Consumer rights on a return

MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 22:49
Last edited 31/01/2018 - 10:27

Hi friends

We run an embroidery service and a customer has requested a full refund on some shirts because there are some small distortions/pressure marks in the material where the embroidery was done.

They are hard to make out but are noticeable if you look for them.

Here is an example of what it might look like

https://sewguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/rose-embroid…

You can see distortions at the edge of the embroidery. This is not a common occurrence but can happen depending on the image and the material of the shirt.

We as a business feel that the shirts still fully perform their duty, the logos are done as per customers requirements and as a result we have supplied a fully functional product.

The customer feels due to the distortions they are unacceptable and wants a full refund on the product.

Are we as a business wrong here or is the customer being unreasonable?

Also legally where do we stand? Thanks

Personal Thought
The customer needed them by a certain date. There may of been an opening or re branding or a show? Not sure what.

In most cases if the puckering does happen customers point it out but opt to keep the shirts because they have them already and the puckering is almost negligible. Returning the shirts is pointless because they have to go out and buy more shirts. They obviously needed the shirts for the business. Is it possible they wanted to use it for an event and are attempting to get a full refund? Or am i thinking too much?

General Discussion

Comments

  • Nutrino on 30/01/2018 - 22:59
    +11

    Wow, looks perfectly fine to me. Fussy customer I'd say. what's the refund amount vs time spent wasting your time. I mean, if you spent 1 hour, and cost you $50, I'd say refund and move on. Take it as a learning curve, warn customers of results on certain material.

    • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:05
      +3

      Thanks for your feedback. The refund amount is about half a grands worth which makes it a bit trickier. =(

  • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:09
    -1

    Also legally where do we stand?

    what was the nature of the transaction? what is the item used for and what type of entity ordered the item?

    • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:11

      What do you mean by the nature of the transaction?

      The item is used for warmth and fashion (Clothing) a business ordered the item

      • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:12

        The item is used for warmth and fashion (Clothing) a business ordered the item

        did the business order the items to use or for the purpose of on-selling and resupply?

        • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:30

          No they did not. They ordered it to use

        • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:41

          @MrMoo:

          Hmmm. To use makes it a bit tricky. but there could still be a way to avoid issuing a full refund.

          We may have something tomorrow.

        • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:51

          @whooah1979:

          Thanks for the help there buddy. Will watch this space if you have any new information.

          At the end of the day we would prefer our customers to be happy and want to come back. We would be more than happy to issue a refund or a partial discount if the logo was wrong, the shirts were faulty or even of the colours are not to the customers requirements. However we feel this is going slightly overboard…

        • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:52

          @MrMoo:

          How many items are we talking about?

        • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:52

          @whooah1979:

          A couple of dozen.

        • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:59

          @MrMoo:

          Ok. That helps.

          The customer may ask for a full refund and you may issue a full refund, but not as a requirement under acl.

          They would have to take this claim to the courts.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 00:01

          @whooah1979:

          Jeese do you think they would take it to the courts for some wrinkles in some shirts? I guess we'll have to see…

          Ok i'll keep that in mind when communicating with them tomorrow.

          Thanks for your help tonight =) Much appreciated!

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 00:04

          @whooah1979:

          Just wondering what are the laws in regards to shipping and returns? Are we the business required to pick them up or is the customer required to send them back?

        • whooah1979 on 31/01/2018 - 00:07
          +1

          @MrMoo:

          https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00375/Html/Volu…

          b) the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; or

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 00:12

          @whooah1979:

          Hmm so it does seem like ACL does not apply in this case.

          I'll have to speak to the customer to see if we can come to some kind of resolution or let the customer escalate it.

          Thanks again!

        • keji on 31/01/2018 - 04:49
          +20

          @MrMoo: I work with businesses to help them improve customer service. I suggest to you to agree with the customer's complaint, that this may not be what they expect and tell them that these are common in the business. Still, I want you (customer) to be satisfied with your purchase and then offer to redo the order (ideal as you may just breakeven and gain a customer) or refund completely. Then I'd ask for a referral to other people they might know who will need something similar.

          Keep the shirts for future customers to show them what might occur, and if clothes naturally creases like this… Mine does anyway, then add that information.

          THE KEJI BONUS:
          I would also offer to change their order - upsell them on a better quality fabric/i.e. one without this problem. Pocket the change, make a slimmer profit and give them an exceelent experience. ;)
          If you want more information on it PM me and we can go from there.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 10:23

          @keji:

          Hi Keji, thanks for your response! Strangely enough the customer does not want us to redo the order he just wants a refund… This has aroused my suspicion. No upsell, no redo, no repair. Just a refund…

          The customer needed them by a certain date. There may of been an opening or re branding or a show? Not sure what.

