Just came back with 3 pairs of jeans for $55.
The promotion sign is behind their counter but forgot to get a photo.
Buy 2 Get One Free, In Store (Clothing Only) @ H&M
350
David76 on 05/01/2019 - 18:08 files.ozbargain.com.au (3577 clicks)
Last edited 05/01/2019 - 18:33 by 1 other user
Last edited 05/01/2019 - 18:33 by 1 other user
Referral Links
Referral: random (106)
Referee gets 10% off 1st order. Referrer gets 50 points.
Related Stores
closed Comments
Was thinking something similar tbh… =/
what does that mean haha
tbh = to be honest
or did you mean something else?
I think its just in regards to the change of mind policy, in addition to ACL ie. Exchange only, no refund for change of mind. Could be worded better nethertheless.
INCORRECT! Too many Ozbargainers repeat this misunderstanding of the current ACL. The ACL has changed in regard to this area.
Read the current ACL - RETURNS for refund or exchange are under store policy (as outlined at bottom of receipt) so are not covered & not even mentioned in the ACL.
If the product is defective you.make a WARRANTY CLAIM (not a RETURN) under ACL, to the store (to replace, exchange or refund). Legally there is a big difference! The stamp does not have any effect on that.
It is unlawful to refuse to accept a WARRANTY CLAIM.
Store policy can limit RETURNS. Stores do not have to accept any RETURNS.The receipt states This is in addition to your rights under Australian Consumer Law.
So not an illegal or unlawful statement.
your source?
ACL - an easy search.
Even H&M state on the bottom of the receipt their exchange or refund policy is in.addition to your rights under ACL. Store policies are not covered by ACL, but store policy can't override rights under ACL.
jv & I have had long debates on this misunderstood subject😱
read carefully it says "exchange only", H&M are not aware of ACL in this country
You can't refund the "free" one?
H&M are not aware of ACL in this country
INCORRECT!
RETURNS are not covered by ACL! That's a store policy only.H&M are very aware of ACL in this country…
The receipt states This is in addition to your rights under Australian Consumer Law. under the summary of their store RERURNS policy.Read the bottom of the receipt
It clearly says EXCHANGE ONLY.
Such statements are illegal under Australian Consumer Law.
Receipt does mention about refunds at the bottom as it should but the rubber stamp was illegal
The printed information relates to the vendor's own return policy, which makes sense. Why the stamp I wonder…
@[Deactivated]: The stamp overrides the word refund in exchnage (sic) or refund unsuitable purchases. That is the H&M store policy, summarised at the bottom of the receipt ,
@INFIDEL: Not true, stamp does not override consumer law, you went home and tried the jeans and the zip broke with no fault of yours then you can ask for refund and the retailer can't refuse your preference if item is not fit for purpose.
@INFIDEL: INCORRECT!
ACL does cover returns:
"Returning the product
You are entitled to return a product if you believe that there is a problem."@ozdesi: That only deals with taking faulty or misrepresented products under WARRANTY CLAIM - with strict & specific criteria for making a claim under the ACL.
Such statements are illegal under Australian Consumer Law.
Best to read the current ACL rather than mislead!
read this
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…and then stop misleading others by saying returns are based on store policy
@ozdesi: INCORRECT!
That outlines thr available remedies after submitting a WARRANTY CLAIM (based on specified faulty or misleading representation etc) under ACL. H&M state your rights under the ACL is not affected.That is completely different to RETURNS (exchange or refund) to the store on grounds not covered by the ACL - as set out at the of the H&M receipt for unsuitable or unwanted product - change of mind. That is a store policy, not ACL!
@INFIDEL: INCORRECT!
Read the webpage link I provided above thoroughly before you start claiming your own stuff without providing your ACL source
ACL does cover returns:
"Returning the product
You are entitled to return a product if you believe that there is a problem."Real world story:
See what happened to MSY store that misinterpreted ACL and avoided returns from consumers in-store. They ended up paying millions in fines.@ozdesi: I am acquainted with the ACL and know that subsection. It is written in.simple language & uses the word carelessly. It is an explanation of the ACL, not the ACL.
You are entitled to return a product if you believe that there is a problem.
The problem must fit the WARRANTY CLAIM under Consumer Warrant.
You need to read that section you linked in context of the ACL, rather than cherry pick the remedy section.
That is why people make your mistake.@INFIDEL: I am not cherry picking "remedy" section.
You are misinterpreting what ACL means.Returns do not require warranty claims and must be provided as option to consumer if consumer demands for it in case the item is not fit for purpose.
