Right of return ...

[no_...@thanks.com]

Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack Wills" - I
had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently discovered
(before being given to the recipient) that they were the wrong size. The
sales girl at the store accepted that the items clearly had not been
worn but said that it was "policy" not to accept returns and pointed out
the policy statement on the back of the till receipt; the store manager
was not available.
I bought the particular size based on advice from the original assistant
(but have no proof of that) and at no time was the "no returns" policy
mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs displayed. If I had known
about the policy I would not have bought the items based on a size
suggestion from the assistant.
Do I have any rights in this case, because of the lack of warning (the
till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase) and the size
being suggested by the assistant?

[Jon Ribbens]

The till receipt makes no difference as you could not see it before
the contract was formed, but there were most likely signs in the
store. Even if there weren't, I think the default position would be
that you do not have any right to return non-faulty items that were
bought in person in a store.

[Wm...]

Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:52:57 <cftofo...@mid.individual.net>
no_...@thanks.com wrote...

Never buy underwear based on what a lady says her size is. It may be
generous / less generous / change from time to time or be plain
incorrect at the time of ordering and you can't blame the shop you
ordered something from for that.

Discreetly check your close friend or partner's underwear drawer for
sizes you know they wear on a regular basis as it is more likely to be
the size you should buy.

Novelty underwear is different. Mind you, I wouldn't buy that for
someone I liked.

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7786564.stm

--
Wm...

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> <no_...@thanks.com> wrote:

>> Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack
>> Wills" - I had bought them as a Christmas present but
>> subsequently discovered (before being given to the recipient)

>> that they were the wrong size. ...

>> I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
>> assistant (but have no proof of that) and at no time was the
>> "no returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant
>> signs displayed.
>

> The till receipt makes no difference as you could not see it
> before the contract was formed, but there were most likely signs
> in the store. Even if there weren't, I think the default
> position would be that you do not have any right to return
> non-faulty items that were bought in person in a store.

In theory if the purchase was made based on advice from someone
working for the store, and that advice turned out to be incorrect,
there was a breach of the warranty of fitness for purpose. But
proving that would be another matter.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Peter Crosland]

You have no right of return.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[steve robinson]

You have no right to return the goods unless they are faulty or not fit
for the purpose they were sold.

You purchased the wrong size thats not the stores fault, its yours,
some stores as a goodwill jesture may exchage the items but they have
no legal obligation to do so.

[Neil Williams]

On 2014-12-23 17:52:57 +0000, <no_...@thanks.com> said:

> Do I have any rights in this case, because of the lack of warning (the
> till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase) and the size
> being suggested by the assistant?

While most stores do offer returns of unused items for a refund, they
are under no obligation to do so unless faulty, and it is common that
underwear (for hygiene reasons) and PPE (for safety reasons) are not
returnable unless faulty. Though if you have the recommendation in
writing you might get somewhere.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Iain]

Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?

>> I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
>> assistant (but have no proof of that)

This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the purchase was
made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a sales assistant.

and at no time was the "no
>> returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs
>> displayed.

Whilst not particularly relevant to the issue in hand - it is reasonable to
expect a shop, as a minimum, to be able to accept an exchange on a mis-sold
item. Good sense and customer relations must dictate the the ability to
return them in this case. The fact "that the items clearly had not been
worn" is an additional incentive.

>> (the till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase)

As I understand it, any additional terms given after the purchase are not
enforceable anyway.

>From the Money Advice Service website:
"As a non-financial example , say you were looking to buy a computer. You
told the shop assistant that you planned to watch DVDs on it, and they
recommended a model. Then you took it home, and found that it didn't have a
DVD drive. There's nothing wrong with the computer itself - it's not
faulty - but it's not what you needed. The computer was mis-sold to you."
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/financial-mis-selling-what-to-do-if-you-think-its-affected-you

IANAL

--
Iain

[Ian Jackson]

In article <cfu91a...@mid.individual.net>, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>Peter Crosland wrote:
>>On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
>>>Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack Wills"
>>>- I had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently
>>>discovered (before being given to the recipient) that they were the

>>>wrong size. [...]

>>
>>You have no right of return.
>
>Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?

Yes. And I agree.

>>>I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
>>>assistant (but have no proof of that)
>
>This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the purchase was
>made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a sales assistant.

It is difficult to imagine what that advice could have been that would
have amounted to a promise by the shop that they would fit. How could
the shop possibly know ? They would have to rely on a description by
the customer. And it will now be almost impossible to demonstrate
what was said, even if it was suitably incriminating of the shop
(which I think doubtful).