          In most cases if the puckering does happen customers point it out but opt to keep the shirts because they have them already and the puckering is almost negligible. Returning the shirts is pointless because they have to go out and buy more shirts. They obviously needed the shirts for the business. Is it possible they wanted to use it for an event and are attempting to get a full refund? Or am i thinking too much?

        • Slippery Fish on 31/01/2018 - 10:31
          +2

          @keji: do they sell that experience at Officeworks?

        • kezho on 31/01/2018 - 11:01

          @MrMoo: Just from a technical perspective the ACL does apply. The section is a) OR b) OR c), not AND. The purchase would (i assume) fall under s 3(1)(a) of the ACL:

          (a) the amount paid or payable for the goods, as worked out under subsections (4) to (9), did not exceed:

                  (i)  $40,000; or

        (ii)  if a greater amount is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph—that greater amount; or
        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 11:19

          @kezho:

          Thanks guys. It does seem like they are covered under ACL. Just had a ring to the ACCC. Where it gets confusing here now is

          "Acceptable quality takes into account what would normally be expected for the type of product and cost."

          Not sure what happens now…. We feel this is expected for the type of product and cost. Customer does not. At a stalemate? Customer just wants a refund, we feel its unfair to refund.

          Repair or replacement is not possible customer does not want it but we also feel the fault is so minor it will be impossible to replace without the customer picking up on it again (Given his logo size).

        • eyeballz2770 on 31/01/2018 - 12:11
          +5

          @MrMoo: Can you check the customer's website or Facebook (if they have either of them) to see if they had an event they could have needed the shirts for? Ideally, their Facebook account would have photos of them in the new shirts. Keep copies of photos or screenshots for any future proceedings, if it gets that far.

          I would wait for them to escalate their complaints to authorities before shelling out any refunds.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2018 - 12:17
          +1

          @MrMoo: Pretty sure it's not up to the customer to decide if they want a refund vs a replacement. Your obligation would be to repair, replace OR refund.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 12:20

          @eyeballz2770:

          Hmm no pictures found. Their own returns policy is pretty dodgy though. Nothing to do with this case.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 12:21

          @Bargs:

          The problem here is a replacement would result in a similar outcome. A repair will be difficult =(

          It all leads to the one option really. Which kind of sucks. It's the nature of the industry we are in.

        • bobbified on 31/01/2018 - 16:32

          @MrMoo:

          Their own returns policy is pretty dodgy though.

          How is their policy compared to yours?

          Does it involve looking for advice on OzBargain? lol

          The laws are there to protect both business and consumer. Trying to follow those laws to the dot doesn't always make good business sense.

        • tonsta on 01/02/2018 - 10:37
          +5

          @MrMoo: business to business tranactions are not covered by consumer law.. businesses are not considered consumers. They need to seek recourse via commercial routes.

          no one is going to court over a few wrinkled shirts, only soon to be out of business will do this.

          they might just bad mouth your business if they can be really bothered.

        • justinh93 on 02/02/2018 - 08:23

          @MrMoo:

          Shipping would be covered by the customer, a lot of of retailers do that. I would just leave it, the crinkles are barely noticeable. Whilst it’s important to make every customer happy, this seems and sounds very suspicious.

          We actually just returned some custom shirts to our supplier, but that’s because they inverted our colours. Lol.

        • MrMoo on 02/02/2018 - 09:57

          @justinh93:

          Lol inverting colours is I would consider a Major fault. We've made that mistake before too. We sent back replacements which the customer was happy to have. Which is why I agree that it sounds suspicious. Even when major faults occur the customer still needs their uniforms and they accept replacements. This is a minor fault and they don't want / need uniforms anymore?

        • justinh93 on 02/02/2018 - 10:33

          @MrMoo:

          Exactly! We still need the shirts… so we are getting a remake.

        • bobbified on 02/02/2018 - 12:17

          @MrMoo:

          Even when major faults occur the customer still needs their uniforms and they accept replacements. This is a minor fault and they don't want / need uniforms anymore?

          They had a particular date that they needed the uniforms by. So while you're here trying to find a way to get out of providing a refund on defective goods, they have probably gone somewhere else to get their uniforms done and no longer require your services.

