Statutory Rights?

[ErikaPNP]

My OH bought me a necklace and earring set for Christmas. However due to an allergy, I cannot wear anything unless it is nickel free as I am highly sensitive to it and often break out in a painful blistering rash. The set was silver which usually contains nickel, so I told him sensitively that I couldn't accept his gift knowing I'd never wear it and would feel better if he got his money back. I wasn't expecting him to replace it with anything else.

 

Today we went back to the Jewellers where they refused to accept the set back for a refund, refused a credit note and refused an exchange, because they say they cannot accept returns on earrings for hygiene reasons. I explained that the earrings had not even been taken out of the box (or the necklace for that matter). The woman stated it did not matter they were not able to accept returns of earrings which is a rule introduced 5 years ago. OH asked at the time of purchase if he could get an exchange if the gift was unsuitable and was told yes, although they deny that now.

 

What about his statutory rights? I feel very guilty as I now have a set which I'll never be able to wear and feel his money has gone down the pan.

 

Where does OH stand on this?

 

PS I'm not one of these woman who insists on wearing pure gold lol - Nickel free or hypoallergenic jewellery is usually far cheaper than so called pure metals anyway!

[Gogivit]

Erika,

 

I think you will find that if the earrings were faulty then you would be entitled to a full refund. However as they are not, they are entitled not to accept them back. Reason for this would be hygeine. As an example most earrings require a pin going into the ear. This sometimes draws blood-and there would be no way of proving either way if you had, or had not worn them.

 

So you could try selling them on Ebay or to another friend

[Bookworm]

Hmmm, interesting point.

 

I have been wondering for a while (as you do) about hygiene reason v statutory rights.

 

If you haven't tried the earrings on, then you don't know for sure that they will cause an allergy, so you can't simply say they are not fit for purpose. OTOH, if you did try them on and they did cause an allergy, then you could argue that since those earrings are not fit for purpose (ie be worn by you) then your full statutory rights apply.

 

It is a well-advertised fact that earrings are excluded from return guarantees, so I don't think there is any mileage in your BF saying he was told he could exchange them, even if he was at that point, his word against the shop, on balance, the shop will win, as most people will know the rule and the shop will probably have something in writing there too.

 

Incidentally, and slightly OT, the whole blood/earrings thing is a direct consequence of the AIDS epidemics and a complete over-reaction, but that's a topic for another time.

 

I think your only angle here is the "not fit for purpose" one, but you might have to write to their HO complaints dept arguing it, and if I were you, I'd leave out the "yes, you can exchange it" part, as it will undermine your case, go purely on statutory rights. Whether it will work or not... arguable, tbh, as it would boil down to what constitutes fit for purpose in this instance. Can it be worn? Yes. Can it be worn by you? No. It's worth a try anyway. ;-)

[ErikaPNP]

Thanks guys. I think I might do a sale on eBay, to see if I can recoup his money. I just feel bad for his financial loss, and annoyed that he was told he could return it for an exchange if it was unsuitable - he made it clear that it was a gift - the shop assistant said they had a 14 day "no quibble" money back guarantee on all products.

 

My argument in the shop was that the returns policy was not displayed in the shop, was not on the reciept and that he had been told at the point of sale upon enquiring that ALL items had a 14 day "no quibble" money back guarantee. Huff. The manager asked for our reciept first (after we handed back the item, and she had opened the box and saw the set) and OH realised he had left the reciept in his desk at work, he said he'd go back and get it and then she said they wouldn't exchange earrings, so I can't understand why she asked for the reciept in the first place only to then say they won't exchange earrings, I thought she was trying it on. Oh well, off to eBay!

 

Thanks guys, appreciate the replies.

[gyzmo]

unde the shops own returns policy, I doubt there is anything that you can do.

 

So we are left with statutory rights. There are two issues.

 

Firstly, was the product advertsied as containing nickel?

Secondly, did the buyer make the seller aware of the allergy to nickel?

 

With the first, it may come down to a common knowledge taht such metal does contain nickel. In such a case there would be little, if anything that can be done.

 

With the second, if the seller was made aware, thne there is a case of the product not conforming to the description. In such a case, there is a case for breach of contract.

 

If there is a breach of contract or of implied terms by legislation, then the resaleability of the items does not matter, since the legislation does not cater for this. If the items were bought online, and the return is made under the cancellation rights, then the same applies. It does not matter that the items canno be resold due to hygiene reasons - that is simply tough on the seller. With DSRs however, the seller would have to stipulate taking reasonable care of the item by not opening a protective casing before they can refuse a return. Even in your case, you state you have not opened them, so even this would not serve them.

 

In the absence of the above, the only option I cn think of is to argue under the Consumer Protection Act that it is a dangerous product and equired to have allergy advice. I think however that would be pushing it.