I very nearly hit someone today
T'were a woman, a very smartly dressed, well spoken woman. I work in a store and we have certain policies about refunds that are perfectly reasonable and any long standing customer of the store will know about.

Basically, if its been reduced by more than 50% as a sale item then you can only exchange it, unless you pay on a store card.

Anyway this snotty bitch had bought a shirt, with cash, that had gone down by 70% to £8 and wanted to bring it back. Answer, NO. Exchange only madam.

HER: No, I would like my money back.

ME: Im afraid I can't do that, it is our policy.........stated on back of reciept......signs at tills.......no.

HER: I am not leaving this store until I get my money back.

ME: No one will give you your money back. We're not allowed.

HER: I think you'll find it is the law. You are perfoming an illegal act by not refunding me my money.

ME: (I think you'll find you can fuck off) Its not illegal

HER (all shouty): MY husband is a lawyer! I shall be coming back with him and he will prove to you that what you are doing is illegal.

ME: If its illegal then how come hundreds of stores across the country are allowed to practice it?

HER: pfft. *Gone* - With shirt

All she needed to do was swallow her pride and admit her wrongness! But she wouldnt, all for the sake of £8 in the back of her pocket.

I think thats tight
(i should have joined myspace, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 16:41, 11 replies)

Actually
I don't mean to be anal, althoughI am about to be anyway, but I work closely with the sales of goods act, and if the product fits any of the following:


It was not 'as described'

It was not 'of satisfactory quality'

It was not 'fit for purpose'


Then she had every right to her money back, regardless of whether it was a sale item or not. 100's of stores do successfully get away with strange variations on that, but only because people don't challenge them.

That said, if it didn't fit any of the above, then your or any other stores are under no obligation to do anything at all. A lot do, because its good PR, but they don't have to.

None of that changes the fact that she sounds like a right cow either.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 16:51, closed)

she say it was because her son didnt like it.


She can fuck off to the moon, i dont even work for the store
(i should have joined myspace, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 17:02, closed)

Yeah
She has no rights no matter what price she paid for it if that's the case.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 17:08, closed)

What would 'not fit for purpose' count as if it was a shirt?
If its too big or something?
(i should have joined myspace, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 17:13, closed)

Some examples
Badly torn
Badly stained, if sold as new
No buttons
Goat
No arms
Skirt
(teebie jeebie, Thu 30 Oct 2008, 12:47, closed)

why even argue?
I would call the middle-management tosser out of the break room and let him deal with it for his extra 25p an hour etc.
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Thu 30 Oct 2008, 9:47, closed)

uuurgg
So so true - working in Customer Relations I hear this daily. MY *insert relative* is a lawyer blah blah, i know the law, my statutory rights etc etc. Any decent retailer has run their policy by trading standards and it's watertight. The shame is that the sale of goods act is a vague outdated piece of crap and does not serve the public well as it's so open to interpretation or, more often, drastic mis interpretation.

Not fit for purpose applies to something like selling software which is PC only to a mac user and claiming its mac compatiable it does not apply to a button fallin goff a shirt.
(bathtub has renounced CS3 for paint.net, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 16:53, closed)

If you buy
a shirt and upon putting it on gently all the buttons fall off then it most certainly does apply.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 19:56, closed)

I wish that happened
It would be so amazingly awful it would be hilarious.
(Dangerous Disco Trev Isn't my real name, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 20:30, closed)

Oh God! This is so true.
I have worked in motor insurance claims for years and the number of times I have heard the "lawyer line"

The other favourite is "I will sue you!"

Oh yes, what for? Dicks
(brainwrong, Thu 30 Oct 2008, 8:43, closed)

It's a game
At the end of the day, retailers are out to do us out of as much money as possible. So it's only fair that we should be out to get as much back from them as possible. There's nothing wrong with bullshitting a retailer to try to blag something you're not entitled to. It just didn't work this time, that's all. There are plenty of shops where it would have worked.

Selling PC software to a Mac user and claiming it is Mac compatible would probably fall under "goods not as described". Not fit for purpose would be if something is not suitable for the purpose for which it was actually designed - so, selling a car that doesn't run for example.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 30 Oct 2008, 10:43, closed)