@ozdesi: Read the ACL. Contact consumer bodies to explain it. You are reading into the explanation something whic is in error.
No use discussing something I am very aware of but you want to misinterpret.@INFIDEL: I did, you have not read it as I mentioned earlier and have not provided any sources.
Here is the source from the ACL main page and it's not under remedy section.
Businesses must provide these automatic guarantees regardless of any other warranties they give to you or sell you.
If a business fails to deliver any of these guarantees, you have consumer rights for:
repair, replacement or refund
cancelling a service
compensation for damages & loss.@ozdesi: I've read it many times. I've taken legal action & won in arbitration.
Reading an interpretation of a small section of the Act is not enough to understand. You can't take a section (written in simple plain language) out of context!
Unfortunately that summary uses the loose term "return" rather than the term in the Act of WARRANTY CLAIM.
"return"… When you make a WARRANTY CLAIM as set out under the ACL - on strick & specific Consumer Guarantee grounds. That can be just taking a faulty product back to the store & outlining the grievance. But returning a product outside of the conditions of the Act (eg change of mind) is not covered by the ACL.
In this case, H&M have a returns policy to go beyond what is covered by the ACL, as stated In the receipt. As such they can impose conditions.
Your misinterpretation won't help in making a claim! Seek advice. Until then, please don't mislead others. There have been too many people misinterpreting law on OzBargain.
Like medical advice here - seek professional advice. State Office of Fair Trading is a good place for free advice on consumer law. Or contact the ACCC.
Not worth trying to explain the law to those who interpret it beyond the confines of the Act (that's why lawyers are well paid), so I'll quit trying. Bye.
In all honesty, in this situation, I don't really care about the ACL for my purchase. To me it's a bargain regardless.
Not really, its Kmart home brand stuff dressed up as "fashionable"
H&M is better and cheaper than Kmart if you shop off the sales racks, and H&M always seems to be stuffed full of sales racks. The clothes are a bit more fashionable too.
Quality isn't great, but it is better than Kmart - and it certainly is more fashionable.
Quick fashion, quick in trash, environmental disaster
Back on Topic.
We just came back from H&M after buying some T-shirts for the kids. The promo “buy 2 get 1 free” is only applicable to promo items and not store wide items. I’m certain that it’s all the red ticket items that applies to this promo. The 3 T-shirts we end up getting was at full price each.
Hope that helpsWell done.
A gold star for you. ⭐️
lol to exchange being misspelt, anyway what about the part that says an original receipt is required, I thought it was any proof of purchase like a credit card statement etc?
still on inconsistencies in the receipt, whats the "123456789" listed on top of tax invoice suppose to mean? lol H&M
How do so many people still think they are entitlted to refunds, returns just for change of mind?? You're not,,
If it's faulty or otherwise has any problems sure, but for change of mind? Stores are not required to accept yo stupidass returns
Where did you see people thinking of "change of mind" as a reason in this thread?
Don't act dumb
don't act blind
You are correct in there is no right under law for change of mind returns. But there are Store Returns Policies by various retailers…
The ACL requires a WARRANTY CLAIMS process in place for retailers (only for faulty & other prescribed conditions under the Act).
[A lot of discussion in this post is based on the meaning of a red stamp on the deal receipt. I contend that only relates to the change of mind store returns policy summarised on the receipt, as it states rights under the ACL are not affected. (I requested these discussions be marked "off-topic", so the deal is clearer to understand.)]
Change of mind returns are totally at the discretion of the retailer & product must be in resaleable condition. Returns cost retailers money, so they need to recoup as much as possible, while not annoying customers unduly - to retain their custom.
Ask about the store's return policy. Some items can't be returned - eg on health grounds. Some (eg PC parts) retailers may charge a restocking fee.
Stores like H&M offer easy change of mind returns to persuide consumers to buy more without risk that the product may not suit them (not sure if 1 item suits more than another so bought both, not right size & fit, doesn't suit rest of wardrobe, significant other doesn't like, etc).
Stores understand, once sold, they are unlikely to have the item returned. Stores selling a lot of merchandise rely on repeat sales, so want to retain custimers & offer the policy.
But stores can place restrictions on that store policy, as in the red stamp on deal receipt.
H&M 28 day Store Returns policy is summarised at the bottom of the receipt in deal link.
Aldi offer 60 day easy return. That makes the sales process easier as Aldi don't need to train staff on features of their products & suppliers bear the majority of cost of returns. It streamlines their business. But then suppliers receive no reason for the return, which means no feedback to improve. (The major electronics supplier to Aldi approached me to improve their quality control, so I leant a lot about the Aldi systems.)
