Refund refused due to excessive wear

Pippa11

This morning they have responded, ignoring all of my points about the Minors Contract Act and have said this: 

To confirm, we are sending your return back to the original sending address on a 24 hour DPD tracked service. Evidence below of the items being packaged and the condition the shoes were in when they were received and how they will be returned. 

Thank you for your patience and understanding whilst we processed your return.

Pippa11

And also in a separate email this: 

As per our terms and conditions we do not have to accept the return of goods that are used, therefore we are fully entitled to return the goods to you for private sale if you so desire. We will action this later today to the original address via a DPD tracked service. 

The Minors' Contracts Act of 1987 also aligns with our terms and conditions around wear and usage of items when delivered/returned and would reinforce our position of rejecting the return. This is because as your child has used the items and tried to return them for a full refund, which is against our return terms and conditions, it is 'just and equitable' for us to withhold the refund and instead return the goods to yourselves under a return rejection as they are no longer in a re-sellable condition. 

We consider this matter now closed and you can expect the items to be returned promptly to the original address as you have rejected to provide us or confirm an alternative.

born_again

Pippa11 said:

born_again said:

Given the mention of age of the purchaser.
What was the payment method?

It was using his debit card (obviously too young to have a credit card)

Thanks.
Just wondered if he had used yours. 👍

Pippa11

@born_again sadly not, it woujd have made things easier but he was excited about paying for them himself with his savings. 

Renfrewman

Apparently contracts for necessities such as food or clothing may/can be binding for under 18's.

Pippa11

But climbing shoes are a luxury rather than a necessity 

Pippa11

@Okell and @A_Geordie I can’t see anything in the Minors Contracts Act that mentions wear and usage and would therefore align with their terms and conditions, (as set out in my post above) have I missed something? 

A_Geordie

Pippa11 said:

@Okell and @A_Geordie I can’t see anything in the Minors Contracts Act that mentions wear and usage and would therefore align with their terms and conditions, (as set out in my post above) have I missed something? 

You are right, there is nothing in the Act that says this. However, there is plenty of authority given by the senior courts that in the absence of any legislation that says otherwise, it is a general principle of contract law that where the contract has been terminated, the seller is entitled to deduct an amount for use of the goods during the period leading up to the termination. 

There is no set formula as to how a deduction is calculated but a simple formula that can be used is to calculate the cost of the goods and divide that by their lifespan and then deduct that from the number of days/months/years it has been used. 

For example £110 / 1096 days (3 years rounded up to nearest whole number) = 10p per day * 90 days = £9 deduction

I should point out that, whilst the contract is a minors contract, the most favourable remedy seems to be under the CCRs because due to their non-compliance with the CCRs, they are not entitled to make a deduction and so your son should be entitled to a full refund. I think that should be your leading argument and the fallback position is the minors contract argument. 

Pippa11

Thank you. I will go back to them again and intend to refuse delivery. 

Okell

Pippa11 said:

And also in a separate email this: 

As per our terms and conditions we do not have to accept the return of goods that are used, therefore we are fully entitled to return the goods to you for private sale if you so desire. We will action this later today to the original address via a DPD tracked service. 

The Minors' Contracts Act of 1987 also aligns with our terms and conditions around wear and usage of items when delivered/returned and would reinforce our position of rejecting the return. This is because as your child has used the items and tried to return them for a full refund, which is against our return terms and conditions, it is 'just and equitable' for us to withhold the refund and instead return the goods to yourselves under a return rejection as they are no longer in a re-sellable condition. 

We consider this matter now closed and you can expect the items to be returned promptly to the original address as you have rejected to provide us or confirm an alternative.

Leaving aside the question of minors for now...  [Edit 2:  Although those points obviously still stand...]

Did you make it 100% ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to them that you WERE NOT relying on the T&Cs of their own returns policy, but rather you were exercising your statutory right to cancel a distance contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 ?

Those Regulations do not allow a retailer to "refuse" a cancellation.  All a retailer can do is to reduce any refund to reflect the loss in value of the product caused by "excessive handling" by the consumer.  Are Rock + Run sincerely suggesting that the photos they have provided show such "excessive handling" that the shoes are no longer sellable and therefore have zero value?  Of course they are still sellable and of course they still have greater than zero value.

Did you also make it clear to them that as their T&Cs do not satisfy the requirements under paras 31 and 34(11) of the above Regulations - to explain to consumers their statutory right to cancel a distance contract - then, regardless of what their T&Cs say:

(1) the cancellation period is extended by up to a year and

(2) the retailer is not permitted to make any deduction for wear?

I'd go back to them to emphasise the above.

Also - for clarity - tell them that (1) without prejudice to his legal status as a minor, your son is cancelling the contract and (2) if he is unable to do that as a minor then you are doing that on his behalf as his representative.


[Edit 1: treat references to "you" as being references to "your son" as appropriate.]