# Sale of Goods Act: Refused cash refund for returned dress



## jryan (22 Nov 2008)

Hi all,

My wife purchased a dress last week. When she took it home she found that the dress did not fit her properly and was cutting into her sides. She returned the dress to the shop earlier today but was point blank refused a cash refund. She had a receipt and all tags were still on the dress. A credit note was offered instead.

I had a quick look at the sale of goods act and you are entitled to a refund if the clothing item is not fit for its purpose. When it come to clothing and sizes etc, there are some clothes that will never fit or fufill there purpose as they cannot be worn comfortably. Has anyone ever sucessfully argued that a clothing item was not fit for its purpose as it was unsuitable for them once given the time to try it on properly and received a cash refund?

Thanks


----------



## europhile (22 Nov 2008)

Did she not try it on in the shop?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Nov 2008)

Not fit for purpose presumably means if you buy a kettle and it doesn't boil water. 

Clothes shops cannot give cash refunds if someone changes their mind. 

The dress is fit for purpose, it's just not fit for your wife. 

Brendan


----------



## j26 (22 Nov 2008)

Brendan said:


> Clothes shops cannot give cash refunds if someone changes their mind.


They can, but are not obliged to.
If I haven't tried something on, I'd usually ask the cashier if I can return it if it doesn't fit, then the return is part of the deal.


Brendan said:


> The dress is fit for purpose, it's just not fit for your wife.


----------



## jryan (22 Nov 2008)

No, she did not try on the dress. The shop was busy at the time and she did not get an opportunity.

I agree the fit for its purpose covers the general functionality of the item purchased. However, this can be interpretted a little differently depending on what way you look at it. The overall purpose was that the dress would fit correctly and could be worn comfortably. This was not the case.


----------



## europhile (22 Nov 2008)

I can just imagine the response you'd get if you tried this argument in Penneys.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (22 Nov 2008)

I don't think you'll get anywhere with this one.

I think the fact that they offered you a credit note is the best you can hope for. The item does as it's supposed to do but unfortunately not for your wife.


----------



## Sue Ellen (22 Nov 2008)

europhile said:


> I can just imagine the response you'd get if you tried this argument in Penneys.



The beauty of Dunnes, Penneys, M&S, Arnotts and others is that they will give cash refunds once the receipt is produced, all tags are still attached and the item has not been worn.

As mentioned by a previous poster its best to clarify before buying if the item can be returned for a cash refund if it is not suitable.

I've found in the past a lot of the smaller shops won't entertain cash refunds but will offer a credit note.


----------



## europhile (22 Nov 2008)

Before buying an article of clothing without trying it on, I would certainly ask what the exchange policy was.


----------



## Complainer (23 Nov 2008)

jryan said:


> I had a quick look at the sale of goods act and you are entitled to a refund if the clothing item is not fit for its purpose.


Can you confirm which particular section of the Act you got this from? I understood that the consumer rights were generally repair/replace/refund, in that order.

I find most retails get pretty upset when I try on dresses, mind you.


----------



## JamesGG (24 Nov 2008)

If there was a small hole in the dress it wouldnt be of merchantable quality


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2008)

JamesGG said:


> If there was a small hole in the dress it wouldnt be of merchantable quality


If there was a small hole in the dress it wouldn't be of acceptable quality
 for return. That's a great way to ensure that you won't even get the credit note.


----------



## Celtwytch (24 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I find most retails get pretty upset when I try on dresses, mind you.


 
LOL! (Took me a minute, but I got it )


----------



## Celtwytch (24 Nov 2008)

jryan said:


> No, she did not try on the dress. The shop was busy at the time and she did not get an opportunity.
> 
> I agree the fit for its purpose covers the general functionality of the item purchased. However, this can be interpretted a little differently depending on what way you look at it. The overall purpose was that the dress would fit correctly and could be worn comfortably. This was not the case.


 
But the shop could argue that the dress would fit _someone _correctly and could be worn comfortably _by someone else_.  I really don't think you have a leg to stand on in this case.  By the by - has your wife tried on a bigger size of the dress?  It might be a better fit, and then she could use the credit note to buy that instead.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Nov 2008)

Celtwytch said:


> By the by - has your wife tried on a bigger size of the dress? It might be a better fit, and then she could use the credit note to buy that instead.


 
Dear me, are you trying to incite a divorce?!


----------



## Guest128 (24 Nov 2008)

Seems to depend on the shop. I've seen both occur. Personally, I would think she should have tried it on first (apparently this is *not* common practice for women for some unknown reason) and/or checked the refund policy...otherwise you are open to this sort of thing.


----------



## Celtwytch (24 Nov 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Dear me, are you trying to incite a divorce?!


 
Sorry - wasn't thinking!


----------



## Celtwytch (24 Nov 2008)

FLANDERS` said:


> Personally, I would think she should have tried it on first (apparently this is *not* common practice for women for some unknown reason)


 
You obviously haven't been in a ladies' changing room recently then (actually, if you're male, I certainly HOPE you haven't been!)  There's always a mile-long queue, which is probably why some women take a chance on buying the item without trying it on.  I personally always try things on, because sizes vary so much from shop to shop.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Nov 2008)

Celtwytch said:


> You obviously haven't been in a ladies' changing room recently then (actually, if you're male, I certainly HOPE you haven't been!) There's always a mile-long queue, which is probably why some women take a chance on buying the item without trying it on. I personally always try things on, because sizes vary so much from shop to shop.


 
I absolutely hate womens changing rooms. Either they are the awful communal ones where everyone gets to see your flabby bits that you usually hide in clothes, or you get stuck getting into/out of something that is sized as a 12 but upon trying to get the waistband up over your hips you realise they must have meant AGE 12 cos it sure aint size 12.

The non communal ones are just as bad, kids poking their heads under the curtain and gawping up at you in your skivvies, a lot of them are way overheated so you end up sweating like mad, there is often not enough room to get undressed and redressed without your bum swinging out through the curtain for all to see.

Add to this one I ventured into last saturday that stank to high heaven of urine and BO. Yes, not pleasant places womens changing rooms.


----------



## sam h (24 Nov 2008)

You don;t have a hope - shops have no obligation to accept a return just because it doesn't fit.

Obviously to suggest a larger size would be insentitive.....gym memebership would be far more subtle !!


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Can you confirm which particular section of the Act you got this from?



S.14(4)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html


(4) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgement.


----------



## Murt10 (24 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> I find most retails get pretty upset when I try on dresses, mind you.





A clear case of discrimination on the ground of Gender.


----------



## Complainer (24 Nov 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> S.14(4)
> 
> http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html
> 
> ...



Thanks - That section doesn't make any particular reference to entitlement to refund, as far as I can see.



Murt10 said:


> A clear case of discrimination on the ground of Gender.


Indeed - I had to take a claim last time


----------



## rosey (24 Nov 2008)

the shop has no obligation to take the dress back and give your wife her money back or even to give an exchange- your wife bought it, there is nothing wrong with the dress except your wife doesn't feel it fits comfortably...sorry if it sounds harsh but shops only exchange items or give refunds as a gesture of good customer service not as an obligation unless there is actually something wrong with the item.


----------



## JamesGG (28 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> If there was a small hole in the dress it wouldn't be of acceptable quality
> for return. That's a great way to ensure that you won't even get the credit note.




If the tags are still attached etc she's hardly to blame for the damadge?


----------



## Complainer (28 Nov 2008)

JamesGG said:


> If the tags are still attached etc she's hardly to blame for the damadge?


Do you seriously think that most retailers are that dumb?


----------