In my experience, H&M staff have been good in explaining any restrictions to store returns policy (as shown on the receipt) - explaining it is for change of mind returns. The receipt states it does not restrict consumer rights under ACL.
I once bought the last but damaged $120 jacket on sale, & got a reduction for the buttons almost falling off. The receipt was marked no exchange, no refund. That was explained to me as a restriction on a change of mind return & I needed to agree to it to buy at the ridiculously reduced price of less than $10. Was a great purchase after a few minutes stitching👍
It's pure marketing. Stores that provide a store returns policy in addition to ACL WARRANTY CLAIMS… do it for their benefit in increased sales💰
I do not intend to start a war of words, you are mostly correct except one of the reasons you provided as change of mind
"not right size & fit"
This reason is not "change of mind" but is classified under "item not fit for purpose" and is good enough to return an item without triggering warranty claim as there is nothing wrong with the item itself.
Even though red stamp says "exchange only", store should accept the return.
You are correct about stores not accepting returns for certain type of items like underwear etc.
Not sure how you could prove not fit for purpose in CLOTHES YOU CHOSE for simply not fitting. A case of not fit for purpose is unusual, whereas ill fitting clothes are very common.
Not fit for purpose relates to a request for an item to suit a specific purpose, but that item does not suit that stated purpose.
"are fit for any purpose that the consumer made known to the business before buying (either expressly or by implication), or the purpose for which the business said it would be fit for. have been accurately described." ACCC
Jeans are jeans , which have an implied purpose… as a particular form of clothing.
Happy to hear how H&M would sell jeans you personally chose the size of - that were not fit for purpose for not being the size you wanted…
I hesitated including not right size & fit because most customers could try on in store. If it didn't fit in the store - why buy it?
But buying for family, I found this can be a problem & always check I can return for a refund before purchase. Exchange for right size would be ok, but may be unavailable with fast selling sales items. So I usually buy 2 sizes & return 1 for a refund.
But to say an item of clothing you chose was not fit for purpose because it did not fit as expected, that would not likely fit the ACL criteria. Such a claim would most likely fail.
Not accepting a different size or style in exchange for a sale item stating "exchange only" under the store's return policy, but escalating to ACL CLAIM would be an overreach. Most stores would find a solution.
Two cases of issues with clothing:
(If the store's involved had not happily exchanged or refunded, I could have raised the issues as ACL CLAIMs.)Bought stretch fabric pants online from The Iconic - waist measurement was correct when first trying on. An hour later they were falling off. Requested replacement of same size - same issue. Ordered size smaller & was fine long term.
Waist size should be fixed as branded on clothing, not change after an hours wear! That was what I would consider defective manufacturing. But not fit for purpose - maybe not. Luckily they have an easy return policy. Staff & I had a good laugh!I bought long PJs on special @Kmart for family & found they were defective - 1 long & 1 short leg! Now that would possibly pass not fit for purpose test. (Only suitable for clowns.) Clearly it was faulty. Staff member questioned why I wanted a refund - until she held them up & laughed showing others.
@INFIDEL: Of course you choose clothes but you DO NOT MANUFACTURE THEM, as you have highlighted when you wear them for a longer time you know if it is the right fit or not, quick fit wearing in a store for few mins will not reveal if it is correct fit or not.
In my view, it is still a case of "item not fit for purpose". To each their own.
As for purpose, it varies from one customer to another, some buy jeans as a fashion statement and some as merely clothing and then some for comfortable fit.
@ozdesi: When taking an ACCC CLAIM - individual opinions don't matter. You have to prove your claim that clothes you bought are not the size you expected under not fit for purpose.
The store will point to the receipt as proof the clothes could be exchanged for a more suitable size, but you would not accept the Store Returns Policy.
In my case of demonstrable size change in product over 1 hour, I could prove it was a defective item (3 cases to prove it) - which I could take through the ACCC process at the store as defective but not not fit for purpose.
I don't think you'd be able to prove your case of not fit for purpose. I'd be interested in that case - would likely set a president if successful😉
@INFIDEL: ACCC or ACL never dictate the definition of "purpose" in fit for purpose and I see this becoming a debatable topic.
Exchange is only useful if store has stock otherwise they must accept return and refund.
Maybe you are right and I am wrong, after all I am not a lawyer and my understanding is based as an end consumer not a retailer so my bias is pro consumer.