          Seriously, it's $500. And that's the "retail" amount too. The actual cost to your business would be much less than that.

        • echelon6 on 02/02/2018 - 19:39
          +2

          @keji: Wow that makes a lot of sense from a business perpsective. I would've just yelled at the customer for wasting my time. Recently I had to hire a staff member just to take our calls because I was getting too pissed at customers too quickly and decided to fire myself from facing customers.

        • kezho on 08/02/2018 - 12:38

          @whooah1979:

          Business to business transactions are covered by consumer law in a number of scenaries (even if that seems counterintuitve). Read this for more information: https://www.holdingredlich.com/competition-consumer/the-appl…

          From the article:

          "Transactions involving the supply of goods and services to businesses, as opposed to individuals, are often mistakenly presumed by businesses to be outside the operation of the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This misconception can expose businesses to serious implications. While this misconception existed under the Trade Practices Act supply of goods or services which are 1 (TPA), it has been further complicated by the introduction of different definitions of "consumer" and "consumer transactions" within the ACL."

          Countless cases about ACL covering B2B transactions. It just depends on the type and cost of the transaction.

        • tonsta on 01/03/2018 - 09:44

          @kezho: thanks, that just made the ACL even more confusing for B2B. Lets take this situation as an example and a moot point.

          Is the business buying the goods a consumer at this stage? eg using or consuming the goods? i would say no from my point as the shirts are obviously for advertising and thus just tools/assets of the trade.

          If on the other hand the shirts were used as rages to clean up things around the office then it can be argued the item is consumed and used in the process of running the business.

          Make for some interesting arguments when you look into the consumer laws and the minefield business have to navigate.

  • bobbified on 30/01/2018 - 23:18
    +9

    This is not a common occurrence but can happen depending on the image and the material of the shirt.

    From the way you've described it, it does sound they're defects and my opinion is, from a reputation point of view, you're better off just refunding it. Social media doesn't work in business' favor nowadays.

    • taoz on 01/02/2018 - 13:50
      +4

      I would refund, which in my view you have to. you accept there is an issue and not supplied as expected. Minor or not, it’s not what they paid for. You knew there was a timeframe in place, so replacement or repair isn’t an option.
      Are you new to running a business?
      The cost of not resolving this is likely a lot more than the actual cost of your work.

  • ChronoSphinx on 30/01/2018 - 23:24
    -3

    Wow, I don't know how much embroidery costs but how many shirts were embroidered for $500? For that price, I would expect the work to be flawless. However, I a more discerning customer. For your reputation's sake perhaps just come up with a compromise? Re-embroider the shirts with a partial discount? Or offer other incentives for customer.

    • jjjaar on 31/01/2018 - 08:30
      +5

      They said a couple of dozen so around $20 per shirt. Not ridiculous.

      • wozz on 01/02/2018 - 10:24
        +4

        Hmm I was gonna say as a customer I wouldn't expect this sort sort of imperfection if I paid for something…
        But this changes if they're only paying $20 for a shirt, I wouldnt really expect top quality (whereas if I was up around $50 a shirt i'd be expecting more)..

        In saying all of this, i've just checked my work shirt and it too has this sort of imperfection, i've honestly just never noticed before.. Though I didn't pay for it.

        Thanks for reading my pointless opinion

    • TightAl on 02/02/2018 - 16:12
      +1

      Sorry but you deserve a neg, if you think unique/corporate/once off orders are cheap, you are on another planet.
      Heck go call up a print shop and ask for a costume shirt/design.

      • ChronoSphinx on 02/02/2018 - 19:45

        That's not what I meant by my comment. I did not mean that just because it's a corporate order it shouldn't matter (which wasn't made clear in the OP, only came to light after more discussion). For what you pay, even if you are "cheaper than the market price", the service should be at a certain (ie. good and acceptable) standard. I know that these type of services are expensive hence I said that I expect the work to be flawless and that OP should come up with a compromise with the buyer.

  • minniethemoocher on 30/01/2018 - 23:33
    +2

    If you mean the way the fabric puckers and gathers due to the embroidery, then yes I agree with them that this is not ok. I have seen many printed clothing products, and none of them look like this, and I would not be happy if this was a product I purchased especially if I spent $1000. I would offer them a partial refund, and suggest they still use the shirts, as it sounds like they are functional.

    • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:36

      Printing is a different process to embroidery. The ink is stained onto the shirt. There is no puckering due to the process. Embroidery is stitched into the shirt so there is a certain amount of pressure applied.

