Change of mind return nightmare! am I wrong?

Forums › Off topic › Change of mind return nightmare! am I wrong?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

20105 posts

Uber Geek

#1060971 7-Jun-2014 17:26

Andib: INAL but you're fully within your rights to refuse a refund for change of mind.

Although from what the OP said, the customer isn't claiming they changed their mind, they are claiming that there is a problem. This makes a difference.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

KrazyKid

1238 posts

Uber Geek

#1060975 7-Jun-2014 17:38

I work in Retail and have plenty of experience - you are within your rights,
In short you would have to replace if it is faulty or otherwise stated in your policy, but you have covered that

http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/returns-and-refunds - this gives a smart phone example.

Stick to your guns here

nakedmolerat

4625 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1060990 7-Jun-2014 18:05

Strongbad1905: Thanks for the advise yeah i told the customer i feel for them the best course of action was court but they don't want a bar of that. Sorry I know the CGA and fair trading act inside out, just wanted to confirm sorry if this annoyed you andrewNZ and glassboy. Have a great weekend.

Hi Daniel, it's good for you to post here. We tend to read complaints from the customer, not usually from the seller point of view. I suspect the speaker is slightly less 'powerful' due to membrane used for waterproofing.

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1060993 7-Jun-2014 18:10

There is nothing wrong with posting here (well there shouldnt be anyway!), it is always good to get a few different perspectives, especially with an issue like this. I run my own business and do this frequently to make sure I am not blinded by my bias.

From my understanding (again IANAL), you are well within your rights. You have been more than reasonable, I would be taking the same approach.

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#1060995 7-Jun-2014 18:14

mattwnz:

Although from what the OP said, the customer isn't claiming they changed their mind, they are claiming that there is a problem. This makes a difference.

Based on what we've been told, the customer is simply complaining the product they chose is not as good as a more expensive model. That's not a problem, that's a change of mind.

JayADee

2132 posts

Uber Geek

#1061005 7-Jun-2014 18:30

Inphinity:
mattwnz:

Although from what the OP said, the customer isn't claiming they changed their mind, they are claiming that there is a problem. This makes a difference.

Based on what we've been told, the customer is simply complaining the product they chose is not as good as a more expensive model. That's not a problem, that's a change of mind.

That's what it sounds like to me, buyer's remorse.

mattwnz

20105 posts

Uber Geek

#1061006 7-Jun-2014 18:33

Inphinity:
mattwnz:

Although from what the OP said, the customer isn't claiming they changed their mind, they are claiming that there is a problem. This makes a difference.

Based on what we've been told, the customer is simply complaining the product they chose is not as good as a more expensive model. That's not a problem, that's a change of mind.

Although wouldn't someone expect the sound quality of the models to be the same, unless it states somewhere in the specs that the sound won't be as good due to the waterproofing as per the post above. It is a bit of a tricky situation, but I don't think the customer has helped themselves by waiting a month, and not keeping it in mint condition. If they had come back within 7 days and it was still in mint condition, then maybe.. But I think it is best handled by the DT if the customer chooses to go down that track, as they will be impartial and look at it from both sides.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1061051 7-Jun-2014 20:31

networkn:
Glassboy: This isn't really a matter of opinion, consumer law is well defined. You should know what you can and can't do. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for you to raise it here.

Who appointed you the decider of what was appropriate to be raised here or not? There are PLENTY of consumers moaning every day about being 'stiffed' by retailers. It's in off topic and in no way breaches the FUG.

The Special International Commitee for Deciding Things did.

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#1061052 7-Jun-2014 20:36

hellonearthisman: The buyer is in the wrong.

But the customer is always right...

scuwp

3880 posts

Uber Geek

#1061081 7-Jun-2014 22:40

Dunnersfella:
hellonearthisman: The buyer is in the wrong.

But the customer is always right...

Long since debunked! The customer should always get good service, but good service is not always just saying 'yes'.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1061088 7-Jun-2014 22:48

Well, I am actually a lawyer and IMO the consumer has no legal grounds to stand on. The Consumer Guarantees Act provides for the consumer having the option of requiring a supplier to remedy faults (which may in some circumstances extend to the consumer being able to opt for a refund). But none of those typical situations really apply here -- the phone isn't faulty; there is no evidence that the phone is performing unacceptably for an item of its cost/specifications etc.