@ozdesi: Interesting discussion. Definitely not a war of words😉 I have experience from both sides.
And debating "purpose" - that's your stumbling block as you chose the clothes… but knowing they may not be available if you return.
Setting a legal precedent is a great experience! Legal advice I received before taking on a case was that it would fail. I went ahead with the support of a Government body who saw the case was in the public good. The outcome now guides others in their cases.
@INFIDEL: At the end of the day as an end consumer, if I see "Exchange only" on the receipt then I make it a point to never assume that the only reason for returning item back will be "change of mind" and nothing else.
This is why I was leading the discussion in this direction. EXCHANGE ONLY does not imply item cannot be returned because the only reason left is "change of mind" and there possibly can't be other reasons. And no, it does not have to trigger warranty claims process either as the item is not really defective (maybe is for one consumer but not for the other who has short left leg and long right leg!).
@ozdesi: "Exchange only" just relates to the Store Returns Policy, not any ACL CLAIM. Just returning under H&M policy is so much easier.
Always calmly talk to the retailer to see if a solution can be found. They will point to the red print, but a supervisor or manager may decide the issue is not worth the bother & refund "just in this case". I've never had an issue doing that.
@INFIDEL: I always follow that route but you will find a lot of harsh customers arguing with store managers and when they refuse return, simply going for credit card chargeback and their card companies doing a refund in goodwill thereby hurting the retailer.
I will end my case here. Maybe this throws light to a lot of ozbargainers who may not be aware of their rights before going down the path of the harsher route which is not a win-win situation for anyone.
@ozdesi: Consumer Law education is an interest of mine. I'm always learning. Would be nice if we had a proper understanding of our rights.
People have opinions gained from TV programs & news items which don't explain the complexities. Words like "purpose" have a particular meaning in the law, rather than their common meaning. With Legal issues there's a lot to understand. And I'm no lawyer!
A properly researched Wiki could be useful on OzBargain. But surely this info is out there already.
Happy bargain shopping🎉
@INFIDEL: Of course "purpose" has a meaning in the law.
But if you look from another perspective, law can be "amended" with petitions and reforms etc.
Consumers must fight for the right reforms otherwise retailers are big fish to lobby around with politicians and making themselves comfortable by amending law in their favour.I don't want to say this but Harvey Norman lobbied to impose GST on imports under $1000.
I for sure as end consumer was not happy with that decision even though I am aware of the fact that importing items hurts local retailers.@ozdesi: Looking for examples of not fit for purpose clothes I came across this in Choice…
"Here's the problem with Lululemon's now-infamous see-through yoga pants: they look and feel pretty much the same as pants that aren't see-through".
"There's really only one way to tell whether they're truly see-through. You have to bend over to see whether anyone can see your business. … asked customers to bend over for butt inspections before they could return their pants"Now that's not fit for purpose or good customer relations. It's a problem you would not expect at time of purchase & becomes an issue only with use, but fails the implied purpose of covering your bum.
But I would take the easier claim the product was defective, which the seller agreed was the case.
@INFIDEL: In case of jeans, it could be a case of washing it not as per manufacturer instructions to find out their colour has faded a lot (although it could become more fashionable for some).
And finding out that manufacturer instructions sticker itself was missing in your pair of jeans leading you to return that pair for a refund thinking manufacturer quality was not up to the mark (sticker missing or cloth fading).
And it is not expected normally to check for such stickers while buying to say return is not accepted.
@ozdesi: Jeans fading … Never heard of that😉
All covered better under CLAIM of not of acceptable quality rather than not fit for purpose.
Like a lot of legal issues, knowing the best approach to achieve your desired outcome is important. Getting advice from consumer bodies & State Offices of Fair Trading is a good start.
In my case, deciding to take the issue through Federal or State legislation & court was crucial. There were slight differences. Starting down the wrong path would have led to failure.
Good night🌛
@INFIDEL: Jeans fading:
https://www.wikihow.com/Prevent-Jeans-from-Fading-in-the-Was…Another weird reason comes to mind is the blend of materials used in the cloth, some of them are more prone to causing static charges when you touch metal with bare hands while wearing those clothes and personally I just hate such items like jumpers (most common).
Some of the manufacturers do not highlight the composition of materials used, for end consumer to research if the item is more prone to causing static charges.
Static charge builds over time, good luck trying that in the trial room in store.
In this case, exchange is not acceptable.I believe these are valid reasons for returning the items under whatever category you classify them.
Good night🌛
Interesting to see the illegal red stamp on your receipt…