      • minniethemoocher on 31/01/2018 - 00:02

        Sorry, its late, I meant embroidered not printed products. I own a number of embroidered schools and work uniforms and i am comparing your picture to them.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 00:03

          Ahh ok. Fair enough. The overwhelming majority of our products do not have this. Otherwise we would be out of business! I think it just came down to the material and the design of their logo.

          I'll contact them tomorrow and see if we can come to some resolution.

        • Rukiata on 02/02/2018 - 10:57
          +1

          @MrMoo:
          But that is your fault for using that material and you cant say its because their logo.. your trying to blame your faults on them lol

  • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:37

    Thanks for everyone's feedback here.

    Do you think a partial refund would be fair? Or if the customer pursues a full refund are we obligated to provide one?

    Redoing the shirts wouldn't be an option as it is likely the same scenario would occur again.

    • whooah1979 on 30/01/2018 - 23:48

      if the customer pursues a full refund are we obligated to provide one?

      It depends if your customer meets the definition of a consumer.

      • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:53

        Well in this definition

        "a person who purchases goods and services for personal use."

        I would say no. It was a couple of dozen products. They can't all be for personal use.

        • ChronoSphinx on 30/01/2018 - 23:57

          I have 12 work shirts so it is possible they could be for personal use. Or it could be for a wedding or similar function?

        • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:59

          @ChronoSphinx:

          They have the companies logo on them so most likely distributed among employees. Not sure where the laws are here because it all gets a bit murky since there is a service provided on top of the physical good. Lol would be interesting to go through this experience for future reference.

        • whooah1979 on 31/01/2018 - 00:02
          +1

          @ChronoSphinx:

          The twelve shirts that you use for work is not the same as a dozen custom made shirts made for a business. Your shirts could be covered by acl. The dozen custom made wouldn't.

        • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 07:48
          -1

          @whooah1979: read above. Anything under 40000 it applies.

        • nicbaz on 01/02/2018 - 09:04
          +1

          @whooah1979: Check out the ACCC website for a definition of a consumer
          https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/c…

        • nicbaz on 01/02/2018 - 09:05

          dupe

        • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 16:38
          -1

          @nicbaz:

          "A person - or a business – will be considered a consumer if: they purchase goods or services that cost less than $40,000"

          • from the ACCC.
        • whooah1979 on 01/02/2018 - 18:29
          -1

          @Wallyt99:

          Anything under 40000 it applies.

          s 3(1) (a) (i) isn't the only test used to determine whether or not a customer meets the definition of a consumer. in op's case the goods can be tested under s3 (1) (b).

          the link is a case for goods costing less than than $40000. the goods were tested to see if they fit the criterion ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption. the case was dismissed by the magistrate.
          http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1997/913.html

        • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 21:42
          +1

          @whooah1979: that case (1997) was well before the Australian consumer law was introduced (2010). The Trade practices act has been long repealed. Not sure why I bother.

        • whooah1979 on 01/02/2018 - 22:43
          -1

          @Wallyt99:

          that case (1997) was well before the Australian consumer law was introduced (2010). The Trade practices act has been long repealed.

          the commonwealth saw it fit to take the tpa s 4b (1) (a) (ii) and include it in the cca as acl s 3 (1) (b).

          the definition of consumer using this test was a concern during the senate inquiry of the bill.
          https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sen…

          Comparison

          3.5 >'Consumer' in the bill is therefore defined in the same way as section 4B of the TPA, without the reference to the monetary threshold of $40 000. Treasury noted in its submission to the inquiry that the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council (CCAAC) had indicated in October 2009 that:

          …there is no meaningful distinction to be made between a person who pays $40,000 for goods or services and a person who pays $40,001. The focus of the definition should be on the class of person who makes the purchase, or on the kind of goods or services which are purchased.

          Concerns about the bill's definition of 'consumer' in section 3
          and blah blah blah

        • whooah1979 on 01/02/2018 - 22:46

          @Wallyt99:

          Not sure why I bother.

          light reading on a shopping night?

        • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 23:02
          +1

          @whooah1979: You are still wrong. The only exclusion in the definitional clause (s3) is if the goods are being puchased - for resupply s3,2a (nope) or in a manufacturing process s3, 2b (nope). ACL applies.

        • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 23:07
          +1

          @whooah1979: BTW - the reason for the $40,000 not being limited to consumers is because the ACL also overtook the Sale of Goods Act - which had no definitional limitation but did have a monetary one. There really is two seperate tests operating here.

