buy 2 get 1 free

[fengibbon]

Many shops here (in uk) offer buy 2 get 1 free.

If i were to buy 3 items, and then return the 2 most expensive under the shops t&c's am i allowed to keep the 3rd item free of charge?

After all, free is free............

[squarebear]

lol I wouldn't have thought so otherwise the shops would soon be bare!

You got the free item under the condition that you bought 2 more expensive items. If you then return them, you've not bought these items and so shouldn't get the 3rd free.

[fengibbon]

but i did buy them............. just so happens my significant other, bought them as well, and I don't need two, therefore I am returning them........... (!)

nothing as far as i can see to say you must buy and not return in all the t&c's..........

Surely the advertising blurb of buy 2 get 1 free, implies giving away (definition of free has no precursors saying free if and only if.................... )

I will try it and let you know........

[squarebear]

Hehe! Good luck! If it works, let me know.

[Stu Dent]

Forget the value of the items. You can only reject what the law allows you to reject. The buyer, (you) cannot just simply return goods. You can only do so (and be compensated for doing so), if the goods are not of satisfactory quality, or they have been misrepresented to you. So it's a yes or no answer.

If you have valid grounds for rejecting the goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 then yes, you can reject the the goods that are faulty/have been misrepresented, and keep the goods that meet the requirements of the 1979 Act. If not, you're stuck with them.

So you can't reject the two expensive items if it's the inexpensive item that has caused the problem, nor can you reject the less expensive item if only the more expensive items give rise to a claim.

You can't return the goods simply because both you and your partner have bought the same goods and you don't want 'doubles'.

[Stu Dent]

'Try' away. Why not save yourself (and zillions of other Christmas shoppers) the bother of just admitting that you have no justifiable grounds to return your unwanted items. Sure, you could mump, moan, bitch, and shout, and eventually get your way, but it won't make it right.

[penractor]

stu dent, i also have insomnia and an assignment (part time degree student ) due on weds, but how come you are so on the ball at such a desperately late time of night. pleae tell me what your using and where i can get it ! youre answer puts me to shame in my day job!

[Stu Dent]

Well actually, I finished my degree recently - also part-time. Whilst studying towards it though, I've been working shifts. I'm in a kinda night-shift mode of sorts right now. I'd rather be in bed but instead I'm on here....fuelled with whisky..ha har!!

I love studying law though, and I like helping people.

[Stu Dent]

So what's the assignment? I don't usually help with assignments, but if you're REALLY stuck, I don't mind helping.

My guess is that like me, you're a prevaricator. You need the pressure of a REALLY tight deadline to shift your @rse!

[Ethel]

Stu dent - that is the law, but stores and businesses must also abide by their own advertised terms and conditions.

If a store advertises that it refunds without question within a time scale, then it must do so. Of course, any such terms and conditions does not adversly affect the consumer's statutory rights but are legally enforceable.

[Stu Dent]

Absolutely true, Ethel. The buying and selling of these goods gives rise to contractual rights and obligations. The Sale of Goods Act gives consumers statutory rights but, as you say, there may be other terms and conditions that enhance these. It's worth mentioning though that it doesn't work in reverse - and that's usually how shops try to do it. So a 'no refunds' sign at the till is ineffective agains the consumers rights under SOGA and the shop cannot 'contract out'.

I'll be surprised if these 3 for 2 offers allow consumers to simply return goods simply because the purchaser no longer fancies them. Perhaps Sainsbury's have more faith in human nature than I do. I'll pop into Boots later (Christmas shopping...finally) and I'll have a closer look at their 3 for 2 offer.

[seatrout]

By returning the items you have no longer "bought" them and the 2 for 1 offer would no longer apply so you should return the "free" item as well. Because I am cynical as a result of working with dishonest people everyday I would not be convinced that you partner had bought exactly the same items and so you had to return them. Because I am suspicious I would seriously consider charging you with obtaining a pecuniary advantage in these circumstances.
I recently had a very similar scenario - the person was charged and convicted - but she had done it in 4 different shops!

[seatrout]

By returning the items you have no longer "bought" them and the 2 for 1 offer would no longer apply so you should return the "free" item as well. Because I am cynical as a result of working with dishonest people everyday I would not be convinced that your partner had bought exactly the same items and so you had to return them. Because I am suspicious I would seriously consider charging you with obtaining a pecuniary advantage in these circumstances.
I recently had a very similar scenario - the person was charged and convicted - but she had done it in 4 different shops!

[seatrout]

Apologies fengibbon I didnt intend my response to be as brutal as it sounds and I certainly wasnt suggesting you were being dishonest. I dont know why it shows up twice either!
Any way the short answer is you would have to give the third item back if asked to and to refuse could and I emphasise the could result in potential criminal charges

[fengibbon]

cheers guys - all a bit hypothetical really - i guess depends on definition of buying, paying and free.............

must admit - interested to give it a try and yes i know that you know that my wife didn't but the same two things, however

a) prove it
b) don't have all those signs saying refunds within x days if receipt etc etc........

[SizzleSquid]

has it worked yet? tell me !!.

[penractor]

stu dent, sorry i didnt answer you, but went into an asignment stupor for about a week. glad to hear you were fueled by whisky, my educational tipple of choice is vodka or whateve is avaliable! (havent tried boot polish yet but my deadlines have never got quite that close---yet so who knows!) The asignment was about all sorts of crap including the" mutual constitution" between social policy and all sorts of crap, like all my asignments do..... thrilling stuff and thanks so much for offring a helping hand. finished it with minuetes to go- you're right about the rsh of doing it last mo- anyway got it done, went out, got drunk, got drunk again (ish) and her i am- i live to ******** another day!