 


Whatever.

Which is why section 19, paragraph 14 of the CRA is of relevance.  

Stop banging your head against a brick wall...