If it ain’t broke you may still have rights
IF A retailer takes back something you’ve bought because you discovered when you tried it on at home that it doesn’t fit, or you had buyer’s remorse, they’re doing you a favour, or as corporates prefer to term it, “it’s a goodwill gesture” on their part.
That’s because for the most part, companies are not legally compelled to take back goods – at all – which are not defective.
The Consumer Protection Act’s (CPA) six-month warranty – in terms of which you can return a product for your choice of a refund, replacement or repair – applies mainly to defective goods. But there are some exceptions to the “no recourse unless it’s defective” rule. this get-out-of-deal-free thing from a commission-earning sales agent. something being a bad fit for you and not fit for purpose.
You can’t take back a pair of jeans or shoes because you decide, when you get home, that they are too tight for you.
But if a product claims to be able to perform a function and it doesn’t, you have the right to return it for a refund.
Section 55 of the CPA states “the consumer has a right to expect that the goods are reasonably suitable for the specific purpose that the consumer has indicated” and consistent with the way in which they are marketed, packaged and displayed. Here’s an example: Sheila Deiner of Gonubie bought Homemark’s FatFreezer product from the company’s Hemingways Mall in November.
The salesman didn’t caution her that the elasticised belt may not fit around her middle, nor did the packaging indicate any measurement limitations.
And it was not the sort of product that a consumer would be able to “try on” in store.
Deiner never got to find out if the product’s claim – that the cold would break down fat cells, resulting in a “more toned and sleek appearance” – was true.
This was because its elasticated belt wouldn’t fit around her 105cm waist.
So she returned the product to the store – within the Consumer Protection Act’s six-month warranty period – but she was told she had no recourse.
“The salesman had the cheek to tell me that people bigger than me had bought the product and it worked for them,” she said.
“I find that totally impossible because if I couldn’t fit the belt around my waist, I don’t see people bigger than me getting it around their leg!”
I took up the case with Homemark and after first insisting that Deiner was only entitled to an exchange, and a refund was “stretching it”, the company eventually agreed to refund her the R1 000 she spent on the FatFreezer – and to amend the packaging to include the maximum measurements the product caters for. So there you have it. This would be a useful column to cutout-and-keep (cut-and-paste for digital readers) for future reference.
CONTACT WENDY: E-mail: Twitter: