Question about receipts

[Hyun]

What is the name of your state? ILLINOIS

My question was regarding receipts and the fine and/or not-so-fine print on the back of the receipts. I have a decent understanding of the strength of signed contracts and the weight they hold in court. But, what about just plain old receipts?

We give out receipts that do not require the customer's signature. On the back of the receipt, we provide our policies. What strength if any does this hold in court without anyone's signature? Is the physical transfer of the receipt to the customer enough to show the customer's acknowledgement to our policies? (I wouldn't think it would be that simple). Is it the customer's responsibility to read/understand the receipt/policies before going ahead with the full transaction?

To add on, what are the strengths/benefits of posting our business policies on display for customers to view?

As always, I am truly thankful to this site. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer.

 

[BoredAtty]

My question was regarding receipts and the fine and/or not-so-fine print on the back of the receipts. I have a decent understanding of the strength of signed contracts and the weight they hold in court. But, what about just plain old receipts?

Generally speaking, the fine print often found on receipts is for informational purposes only.

A retailer would not be able to add additional terms to the sales contract after the fact.

 

[tranquility]

I agree. However, many people feel they have more rights then they do under the law. For example, the "right" to return something to the store if they don't want it any more. Since the store would not have a duty under the law to accept such a return, they could put limiting language on the back of a receipt which would make it harder for the customer to claim he misunderstand the deal.

 

[BoredAtty]

I agree. However, many people feel they have more rights then they do under the law. For example, the "right" to return something to the store if they don't want it any more. Since the store would not have a duty under the law to accept such a return, they could put limiting language on the back of a receipt which would make it harder for the customer to claim he misunderstand the deal.

Even if a misunderstanding was claimed, I don't see the wording on a receipt which is given after the sale as being much help in proving what the customer understood before the sale.

I could be wrong, though. Have you heard of such case?

 

[Hyun]

Thank you for providing some more light on the subject. I'm sorry for not completely understanding but my relatives own a dry cleaning business and they give out receipts describing our policies. One of which says that although we will try our hardest to clean the customers' garments, we are not responsible for more than ten times what we charge for the job.

So in this case, if the garment was $600 but we charged only $6 for removing spots, and if the garment was damaged...how much of the $600 are we responsible for. We've already compensated the customer the full $600, but I was curious what the legal judgement would be in a case like this.

I agree that the customer does not really have the chance to acknowledge/understand our policies until we give the receipt to them. Would posting a sign with our policies on it help at all?

Thank you again for any advice you can provide.

 

[tranquility]

I've been away, but EULA's and the writing on licenses (to park, to attend the concert, to enter the park) come to mind. Not quite a receipt, but a post writing.

The receipt example I used is correct. One can limit the amount of days you will accept a return because of the lack of prior duty. (Since there are some examples of state laws regarding returns, you could not exceed those limitations.) I don't know of a case regarding the understanding on a receipt, but most stores who place such a writing on a receipt also place a sign where the customer can see it beforehand regarding their policy. This is not the same issue, I understand, but that what was in my mind when I wrote.

The OP's limitation on remedies would absolutely need to be communicated beforehand as that would change the rights of the parties. A limitation on a refund is an *increase* in the rights of the buyer. A limitation on a remedy is a *decrease*. A person can always give more than bargained for, but not less.

 

[BoredAtty]

I've been away, but EULA's and the writing on licenses (to park, to attend the concert, to enter the park) come to mind. Not quite a receipt, but a post writing.

The receipt example I used is correct. One can limit the amount of days you will accept a return because of the lack of prior duty. (Since there are some examples of state laws regarding returns, you could not exceed those limitations.) I don't know of a case regarding the understanding on a receipt, but most stores who place such a writing on a receipt also place a sign where the customer can see it beforehand regarding their policy. This is not the same issue, I understand, but that what was in my mind when I wrote.

The OP's limitation on remedies would absolutely need to be communicated beforehand as that would change the rights of the parties. A limitation on a refund is an *increase* in the rights of the buyer. A limitation on a remedy is a *decrease*. A person can always give more than bargained for, but not less.

Your last paragraph is the point I would have made had the discussion gone that far. I don't think we're in disagreement on this subject.

 

[Hyun]

I haven't had the chance to check back but thank you thank you. Thank you 'tranquility' and 'BoredAtty' both for all of your input. I have a much better understanding now and an even better idea of what we need to do here on out.