HK return policy

[MarthaK]

From the Hong Kong Sale of Goods Ordinance:

(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer,
expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose
for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the
goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether
or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except
where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is
unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgment.

Breach of a condition gives rise to the right to treat the contract as repudiated.


In other words, the goods have to be fit for the purpose for which they are sold. I think you'd have a good argument that carrying a bag is an entirely predictable purpose for the shoulder of a shirt ;-) . If they are not, you can repudiate - i.e. you return the shirt and they have to give you your money back. My reading is that this is your statutory right - incidentally, exactly the same as your statutory right under English law. It's just that many stores in the UK also have discretionary policies of allowing returns and exchanges where a customer just changes their mind, it's a commercial decision for them, not something the law obliges them to do.

[ray98]

From the Hong Kong Sale of Goods Ordinance:

(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer,
expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose
for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the
goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether
or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except
where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is
unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgment.

Breach of a condition gives rise to the right to treat the contract as repudiated.


In other words, the goods have to be fit for the purpose for which they are sold. I think you'd have a good argument that carrying a bag is an entirely predictable purpose for the shoulder of a shirt ;-) . If they are not, you can repudiate - i.e. you return the shirt and they have to give you your money back. My reading is that this is your statutory right - incidentally, exactly the same as your statutory right under English law. It's just that many stores in the UK also have discretionary policies of allowing returns and exchanges where a customer just changes their mind, it's a commercial decision for them, not something the law obliges them to do.

Martha, I'm afraid you got this all wrong in the context of this situation. For starters, Zara does not promote their shirts for shoulder bag wear endurance! I mean what about my case, if I bought a designer suit, had to run for a taxi, or just sat on a normal fabric office chair and the pants split. My fault or the seller?

[MarthaK]

The seller's fault. If the suit was the right size for you it should not have split when you ran for a taxi, and certainly not when you entirely predictably sat on a chair! If you ran a marathon, that would be different.

Equally, if the OP had gone hiking with a backpack on for several hours, then unless it was a hiking shirt, that wouldn't be the purpose for which it was intended. But he just carried a bag for a day or so - as another poster said, all women carry handbags and we expect our clothes to withstand that. Are you saying that men who carry man-bags deserve what they get? ;-)

[ray98]

Martha, I think I will just agree to disagree with you on this. Your interpretation of the SGO is just plain wrong I think based on my A'level law days (well I mean the SGS Act in England)

[MarthaK]

Ray, I've been a practising lawyer for 10 years. You're lucky I'm not charging you for this.

[ray98]

Ray, I've been a practising lawyer for 10 years. You're lucky I'm not charging you for this.

Maybe my Sweet & Maxwell is wrong! Or which part of the SGO applies to Zara making implicit or explicit representation that normal wear & tear includes occasional wearing of a shoulder bag, the shoulder bag of what specification, design or weight?

"Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill or judgment."

So you want to tell me everyone who buys a shirt is expected to carry a shoulder bag?! If so, and if you have the time, please quote the legal precedent, I'd be most interested!