Tweet
Re: Retailer rights
I know it's long winded but here's what's going as my appeal.:
Transaction claimback
Ref
I wish to contest the claimback instigated by Mrs
This customer visited my shop with her husband. She was looking for an outfit to wear for her daughter's wedding. She was shown, and she tried on, several outfits in the presence of her husband and personally attended by one of our sales assistants.
We take care to ensure that a customer is given every opportunity to properly assess each outfit, including matching it with shoes, hat and bag. The shop has large mirror sliding doors along one wall which she would have to stand in front of, and another two large mirrors on other sides of the room. Apart from that, due to the size limitation of the shop,her husband would have sat no more than around 10 feet away from her and would have seen everything she tried on. In fact he gave a firm indication that he just loved the outfit she chose, after her taking some time to try it fore size and colour and with matching shoes,hats etc. This was a lengthy procedure with no haste involved.
The fitting of such an outfit isn't just a quick change into it then make your mind up. A customer takes time to consider it. Both in front of the mirrors and by agreement with her visiting supporter(s) ie husband, daughter or whoever else she cares to bring along.
In this case her husband had been in attendance right through the fitting. The customer loved the outfit and also the matching shoes she chose to go with it. She tried the shoes on in the shop and appraised them against the outfit as a full package.
When she departed the shop she was really happy at her choice, having had time to carefully try on and inspect both the outfit and shoes. The outfit was not faulty at time of sale. In fact had it been, it would have been apparent when she tried it on. The same goes for the shoes. In the manufacture of shoes there is sometimes a small overrun of glue which presents itself and which is very easily removed in any event, but it certainly isn't a fault.
In her case no such overrun was apparent as if it had I would have removed it there and then as the last thing I want is for a customer to go away with something which has any fault whatsoever. Any overrun of glue would be hard to miss, especially when taking time to try on and compare them with the outfit colour.
Within a couple of days from her visit she called the shop and told me that she had changed her mind on the outfit as her daughter didn't like it and would I refund her.
I told her I would allow her a credit note or exchange but she declined this offer.
She then called a few days later and told me that the outfit was faulty. This was the only way she could try for a refund having already told me she had changed her mind following her daughter's remarks.
She had ample opportunity t o tell me this on her first call had she known of the alleged fault then. In fact, having asserted her daughter's opinion already as the reason for a refund, I find it hard to believe she would even have tried the outfit on again where she could then find a fault not apparent on the first showing.
There was no mention of the matching shoes, however since the colour was chosen to match the outfit it is likely that the next outfit she bought would have been a different colour so she would have been left with shoes that wouldn't match. However, the shoes were sold separately and were chosen by her and accepted after trying them on.
Our business name is very important to us, and we would never refuse anyone a refund or exchange for something faulted. Had the lady told us at the outset that it was faulted she would have been asked to bring it back so we could see it and appraise it for exchange or repair, or even a refund if necessary. It was only when we refused to refund, instead of exchange or give a credit note at the time of her original discussion when she told us her daughter didn't like it, did any mention of a fault become subject of further complaint; and this some time later.
When she called and told us of the supposed fault we asked her to bring it in so we could look at it and exchange or repair it if possible but she refused to do so and instead sent it back by parcel post.
The lady wrote and advised that she would be invoking a charge-back for the purchases.
That of course is the subject of this letter.
It was very obvious that the lady had totally changed her mind after her daughter told her she didn't like it, and just wanted a refund. If the outfit had been the subject of a genuine fault we could even have replaced the whole outfit for one exactly the same style, which of course is one of the rights afforded to us in such a case. However it was apparent that she wanted something else, and perhaps had even bought something else from another shop in the meantime. As both her and her husband were satisfied with the outfit at time of purchase then she would have been happy enough to actually have it replaced for one of the same style. It's my opinion that her daughters wedding album shows her wearing something different though.
I remind you that the Sale of Goods Act applies to this sale. Any charge-back must be assessed against the rights of both parties within the legal obligations placed upon them by the Act.
The point of sale was at the shop, with the customer having seen, tried on and accepted the items. She had ample opportunity to inspect them before accepting them, and indeed spent a lengthy period of time doing so in the presence of her husband.
The faults she insists were present at the time of sale, were not.
In fact, even had they been and had been discovered following the purchase, my rights as a retailer under the sale of goods act extends to my having an opportunity to make right the faults, offer a replacement, or make a partial refund as appropriate.
The lady was adamant that her daughter didn't like the outfit and therein lies the truth of the matter.
The lady refused a credit note, she declined to bring the items back for inspection for a potential repair, if needed anyway, and was obstructive in her manner. She just wanted a refund without compromise or without giving me a chance to fulfil my obligations within the sale of goods act, or even to look at the so called fault with her in attendance. In any event, she returned the items by post and I found that a click had been put into the material of the outfit in a place which would have been very obvious had it been there when it was tried on in the shop.It is something that will not take more than a few seconds to repair anyway, and indeed has been repaired satisfactorily already, but I was denied the opportunity to make a repair and return it to her. The shoes have been found to be not faulted at all.
