In Scarsdale, New York, paying US$ 127.99 in money. The jacket came to fall profusely, rendering the jacket useless. It was so serious that Baker's allergies were exacerbated, requiring a visit to his doctor and pharmacy to obtain a prescription. She also lost 2 days of work. She returned the jacket to the store after four days and demanded that Burlington return her $127.99 cash payment. Burlington refused, stating that it would give them a credit in the store or a new jacket of equal value, plus no refund in money. Baker looked for a fake skin of equal value in the store and couldn't find anything. She refused or credited the property, repeated her demand for a refund in money, and filed a lawsuit against Burlington when it refused to make a refund in money. In its store, Burlington exhibited several large letters that said, in part: 

ARMAZÉM POLICY The merchandise in the new state can be exchanged within 7 days for credit in the store and must be accompanied by a ticket and receipt. No reimbursement in money or credits of collection. The front of the Baker sales receipt was in the following language: Fair purchases can be exchanged as of January 11, 1998. Only home store credit. No reimbursement in money or credits from the charge card. Not the receipt of the sale was in the following language: We will have more opportunities to exchange the merchandise in a new state within 7 days when accompanied by a bill and receipt. No, due to our exceptionally low prices: 

Refunds will not be issued in cash or charge card credits. Barely credit na loja da casa. Notwithstanding, Baker argued that he had not read the language and did not receive and was not aware of Burlington's no-money-refund policy. The court found that Burlington had breached an implied warranty of merchantability when it sold a defective jacket to Baker. 

Why did I decide what happened when Catherine did not read or follow the refund policy? When the seller breaches the implied warranty of merchantability and the buyer returns defective merchandise, or is the buyer entitled to a refund of the purchase price paid for the merchandise? Is the seller responsible for the doctor's accounts? Given or low custo da purchase, what do you think Catherine has to say in her agreement that it would be reasonable?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Why did I decide what happened when Catherine did not read or follow the refund policy The court found that Burlington had breached an implied warrant... View the full answer