In theory it might be possible (with an audio recording perhaps, of a
very foolish shop assistant) to prove that the shop's advice had been
wrong and that therefore they ought to bear the loss. But in practice
in the OP's situation I think it very unlikely that the OP could
persuade the judge that it was more likely than not that the shop had
promised (or been told) something specific enough to mean that the
problem could be said to be the fault of the shop's breach of
contract.

>Whilst not particularly relevant to the issue in hand - it is reasonable to
>expect a shop, as a minimum, to be able to accept an exchange on a mis-sold
>item. Good sense and customer relations must dictate the the ability to
>return them in this case. The fact "that the items clearly had not been
>worn" is an additional incentive.

That is all completely irrelevant to the legal position.

The moral of the story is that when buying in a shop one should check
the returns policy in advance.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

[steve robinson]

Iain wrote:

> Peter Crosland wrote:
> > On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
> > > Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack
> > > Wills" - I had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently
> > > discovered (before being given to the recipient) that they were
> > > the wrong size. The sales girl at the store accepted that the
> > > items clearly had not been worn but said that it was "policy" not
> > > to accept returns and pointed out the policy statement on the
> > > back of the till receipt; the store manager was not available.
> > > I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
> > > assistant (but have no proof of that) and at no time was the "no
> > > returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs
> > > displayed. If I had known about the policy I would not have bought
> > > the items based on a size suggestion from the assistant.
> > > Do I have any rights in this case, because of the lack of warning
> > > (the till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase) and
> > > the size being suggested by the assistant?
> >
> > You have no right of return.
>
> Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?

PC is correct

>
> > > I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
> > > assistant (but have no proof of that)

Advice given based on the infomation you provided

>
> This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the
> purchase was made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a sales
> assistant.

The advice may well have been wrong given a new set of criteria,
however your problem is the advice may well have been correct based on
the infomation you provided

>
> and at no time was the "no
> > > returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs
> > > displayed.

They don't have to display such signage, its not a legal requirement to
exchange wrongly purchased goods when you buy them from a store

>
> Whilst not particularly relevant to the issue in hand - it is
> reasonable to expect a shop, as a minimum, to be able to accept an
> exchange on a mis-sold item. Good sense and customer relations must
> dictate the the ability to return them in this case. The fact "that
> the items clearly had not been worn" is an additional incentive.

The item wasnt mis sold though was it the op purchased the wrong item ,
whilst it may be a good customer practice to exchange unused goods,
they are not legally obliged to its down to the shops good wll, as
these were ladies underwear then unless faulty its common sense not to
exchange them, its impossible to tell without having tests perdormed
wether they have been worn or not.

>
> > > (the till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase)
> As I understand it, any additional terms given after the purchase are
> not enforceable anyway.
>
> > From the Money Advice Service website:
> "As a non-financial example , say you were looking to buy a computer.
> You told the shop assistant that you planned to watch DVDs on it, and
> they recommended a model. Then you took it home, and found that it
> didn't have a DVD drive. There's nothing wrong with the computer
> itself - it's not faulty - but it's not what you needed. The computer
> was mis-sold to you."
>

correct, but these were ladies knickers they were purchased as ladies
knickers.

What would happen in your senerio if you asked for a 3 inch floppy
drive in your computer, the shop duly supplies you a floppy drive but
your floppys are 5 inch not the 3 inch disks.

Its not fit for the purpose you intended to play your floppies but it
meets all your requested requirements.

Its not the shops fault you screwed up its yours, now the shop may say
bring it in we'll swap out the drives thats good customer service, they
may tell you to p#### off to and theres not thing one yuo could do
about it.

[Roger Hayter]

Looking at the particular facts of the case, the assistant estimated the
size of the the absent woman from the (presumably male) purchaser's
description. I cannot imagine that any judge would expect that this
would be reliable advice, or, importantly, that the OP could possibly
have reasonably relied on it.

--
Roger Hayter

[steve robinson]

We have to assume the advice was based on the infomation supplied by
the op, if the op didnt give accurate infomation yuo can't hold the
shop or any staff liable for the suitability of the product.

[la...@bcs.org.uk]

sorry, I meant to say "better to buy online so the DRS applies" (not SOGA).

RObert

[la...@bcs.org.uk]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 21:13:40 UTC, steve robinson wrote:


>
> You have no right to return the goods unless they are faulty or not fit
> for the purpose they were sold.

This is case (buying clothes for someone else) where it is better to buy online or by mail order so that the SOGA applies and you can return them.