Having been in the business of sales of mother of the bride outfits for many years, it'snot uncommon that a customer changes her mind following a purchase.We do our best to accommodate her in this situation and extend every opportunity to change her outfit or to give a credit note, even though we are not obliged to do so, and above our statutory obligations. We extend this to those customers who have purchased an outfit that clashes with that of another guest at the same event even though we do so quite voluntarily and as part of our overall service to customers.
We find that most ladies are very happy with this arrangement but on occasion we get an obstructive customer who demands right of refund when she is not entitled to it. When the refund request is refused it's easy for a customer to deliberately make a fault in the material of an outfit. I am certain this is what has happened here. The lady has the right to take civil action against us if she thinks she has a worthy case.
At the very least, the customer has not given us the opportunity to make right the faults,but which we are adamant were not there in the first place. She has been uncompromising and this would not be looked on favourably in a county court, as would not her insistence on rights which were above those extended to her under the sale of goods act.
Failing to allow us the opportunity to make good any defect, especially since it's unequivocally the case her daughter didn't like the outfit when shown it, puts the charge-back in a situation where it is claimed without merit and without consideration of our own rights under the sale of goods act. Any court would assess a case on the reasonableness of actions taken as long as they are not outside the statutory rights of either party. In such a civil court, the burden of proof is not assessed in such stringent terms as in a Criminal Court. The judge would decide on a matter of probabilities only. Ie as expressed within a legal article: “2.The Standard of Proof: (The test to establish whether a party has succeeded in proving a fact in issue)
In civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities"or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met.”
I believe that knowing that the customer called asking for a refund as her daughter didn't like it is enough evidence of what goes on here.
As a final gesture of goodwill I am offering this lady a credit note to the amount of the returned goods. Since I have no record of her address maybe you can convey this message to her. If she wishes to avail herself of this she will need to call me at the registered address above and I will post it out to her. Alternatively if the lady feels she has a case answerable in law she can take that route.
I request that the charge-back is refunded to our account accordingly, together with a notification of any charges incurred as a result of this fictitious claim so that I may assess whether to claim them back from the lady at a county court.
I know it's long winded but here's what's going as my appeal.:
Transaction claimback
Ref
I wish to contest the claimback instigated by Mrs
This customer visited my shop with her husband. She was looking for an outfit to wear for her daughter's wedding. She was shown, and she tried on, several outfits in the presence of her husband and personally attended by one of our sales assistants.
We take care to ensure that a customer is given every opportunity to properly assess each outfit, including matching it with shoes, hat and bag. The shop has large mirror sliding doors along one wall which she would have to stand in front of, and another two large mirrors on other sides of the room. Apart from that, due to the size limitation of the shop,her husband would have sat no more than around 10 feet away from her and would have seen everything she tried on. In fact he gave a firm indication that he just loved the outfit she chose, after her taking some time to try it fore size and colour and with matching shoes,hats etc. This was a lengthy procedure with no haste involved.
The fitting of such an outfit isn't just a quick change into it then make your mind up. A customer takes time to consider it. Both in front of the mirrors and by agreement with her visiting supporter(s) ie husband, daughter or whoever else she cares to bring along.
In this case her husband had been in attendance right through the fitting. The customer loved the outfit and also the matching shoes she chose to go with it. She tried the shoes on in the shop and appraised them against the outfit as a full package.
When she departed the shop she was really happy at her choice, having had time to carefully try on and inspect both the outfit and shoes. The outfit was not faulty at time of sale. In fact had it been, it would have been apparent when she tried it on. The same goes for the shoes. In the manufacture of shoes there is sometimes a small overrun of glue which presents itself and which is very easily removed in any event, but it certainly isn't a fault.
In her case no such overrun was apparent as if it had I would have removed it there and then as the last thing I want is for a customer to go away with something which has any fault whatsoever. Any overrun of glue would be hard to miss, especially when taking time to try on and compare them with the outfit colour.
Within a couple of days from her visit she called the shop and told me that she had changed her mind on the outfit as her daughter didn't like it and would I refund her.
I told her I would allow her a credit note or exchange but she declined this offer.
She then called a few days later and told me that the outfit was faulty. This was the only way she could try for a refund having already told me she had changed her mind following her daughter's remarks.
She had ample opportunity t o tell me this on her first call had she known of the alleged fault then. In fact, having asserted her daughter's opinion already as the reason for a refund, I find it hard to believe she would even have tried the outfit on again where she could then find a fault not apparent on the first showing.