        • nicbaz on 02/02/2018 - 09:38
          +1

          @Wallyt99:
          Yep I know, just was letting whooah know where he or she could find the relevant information. Didn’t want to be seen to be interpreting law and giving advice :).

        • Wallyt99 on 02/02/2018 - 12:51

          @nicbaz: yeah I replied to wrong person.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2018 - 23:43
    +2

    tell them to iron it some more, will make it flat

    • dcep on 30/01/2018 - 23:49
      +5

      if that's so, why not iron it flat before handing over to customer

    • ChronoSphinx on 30/01/2018 - 23:50
      +1

      Wouldn't this be ironing the crease in?

      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2018 - 23:50
        +1

        ironing gets creases out for me

        • MrMoo on 30/01/2018 - 23:52
          +1

          I think because the stitching is done ironing may help a little bit but it will still be there. The stitching has sort of made the area around is permanently like what you see now.

        • ChronoSphinx on 30/01/2018 - 23:56
          +3

          The shirt is creased due to the stitches so you'd be ironing the stitch in so the crease would still be there.

  • original15 on 31/01/2018 - 00:04
    +6

    DId you mention to the customer that this might occur depending on fabric? I’m sure you know more than me but assume some fabrics are more at risk of this depending on compositor as well as the logo/image to be embroided
    We were looking at getting a logo put on shirts for a golf trip and theplace we went to said it might happen due to thin material so we didn’t proceed. Was this raised as a possible outcome?
    Not being a smart ass but in future, for particularly large orders like this it may be worth embroiding one to see and then having customer approve the rest of the order or something

    • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 00:06
      +3

      This is something we have experienced before but we did not make clear to the customer. It is hard to say if this happens on a shirt or not. For example another logo that was done on the same shirt did not have this problem. I think it comes down to the design?

      I think we'll need to put a caveat in the future though. Live and learn

      • original15 on 31/01/2018 - 07:05
        +1

        Yeh, tbh though I don’t think it should be a full refund but good luck.

      • jjjaar on 31/01/2018 - 08:33
        +1

        I would definitely put something about it in your terms and conditions when customers put through their order. I honestly don't think this is that uncommon. I've seen many embroidered items that do this. Good luck and keep us posted.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 10:26

          Thanks for the feedback mate. I think at the very least we can learn from this and put it into our terms and conditions.

          I'll see if they are willing to take a partial refund. I don't think we are willing to go through with a full refund we'll have to see how the customer proceeds from there…. I posted up above and edited the main post with my personal suspicious (not representing the business here)

        • jjjaar on 31/01/2018 - 10:29

          @MrMoo: i wouldn't be offering a full refund with them keeping the product. IF they want to keep it, offer a discount. Or offer to redo it for free, but the originals should not be kept.

        • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 10:41

          @jjjaar:

          They don't want the product anymore they want a return and a full refund. We'll probably try to go with a partial refund and they can keep the product (Obviously).

        • Dave Id on 01/02/2018 - 18:47

          @MrMoo:

          That is their option under ACL.

          Did you take a partial refund on your keyboard from JB HiFi!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bduQkFxXV6g

      • dealman on 02/02/2018 - 23:09
        +1

        We've had shirts done with a backing of sorts to ensure this doesn't happen while they are embroidered.

    • Wallyt99 on 01/02/2018 - 07:50

      Exactly. Do a single shirt and check with customer. They pasy for sample regardless.

  • Candour on 31/01/2018 - 08:33
    -4

    surprising that we have so many 'lawyers' on ozB. may be useful to ring the ACCC and the consumer affairs dept who may actually know the consumer law and might opine on your case better.

  • Quantumcat on 31/01/2018 - 08:55
    +4

    I would offer to redo it in a better quality fabric that won't pucker (test it first), then depending on your margins you will either only make a slim profit or a slim loss rather than the full loss you'd suffer if you were to refund completely. It also means you'll keep these people's business and they won't go around giving you terrible reviews.

    Then put a disclaimer on your website (where it is easy to see, not buried away in fine print) saying that if this fabric is chosen, puckering is possible (with photos).

    If you fight it you'll just attract their ire and they could spread the word that you're a business to avoid.

  • pegaxs on 31/01/2018 - 09:46
    +3

    Next time, embroider one shirt as a sample and send it to the customer to get them to tic it for that it’s what they want and the quality is what they are expecting. If they complain over one shirt or you notice this puckering on the first shirt, it’s better at one then 20+ shirts and hoping for the best.