RObert

[David Martel]

Neil,

Jack Wills does have their return policy posted on their web-site. It
does insist that underwear will not be accepted for return for hygiene
reasons. A reasonable person would know this "hygiene" exception. It's not
clear whether the OP is trying to return a sealed bag but he claims that the
product "appears" to be unworn.
I suspect that he could try moving up the chain of command but it's
probably not worth his time.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Alex Heney]

No.

THere is no right to return an item just because it is the wrong size
or colour or you don't like it for any other reason.

Many stores do allow returns, and usually make a point of it as part
of their advertising, but there is no legal requirement to do so, and
it should always be assumed *unless* there is a notice to the
contrary, that returns are only accepted under SOGA rules.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Want a stupid answer? Ask me anything!
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Robin]

> Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?

I see no reason why not. The only issue so far as I can see is whether
or not the assistant gave misleading or erroneous advice on what would
fit and in what terms. I don't doubt the OP's account but much depends
on the precise question and answer. And I'd not be surprised to find
the shop assitant and management could adduce evidence that they simply
don't tell customers what will and won't fit because they can't. (As
'er indoors tells me, even the sales staff at Rigby and Peller don't
always get sizes right first time every time when they have eyes on the
boobs and bums.)

For the rest, most stores have had a policy for many decades not to
accept returns of underwear unless faulty. It is eg one of the
longstanding exceptions to the M&S "goodwill" exchange policy. So I'd
hardly think it needed to be stated unless the store displayed a promise
to accept returns without qualfiication.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[Gorf]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 8:36:12 AM UTC, la...@bcs.org.uk wrote:
> sorry, I meant to say "better to buy online so the DRS applies" (not SOGA).

...or even the DSR ;)

If you were trying to return it because the underwear is too small then give it anyway. "That's what size you look to me" is going to achieve even more brownie points than if you'd bought the right size in the first place. Plus the lady in question may have more success returning them than a mere man.

[Andy Burns]

la...@bcs.org.uk wrote:

> sorry, I meant to say "better to buy online so the DRS applies" (not SOGA).

What you should have said is the The Consumer Contracts (Information,
Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

which AIUI, have completely replaced the DSR.

[steve robinson]

As my wife says no man buys his wife/ girlfriend/ partner sexy lingery
for chritsmas he buys it for himself ;)

[no_...@thanks.com]

On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:

Many thanks for the barrage of useful replies - looks like I'm sunk :-(

FWIW:
- they are "christmas themed" rather than anything more "interesting"
(which would be more likely to make me laugh than anything else).
- I said to the assistant: she's mid 50s, 5'9" tall and has a 28" waist,
but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little spreading.
The assistant said: you need size 10.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>> In theory if the purchase was made based on advice from someone
>> working for the store, and that advice turned out to be
>> incorrect, there was a breach of the warranty of fitness for
>> purpose. But proving that would be another matter.
>
> We have to assume the advice was based on the infomation
> supplied by the op, if the op didnt give accurate infomation
> yuo can't hold the shop or any staff liable for the suitability
> of the product.

Yes, I agree. Thanks for the clarification.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

> As my wife says no man buys his wife/ girlfriend/ partner sexy
> lingery for chritsmas he buys it for himself ;)

But it doesn't fit!!!

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[tim.....]

<no_...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:cfvn83...@mid.individual.net...

do you mean "really" or just tells everybody

> but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little spreading.
> The assistant said: you need size 10.

which would be right for a 28 in waist (apparently)

http://www.tactics.com/info/womens-sizing-charts

HTH (next time)




>

[Norman Wells]

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As my wife says no man buys his wife/ girlfriend/ partner sexy
>> lingery for chritsmas he buys it for himself ;)
>
> But it doesn't fit!!!

It will if he knows his own measurements.

[no_...@thanks.com]

I said to the assistant: she's mid 50s, 5'9" tall and has a 28" waist,

but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little spreading.
The assistant said: you need size 10.

Unfortunately there's no record of this conversation so I accept that I
will have to find something entertaining to do with 2 pairs of size 10
knickers - perhaps I could follow the model of the Cinderella story ;-)

[polygonum]

On 24/12/2014 15:40, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
> I said to the assistant: she's mid 50s, 5'9" tall and has a 28" waist,
> but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little spreading.
> The assistant said: you need size 10.

My partner is very good at these things and her answer was size 12.
Though she said that some shops/lines are distinctly larger or smaller
at any given size than others. If the assistant was aware that the line
was generously sized then saying 10 might have been reasonable.