What the consumer is likely trying to argue is that he told the shop that he required the phone to be fit for a particular purpose, in which case s 8(1) of the CGA is at play. It reads:

8 Guarantees as to fitness for particular purpose

(1) Subject to section 41, the following guarantees apply where goods are supplied to a consumer:
- (a) that the goods are reasonably fit for any particular purpose that the consumer makes known, expressly or by implication, to the supplier as the purpose for which the goods are being acquired by the consumer; and
- (b) that the goods are reasonably fit for any particular purpose for which the supplier represents that they are or will be fit.

Now the shop is saying that all the guy originally asked about was whether the phone was "any good". But the question (or expression of a desire that the item be fit for the purpose of being as good at playing music as his S4) was unclear and minimal at best, so it's not clear to me that he had made known either expressly or by implication the purpose for which he wanted the phone to perform. So again I think he has no leg to stand on, provided the shop can convince the Disputes Tribunal (were things to head there) that this was all the consumer said. Then there's the question of whether there's any objective proof that the music playing performance of the phone is any worse than a S4.

Ultimately I think the LEGAL argument for the consumer's position is weak but the people who simply unthinkingly invite the shop to potentially duke it out with him at the Disputes Tribunal are missing one point: time is money; disputes resolution of any sort ALWAYS costs money. If the shop stands its ground and the consumer chooses to, this thing will go to the Disputes Tribunal. The relevant people at the shop may have to attend a hearing and prepare documents/statements for the tribunal before hand. It may be that you deem this worth it as a matter of principle but it's a decision to be made after a bit of reflection and not out of pique because whatever losses you might incur from settling things with the consumer may be cheaper than duking it out at the DT. Even if you win at the DT, you may not get much costs back either. This is another thing to remember.

mattwnz

20105 posts

Uber Geek

#1061096 7-Jun-2014 22:57

dejadeadnz: If the shop stands its ground and the consumer chooses to, this thing will go to the Disputes Tribunal. The relevant people at the shop may have to attend a hearing and prepare documents/statements for the tribunal before hand. It may be that you deem this worth it as a matter of principle but it's a decision to be made after a bit of reflection and not out of pique because whatever losses you might incur from settling things with the consumer may be cheaper than duking it out at the DT. Even if you win at the DT, you may not get much costs back either. This is another thing to remember.

A consumer though won't take it to the DT, unless they think they have a strong case, due to the same reasons that the retailer doesn't want to do it, eg wasted time and the cost of the hearing. Often they will take it to the DT on principle if it is a smaller amount, You do hear of some large companies that get taken to the DT, and lose, some for not bothering to turn up. From what the OP has said , the customer doesn't want to take it to the DT, so if that doesn't happen then that should be the end of it. I am guessing the customer could always request a credit card chargeback, if they totally reject the phone. I am guessing it is then up to the retailer to take the customer to the DT to recover their costs. Often these things can be handled amicably without the DT.

mattwnz

20105 posts

Uber Geek

#1061097 7-Jun-2014 22:59

JayADee:
Inphinity:
mattwnz:

Although from what the OP said, the customer isn't claiming they changed their mind, they are claiming that there is a problem. This makes a difference.

Based on what we've been told, the customer is simply complaining the product they chose is not as good as a more expensive model. That's not a problem, that's a change of mind.

That's what it sounds like to me, buyer's remorse.

That is speculation though. Also they should have known that a new model was coming out, as there was plenty of information that I am sure they should have discovered when researching what phone to get.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1061099 7-Jun-2014 23:03

mattwnz:
A consumer though won't take it to the DT, unless they think they have a strong case, due to the same reasons that the retailer doesn't want to do it, eg wasted time and the cost of the hearing. Often they will take it to the DT on principle if it is a smaller amount, You do hear of some large companies that get taken to the DT, and lose, some for not bothering to turn up. From what the OP has said , the customer doesn't want to take it to the DT, so if that doesn't happen then the retailer doesn't need to worry. I am guessing the customer could always request a credit card chargeback, if they totally reject the phone. I am guessing it is then up to the retailer to take the customer to the DT to recover their costs. Often these things can be handled amicably without the DT.

You're grossly over-estimating the sanity of a lot of the users of the DT. I can't really go into details here but let's just say that I once did a job where I got to look very closely into appeals against DT decisions (which in turn required me to look at the DT's files as well) -- a lot of people will take ludicrous cases there. Does this make that RIGHT? Nope. But it happens.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1061189 8-Jun-2014 10:30

Note it all down, including dates, times, police case numbers if available. Get the story correct as you can and in writing. That way you don't have issues later with being called out on dates, times etc.

Is every parallel imported a standalone entity, or do you have a head office? If you have a head office, forward your notes and the customer on to them. If it lands on you alone as the manager, then you still have notes for if they escalate it further. I don't see that you should have to fold for what seems to amount to a change of mind though.

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6