    Unfortunately in business to business transactions, I don’t fully understand how ACL would be applied, but what we have done in the past is refunded the customer and slugged them over the next few jobs to cover it. If they are not a regular or repeat customer, work out if you can tolerate their bullshit and if that is worth $500 or not…

  • JimmyF on 31/01/2018 - 10:07

    a customer has requested a full refund on some shirts because there are some small distortions/pressure marks

    You seemed to have answered your own question

    They are hard to make out but are noticeable if you look for them.

    You can see distortions at the edge of the embroidery. This is not a common occurrence but can happen depending on the image and the material of the shirt.

    Unless you explained to the customer this issue might have occurred when placing the order, sadly just refund them and move on. You could offer a part refund and see what they say.

    Otherwise full refund once the stock is returned, Dump the excess stock to a charity and write it off. Live and learn for the next order.

  • tik tok on 31/01/2018 - 10:36
    -1

    Mate, that's just a poor job. Missus has hundreds of such clothing items and all are without such mistakes. Unless your contract with the buyer suggests such things are at your discretion, I'd think you should be refunding the money.

    • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 11:20
      +3

      It depends on the size of the logo. If your missus has small logos like Ralph Lauren polos for example then there are no issues.

      If you have logo which are A4 in size and are very intricate it May occur on thin shirts like silk or nylon.

      • tik tok on 31/01/2018 - 22:19
        -4

        Mate, she has bed sheet sized stuff. And T-shirt sized. This is delicate stuff to work on and that's why you get to charge a premium. Anyway that's just my pov

  • skinner on 31/01/2018 - 11:40
    +13

    Alrighty going off some of your comments above here is how I would have approached it.
    - Firstly it's fine to say the shirts are ok to use, they're obviously not defective and can be used for their purpose. However they could have picked up shirts for $5 elsewhere, the reason they paid you that amount was to get a professional looking embroidery job done. It's hard to say without seeing the actual shirts but I personally probably wouldn't care about a few "distortions".
    - Advise them due to the design some distortions were a possibility but clearly you didn't explain that originally. Apologise that it was not up to the standards they were expecting.
    - Offer a partial refund for starters and allow them to keep the shirts. Amount of refund might depend on how many actually have the distortions and the extent of it. If you could end up with the leftover just covering the cost price of the shirts I think that would be a good outcome for you.
    - After that I think you would probably have to offer them to return them for a full refund. I would probably still push for replacements instead but it will depend on the sales contract you have.
    - Update your contracts and sales conversations to cover off any future similar issues. That might include recommending against a particularly fiddly design, advising them of the possibilities of "distortions in the material". Make sure to include in the contract something like "distortions may be present within reasonable tolerances".

    I think it is safe to say they would not be a returning customer and won't be referring anyone. All you can really do is hope they don't leave you a bad review somewhere. At least if they do you can respond and say that you tried to work it out professionally etc and offered refunds blah blah. If you just tell them to piss off that's not a good look. No business is going to have perfect feedback anywhere online but there's a big difference between "I had a complaint and we resolved it amicably" and "they did a bad job, told me it was my fault and to piss off". In the long run I'd say the $500 refund to keep them happy would be the cheaper option.

    • MrMoo on 31/01/2018 - 12:21

      Thanks mate. I think we'll be going along this route. I mean what other choice do we really have.

  • AddNinja on 01/02/2018 - 06:55
    +5

    Hi there,

    I think you should refund the customer for any shirts that are as badly pulled as the one you showed in the picture as I’m sure you didn’t have examples of our work on your website that looked like that. If they are all that bad, then I think you need to change your quality control. Perhaps sewing one, and if pulled, get the customer to sign off on it.

    I don’t think it is worth making an enemy of a customer when they clearly haven’t been given your best work.

    Good luck!

    • Powershopz on 01/02/2018 - 09:36
      -8

      To me that requirement is on the customer to check the quality of the work first before batch ordering $500 worth of work.

      I know if I was in the customers shoes I certainly would of got a sample done first to ensure the quality before doing a bulk order.

      • AddNinja on 01/02/2018 - 10:46
        +1

        Yep, but if a business produces products of variable quality, they are in the best position to manage customer expectations. I get what you're saying, and I'm not saying that the customer deserves to get their money back. But given the situation, I think the business could improve their service - probably a good investment for the long term.

  • Brick50 on 01/02/2018 - 07:24
    +4

    Ask them to send back all the shirts for refund. They might change their mind and just wanted to keep the shirts for free

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join