Misselling may be overt or it may be subtle.
It can sometimes result from the misleading presentations of a single salesperson (usually the one that we buy the goods from) about the product in question, its suitability for our situation, its quality, durability, etc.
But misselling can often be more subtle than that. It can also result from a decision made by a consumer after receiving a lot of incorrect and/or misleading information about a product from several sources. For example, a consumer may have seen homely ads on TV about a new design of an existing product, ads that extoll the new design's advantages over existing designs under one or more use conditions. The same consumer may have trawled the showrooms of several vendors and received similar indications from sales staff there. And they may have heard one of their friends or neighbours speak well of the new product design albeit with a less technical rationale.
In the absence of the expertise to evaluate the technical advantages of one product design over another, a consumer may often be inclined to go with the new design, especially when there are certain - at least apparently - demonstrable advantages to it, particularly when some of those alleged advantages are desirable to him/her.
Where this sort of thing happens and where the consumer is disappointed in the performance of the product, what sort of reddress is available via small claims or district courts ? While overt misselling is forbidden in regard to financial products, I wonder do consumer regulators apply the same stricture when purchase of expensive household products, e.g. mattresses, large appliances, etc, are concerned ?
I ask as I have lately learned through bitter experience that the principal advantage of the pocket-spring mattress I bought will not confer any advantage to people preferring a firm flat mattress. In fact it will be quite unsuitable for people like me; as good as useless in fact. I can't help thinking that pocket-sprung mattress limitations would be given more airing by sales staff if they were priced at the same point as coil-sprung ones. But as in all industries, new technology is a great pretext for higher prices. And expecting salespersons to resist the temptation to guide their customers towards the higher priced goods would be like expecting a dog not to bark. In fairness, many sales staff are under orders to do such things.
It can sometimes result from the misleading presentations of a single salesperson (usually the one that we buy the goods from) about the product in question, its suitability for our situation, its quality, durability, etc.
But misselling can often be more subtle than that. It can also result from a decision made by a consumer after receiving a lot of incorrect and/or misleading information about a product from several sources. For example, a consumer may have seen homely ads on TV about a new design of an existing product, ads that extoll the new design's advantages over existing designs under one or more use conditions. The same consumer may have trawled the showrooms of several vendors and received similar indications from sales staff there. And they may have heard one of their friends or neighbours speak well of the new product design albeit with a less technical rationale.
In the absence of the expertise to evaluate the technical advantages of one product design over another, a consumer may often be inclined to go with the new design, especially when there are certain - at least apparently - demonstrable advantages to it, particularly when some of those alleged advantages are desirable to him/her.
Where this sort of thing happens and where the consumer is disappointed in the performance of the product, what sort of reddress is available via small claims or district courts ? While overt misselling is forbidden in regard to financial products, I wonder do consumer regulators apply the same stricture when purchase of expensive household products, e.g. mattresses, large appliances, etc, are concerned ?
I ask as I have lately learned through bitter experience that the principal advantage of the pocket-spring mattress I bought will not confer any advantage to people preferring a firm flat mattress. In fact it will be quite unsuitable for people like me; as good as useless in fact. I can't help thinking that pocket-sprung mattress limitations would be given more airing by sales staff if they were priced at the same point as coil-sprung ones. But as in all industries, new technology is a great pretext for higher prices. And expecting salespersons to resist the temptation to guide their customers towards the higher priced goods would be like expecting a dog not to bark. In fairness, many sales staff are under orders to do such things.
Last edited: