is this covered by not fit for intended use?

[purplecatlover]

i think its the sale of goods act and will google tomorrow when im not tired and headachey, but figured id ask opinions here too since you all are so knowledgeable and helpful.

 

my friend bought a winter coat in april and being as it wasnt winter anymore didnt start to wear it until the last couple of weeks. every time she wears it dye for inside is coming of onto her clothes. she took it back to the shop today, with a top covered in dye to prrove her claim and the shop refused to replace the coat as it is now being sold for a dearer price. they said she could have the value

she paid in vouchers to spend in the shop, but not a refund.

 

am i right in thinking they are wrong to refuse to replace or refund?

[MrShed]

They are definitely wrong not to replace IMO. Not so sure about the refund though...although she is possibly entitled to that also.

[blitz]

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page24700.html

 

If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

I assume they will claim that a replacement would be "too costly" however you should be able to claim a full refund. Ask them if they are unwilling to provide you with a replacement that they provide you with a full refund the same way you paid. Though as you have taken 6 months on to report it, they might not have to give you your money back (i.e offer you a credit note).

[purplecatlover]

thanks, sh eis getting intouch wiht the stores head office today, so *fingers crossed* they will give her the refund she wants.