There was no mention of the matching shoes, however since the colour was chosen to match the outfit it is likely that the next outfit she bought would have been a different colour so she would have been left with shoes that wouldn't match. However, the shoes were sold separately and were chosen by her and accepted after trying them on.
Our business name is very important to us, and we would never refuse anyone a refund or exchange for something faulted. Had the lady told us at the outset that it was faulted she would have been asked to bring it back so we could see it and appraise it for exchange or repair, or even a refund if necessary. It was only when we refused to refund, instead of exchange or give a credit note at the time of her original discussion when she told us her daughter didn't like it, did any mention of a fault become subject of further complaint; and this some time later.
When she called and told us of the supposed fault we asked her to bring it in so we could look at it and exchange or repair it if possible but she refused to do so and instead sent it back by parcel post.
The lady wrote and advised that she would be invoking a charge-back for the purchases.
That of course is the subject of this letter.
It was very obvious that the lady had totally changed her mind after her daughter told her she didn't like it, and just wanted a refund. If the outfit had been the subject of a genuine fault we could even have replaced the whole outfit for one exactly the same style, which of course is one of the rights afforded to us in such a case. However it was apparent that she wanted something else, and perhaps had even bought something else from another shop in the meantime. As both her and her husband were satisfied with the outfit at time of purchase then she would have been happy enough to actually have it replaced for one of the same style. It's my opinion that her daughters wedding album shows her wearing something different though.
I remind you that the Sale of Goods Act applies to this sale. Any charge-back must be assessed against the rights of both parties within the legal obligations placed upon them by the Act.
The point of sale was at the shop, with the customer having seen, tried on and accepted the items. She had ample opportunity to inspect them before accepting them, and indeed spent a lengthy period of time doing so in the presence of her husband.
The faults she insists were present at the time of sale, were not.
In fact, even had they been and had been discovered following the purchase, my rights as a retailer under the sale of goods act extends to my having an opportunity to make right the faults, offer a replacement, or make a partial refund as appropriate.
The lady was adamant that her daughter didn't like the outfit and therein lies the truth of the matter.
The lady refused a credit note, she declined to bring the items back for inspection for a potential repair, if needed anyway, and was obstructive in her manner. She just wanted a refund without compromise or without giving me a chance to fulfil my obligations within the sale of goods act, or even to look at the so called fault with her in attendance. In any event, she returned the items by post and I found that a click had been put into the material of the outfit in a place which would have been very obvious had it been there when it was tried on in the shop.It is something that will not take more than a few seconds to repair anyway, and indeed has been repaired satisfactorily already, but I was denied the opportunity to make a repair and return it to her. The shoes have been found to be not faulted at all.
Having been in the business of sales of mother of the bride outfits for many years, it'snot uncommon that a customer changes her mind following a purchase.We do our best to accommodate her in this situation and extend every opportunity to change her outfit or to give a credit note, even though we are not obliged to do so, and above our statutory obligations. We extend this to those customers who have purchased an outfit that clashes with that of another guest at the same event even though we do so quite voluntarily and as part of our overall service to customers.
We find that most ladies are very happy with this arrangement but on occasion we get an obstructive customer who demands right of refund when she is not entitled to it. When the refund request is refused it's easy for a customer to deliberately make a fault in the material of an outfit. I am certain this is what has happened here. The lady has the right to take civil action against us if she thinks she has a worthy case.
At the very least, the customer has not given us the opportunity to make right the faults,but which we are adamant were not there in the first place. She has been uncompromising and this would not be looked on favourably in a county court, as would not her insistence on rights which were above those extended to her under the sale of goods act.
Failing to allow us the opportunity to make good any defect, especially since it's unequivocally the case her daughter didn't like the outfit when shown it, puts the charge-back in a situation where it is claimed without merit and without consideration of our own rights under the sale of goods act. Any court would assess a case on the reasonableness of actions taken as long as they are not outside the statutory rights of either party. In such a civil court, the burden of proof is not assessed in such stringent terms as in a Criminal Court. The judge would decide on a matter of probabilities only. Ie as expressed within a legal article: “2.The Standard of Proof: (The test to establish whether a party has succeeded in proving a fact in issue)
In civil matters, the standard of proof is generally "on the balance of probabilities"or "a preponderance of the evidence", meaning that if it is more likely than not that the fact alleged is true, then the standard has been met.”
I believe that knowing that the customer called asking for a refund as her daughter didn't like it is enough evidence of what goes on here.
As a final gesture of goodwill I am offering this lady a credit note to the amount of the returned goods. Since I have no record of her address maybe you can convey this message to her. If she wishes to avail herself of this she will need to call me at the registered address above and I will post it out to her. Alternatively if the lady feels she has a case answerable in law she can take that route.
I request that the charge-back is refunded to our account accordingly, together with a notification of any charges incurred as a result of this fictitious claim so that I may assess whether to claim them back from the lady at a county court.
Comment