--
Rod

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

<no_...@thanks.com> wrote:

> I said to the assistant: she's mid 50s, 5'9" tall and has a 28"
> waist, but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little
> spreading. The assistant said: you need size 10.
>
> Unfortunately there's no record of this conversation so I accept
> that I will have to find something entertaining to do with 2
> pairs of size 10 knickers - perhaps I could follow the model of
> the Cinderella story ;-)

You could try selling them on the internet. My guess is if they have
been used, you can get a higher price for them.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[rogerbl...@googlemail.com]

> I said to the assistant: she's mid 50s, 5'9" tall and has a 28" waist,
> but has had 2 kids so hormones have caused a little spreading.

Based on the above information, my wife suggested a size 18 as appropriate.
She also suggested that the shop in question aims mainly at 20-30 somethings (our daughter shops there) and thought they didn't sell much above a size 14 possibly 16

> The assistant said: you need size 10.

caveat emptor

[steve robinson]

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As my wife says no man buys his wife/ girlfriend/ partner sexy
> > lingery for chritsmas he buys it for himself ;)
>
> But it doesn't fit!!!

You aint seen the size of my wife;)

[steve robinson]

Size 10 would be the correct size based on the infomation provided,( i
asked my daughters ad they are shopping experts ) you may have been
better with her hip sizes


Clean the car

[steve robinson]

That sounds about right, a 28 inch waste falls between generous size
8 and a size 10 , apparently theres a chart somewhere that gives yo
all the measurements.

My daughter said try hip sies next time, otr go peek in her underwear
draw.

[Rob Morley]

SOGA applies regardless, as Steve noted above. The Consumer Contracts
Regulations specify the consumer's rights regarding the return of goods
bought at a distance. But many high street retailers have very consumer-
friendly return/exchange policies anyway.

[Iain]

ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) Wrote in message:

> In article <cfu91a...@mid.individual.net>, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:

>>Peter Crosland wrote:
>>>On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
>>>>Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack Wills"
>>>>- I had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently
>>>>discovered (before being given to the recipient) that they were the

>>>>wrong size. [...]
>>>
>>>You have no right of return.
>>
>>Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?
>
> Yes. And I agree.

I've been unanimously outvoted, it seems ;-)

--
Iain

Sent from my Mi3


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Bill Borland]

In article <cfvn83...@mid.individual.net>, no_...@thanks.com writes

>On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
>> Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack Wills" - I
>> had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently discovered
>> (before being given to the recipient) that they were the wrong size. The
>> sales girl at the store accepted that the items clearly had not been
>> worn but said that it was "policy" not to accept returns and pointed out
>> the policy statement on the back of the till receipt; the store manager
>> was not available.
>>>
>

Simplest solution - find a new girlfriend whom they will fit!
--
Bill Borland

[steve robinson]

A others have pointed most do not accept underwear returns unless
faulty

[Alex Heney]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:35:15 -0000, "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:

>Peter Crosland wrote:

>> On 23/12/2014 17:52, no_...@thanks.com wrote:
>>> Today I tried to return two pairs of ladies knickers to "Jack Wills"
>>> - I had bought them as a Christmas present but subsequently
>>> discovered (before being given to the recipient) that they were the
>>> wrong size. The sales girl at the store accepted that the items
>>> clearly had not been worn but said that it was "policy" not to
>>> accept returns and pointed out the policy statement on the back of
>>> the till receipt; the store manager was not available.

>>> I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
>>> assistant (but have no proof of that) and at no time was the "no
>>> returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs
>>> displayed. If I had known about the policy I would not have bought
>>> the items based on a size suggestion from the assistant.
>>> Do I have any rights in this case, because of the lack of warning
>>> (the till receipt could not be seen until after the purchase) and
>>> the size being suggested by the assistant?
>>

>> You have no right of return.
>
>Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the shop?

A judge would almost certainly do so.

>
>>> I bought the particular size based on advice from the original
>>> assistant (but have no proof of that)
>

>This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the purchase was
>made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a sales assistant.
>

Based on information which was not sufficient to give accurate advice,
and he would have to prove (on balance of probabilities) that the
assistant gave that advice and was aware that the customer was relying
on it.

>and at no time was the "no
>>> returns" policy mentioned, nor were there any relevant signs
>>> displayed.
>

>Whilst not particularly relevant to the issue in hand - it is reasonable to
>expect a shop, as a minimum, to be able to accept an exchange on a mis-sold
>item.

You may think it "reasonable", but that does not mean it is a legal
requirement.

