There is no governmental law that can legislate whether a retail establishment gives out a store credit or a refund. That is for each retail establishment to decide their store policies.
Odd leather smell
- Thread starter Bond7Girl
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
There is no governmental law that can legislate whether a retail establishment gives out a store credit or a refund. That is for each retail establishment to decide their store policies.
Just to add on, in the USA, their policy provides for a return period of 30 days, with the exception of final sale items. So if the "skunk" is discovered within 30 days, customers can return for store credit or exchange. Otherwise, up to the discretion of the store for returns outside of the window.
I think something else to keep in mind is that H isn't selling skunk bags purposefully or with ill intent. So it sounds like they are trying to accommodate everyone with a skunk bag, and I haven't heard yet of a store rejecting a skunk bag for at least an exchange.
I think something else to keep in mind is that H isn't selling skunk bags purposefully or with ill intent. So it sounds like they are trying to accommodate everyone with a skunk bag, and I haven't heard yet of a store rejecting a skunk bag for at least an exchange.
Though I agree with you that H is not doing any of this on purpose, but there's quite a few stories in here with stores rejecting a skunk bag for an exchange or rejecting that it's a skunk bag period. Unfortunately I might add...
Actually, there are state laws prohibiting sales of items where the buyer has been misled or the item was misrepresented. Many fall under "implied warranty" and "false advertising" type laws, but any misrepresentation or misleading sale could be called into question. A business can't knowingly sell damaged or defective goods as whole.
If a customer wanted press the issue, I'm certain they could demand a refund within a reasonable timeframe, but it might burn bridges with the boutique.
Last edited:
Hermes is not intentionally misleading customers to buy faulty products.
And I was a lawmaker for many years so am not speaking without knowledge.
I still maintain protections are available to purchasers under implied warranty provisions in State laws and the Uniform Commercial code.
From the NH Dept of Justice:
But what happens when a buyer "accepts" the merchandise and later discovers that it fails to meet the sales contract and warranty requirements? The buyer may be able to revoke acceptance of the merchandise, and, in effect, secure a "refund." Under the UCC, a buyer may revoke acceptance of merchandise that fails to satisfy sales contract requirements if:
The buyer accepted the merchandise before discovering the defect, and the defect was not readily apparent or easily discovered, or the seller assured the buyer that there was no defect
The buyer accepted the merchandise knowing it had a defect and reasonably assumed that the defect would be cured, yet the defect has not been cured
In either case, the consumer's revocation of acceptance must satisfy at least these preconditions:
The nonconformity of the good "substantially impairs" its value
The buyer notifies the seller within a reasonable time, before the good deteriorates substantially" due to causes unrelated to the defect related to the revocation
The buyer exercises the proper degree of care to protect the seller's interest in the good
From the NH Dept of Justice:
But what happens when a buyer "accepts" the merchandise and later discovers that it fails to meet the sales contract and warranty requirements? The buyer may be able to revoke acceptance of the merchandise, and, in effect, secure a "refund." Under the UCC, a buyer may revoke acceptance of merchandise that fails to satisfy sales contract requirements if:
The buyer accepted the merchandise before discovering the defect, and the defect was not readily apparent or easily discovered, or the seller assured the buyer that there was no defect
The buyer accepted the merchandise knowing it had a defect and reasonably assumed that the defect would be cured, yet the defect has not been cured
In either case, the consumer's revocation of acceptance must satisfy at least these preconditions:
The nonconformity of the good "substantially impairs" its value
The buyer notifies the seller within a reasonable time, before the good deteriorates substantially" due to causes unrelated to the defect related to the revocation
The buyer exercises the proper degree of care to protect the seller's interest in the good
Given this, you would need to hire a lawyer to sue Hermes. My hat is off to anyone who would go that route. Clearly it would be costly and their relationship with Hermes would be in the toilet.
Everyone here seems to have gotten a positive resolution. Someone asked a simply question which I responded to and I'm not about to debate my response.
Congrats dear I'm so glad this ordeal is over for you as well. It is so draining.
That Kelly is a real beauty!
Thank you dear IF.
My experience was nothing like your ordeal but even so, it's awfully nice not to have to worry about it any more.
Ladies, thanks a lot for all your replies. I live in EU and in my country you could sue Hermes for selling you a faulty product. I personally do not think I would ever go that route though. I am just going to lay low until they have this skunk issue under control - my wallet is already thanking me 
absolutely, the costs associated with litigation far outweigh any damages anyone would receive from Hermes. Maximum damages here would be the cost of the bag (the purchase price). This would also be in add'n to burning a bridge.
Also agree (thanks for raising monceau) that the UCC allows purchasers to rescind a sales contract under the implied warranty provision, but it sounds to me (I think), that there may be a minor distinction with the UCC and claims of misrepresentation. In my mind, in the former, a valid contract is formed, but a term is breached; whereas in the latter, a non-binding contract was formed. You are right, outcome is the same - buyer is entitled to damages (purchase price). This all assumes, hermes is being uncooperative, and the buyer is driven to litigate.
Also agree (thanks for raising monceau) that the UCC allows purchasers to rescind a sales contract under the implied warranty provision, but it sounds to me (I think), that there may be a minor distinction with the UCC and claims of misrepresentation. In my mind, in the former, a valid contract is formed, but a term is breached; whereas in the latter, a non-binding contract was formed. You are right, outcome is the same - buyer is entitled to damages (purchase price). This all assumes, hermes is being uncooperative, and the buyer is driven to litigate.
I agree with those posts. Suing H is not going to get much results apart from probably been excluded from ever buying from them again. From what I read here, 99% cases had been offered redund or replacement.
Sometimes it just takes a little persistence. After my second skunk, I was offered a store credit, but I asked, politely, for a refund, and it was granted. I do have a fairly long and very positive relationship with this boutique, but they still didn't particularly WANT to give a refund (as it probably effects their bottom line)--still, they were cooperative when gently prodded. It's not necessary to take the first offer as the final offer. Any retailer will try for a resolution most beneficial to them. . . but that's negotiable.
I am not educated in the law, but it does seem to me that proving any given bag was known to be defective prior to sale would be challenging, to say the least. I agree with audreylita: I really don't think Hermes is conspiring to pass off skunky bags to an innocent public. That would be incredibly short-sighted for a company as old and storied as Hermes.
