Religion & Spirituality1 min ago
allergic reaction to shampoo
On retailer recommendation I used a shampoo suitable for sensitive skin. On first use I developed an allergic reation. I wish to return the product for a refund. The shop says it is not their policy to give refunds on skincare products, but to contact the manufacturer. Is the retailer obliged to refund me directly as they supplied the product?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by SteveBam. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are entitled to a refund from the seller if:
the item is faulty
Or not as described
Or not fit for the purpose for which you bought it.
As this was sold as sensitive skin shampoo you would not expect to get an allergic reaction from it. You cannot use it, so it is not fit for purpose. You are entitled to a refund from the seller under the Sale of Goods Act. There is no direct relationship between you and the manufacturer whereas you have a contract with the seller.
You relied on the advice given by te seller, you are entitled to a refund.
the item is faulty
Or not as described
Or not fit for the purpose for which you bought it.
As this was sold as sensitive skin shampoo you would not expect to get an allergic reaction from it. You cannot use it, so it is not fit for purpose. You are entitled to a refund from the seller under the Sale of Goods Act. There is no direct relationship between you and the manufacturer whereas you have a contract with the seller.
You relied on the advice given by te seller, you are entitled to a refund.
The retailer is not a qualified medical person so their opinion is irrelevant.The buyer chose to take the recommendation knowing that said person was just a shop assistant.How was the retailer to know that the buyer had allergies?
Even if he had told the retailer what allergies he had they cannot be expected to know the exact ingredients in the product and whether the buyer would have a reaction to it.
I could suddenly develop an allergy to any product and have a reaction to it,I would not be so crass as to blame the retailer...or even the manufacturer for that matter.
Even if he had told the retailer what allergies he had they cannot be expected to know the exact ingredients in the product and whether the buyer would have a reaction to it.
I could suddenly develop an allergy to any product and have a reaction to it,I would not be so crass as to blame the retailer...or even the manufacturer for that matter.
I agree with daffy654.
The seller is obliged to provide the goods as described. The buyer is responsible for checking whether the ingredients exacerbate their existing allergy - a known medical condition.
As daffy654 suggests, go back to the manufacturer and point out the disappointing experience you had with their product. Thye may suggest an alternative product and may compensate you with a 'goodwill gesture'.
The seller is obliged to provide the goods as described. The buyer is responsible for checking whether the ingredients exacerbate their existing allergy - a known medical condition.
As daffy654 suggests, go back to the manufacturer and point out the disappointing experience you had with their product. Thye may suggest an alternative product and may compensate you with a 'goodwill gesture'.
This really is very basic consumer law.
S.14(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979
Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known�
(a) to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose.
This applies to Steve who told the seller he needs shampoo for a particular person, and relied on the advice of the seller. Any seller should know that if they don't really know, they don't recommend and sends the buyer to somebody who should know.
S.14(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979
Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known�
(a) to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose.
This applies to Steve who told the seller he needs shampoo for a particular person, and relied on the advice of the seller. Any seller should know that if they don't really know, they don't recommend and sends the buyer to somebody who should know.
hc4361 makes a good point. However, if we assume that tthe goods were fit for purpose and met all recognised regulations, the customer could still suffer an allergic reaction.
There are an increasing number of cases where customers are reporting extreme allergic reactions to brand name hair colourants, for instance teenager hair reactrion.
Is the retailer at fault? Is the manufacturer at fault?
There are an increasing number of cases where customers are reporting extreme allergic reactions to brand name hair colourants, for instance teenager hair reactrion.
Is the retailer at fault? Is the manufacturer at fault?
-- answer removed --
The whole point to my argument here is that the retailer can't possibly have known that the buyer would have an allergic reaction to the product he recommended to him.Steve asked for a sensitive shampoo and was sold one,if he had asked for a hypo-allergenic shampoo he might have gotten a different recommendation-or advised to ask someone who was suitably qualified to answer him.
1 to 10 of 10