>Good sense and customer relations must dictate the the ability to

>return them in this case. The fact "that the items clearly had not been
>worn" is an additional incentive.
>

Many shops have a general returns policy which will allow return of
mistakenly bought items, even though there is no legal requirement for
them to do so.

Very few (if any) will include underwear in that policy, worn or not.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

A single fact can spoil a good argument.

[Alex Heney]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:18:47 -0800 (PST), la...@bcs.org.uk wrote:

>
>
>sorry, I meant to say "better to buy online so the DRS applies" (not SOGA).
>

But you would not have the right of return of underwear unless still
sealed in the original package, due to regulation 28(3)(a):
===================================
3) The rights conferred by this Part cease to be available in the
following circumstances—

(a)in the case of a contract for the supply of sealed goods which are
not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons,
if they become unsealed after delivery;
====================================

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

God heals and the doctor takes the fee.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:

>>>>You have no right of return.
>>>
>>>Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the
>>>shop?
>>
>> Yes. And I agree.
>
> I've been unanimously outvoted, it seems ;-)

Not unanimously. My vote was probably but not necessarily. Based on
what OP said, the information he gave to the store clerk reasonably
led the clerk to suggest that size 10 was appropriate. But I'd want
to know why that was the incorrect size. If it was because OP's
information was inaccurate or incomplete, I'd vote with the shop.
But if it were for some other reason (e.g. brand has slightly odd
sizes or the particular item in question was an odd shape and fit
different shaped women, even of the same size, differently), I might
be more sympathetic to the customer.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>
>>Are you really saying that a judge would find in favour of the
>>shop?
>
> A judge would almost certainly do so.
>>
>>>> I bought the particular size based on advice from the
>>>> original assistant (but have no proof of that)
>>
>>This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the
>>purchase was made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a
>>sales assistant.
>
> Based on information which was not sufficient to give accurate
> advice,

If OP's information was insufficient to give the advice sought, the
store clerk should have said so, and not given advice that might
have been inaccurate.

> and he would have to prove (on balance of probabilities)
> that the assistant gave that advice and was aware that the
> customer was relying on it.

It seems like what you are saying is that if OP's story is accurate
and the store clerk admits it (or a court believes it), then the
shop should allow the item to be returned. Is that accurate?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Bill Borland <bi...@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Simplest solution - find a new girlfriend whom they will fit!

Reminds me of the toast: Here's to wives and girlfriends - may they
never, ever meet.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[steve robinson]

Based on a 28 inch waste then a generously made item size 8 may fit, a
size 10 would definatly fit but thats with the proviso the recipiant
is a standard size.

If she has a generously padded rear end then a size 12 may be more
suitable on the other hand if she has a skinny rear end then she may
sqeeze into a size 8.

Without this infomation all the assistant can do is offer advice on
the infomation provided and from what the op posted it seems she did.


He needs to right this one up to experience.

[Alex Heney]

On 25 Dec 2014 04:46:23 GMT, "Stuart A. Bronstein"

I wouldn't put it as definitely as that, but there would certainly be
a chance the court would say so, based on what I knew of the OP's
story when I posted the above.

Knowing now what he said, it seems the information the OP gave would
normally match the size he was recommended, so it seems less likely.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 23:52:43 +0000
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> Knowing now what he said, it seems the information the OP gave would
> normally match the size he was recommended, so it seems less likely.

If he had specified "pear shaped" as well as "28 inch waist" then it
might have been rather different.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Knowing now what he said, it seems the information the OP gave
>> would normally match the size he was recommended, so it seems
>> less likely.
>
> If he had specified "pear shaped" as well as "28 inch waist"
> then it might have been rather different.

"Pear shaped" may be a better description of his purchase than of his
wife.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[steve robinson]

especially if she happens to be in earshot

[RobertL]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 22:46:14 UTC, Iain wrote:


> This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the purchase was
> made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a sales assistant.

But the problem is that they were the wrong size. How could the sales assistant possibly offer any advice on whether they were the right size for someone they have never seen?

Robert

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Iain wrote:
>
>> This must be very relevant (probably the most relevant) - the
>> purchase was made on what turned out to be wrong advice from a
>> sales assistant.
>
> But the problem is that they were the wrong size. How could the
> sales assistant possibly offer any advice on whether they were
> the right size for someone they have never seen?

But the sales assistant did. Who would be in the best position to
know that doing so would not likely work?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Rob Morley]

On 31 Dec 2014 18:13:24 GMT

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

Anyone with half a brain?