nkelsch wrote:Koppo wrote:nkelsch wrote:SNIP
So CCTV is not a realistic 'proof of purchase' in probably most situations.
It was never my point that CCTV is a realistic proof of purchase. I used it as an example of a "proof of purchase" that was not a receipt, <SNIP>
The problem with those 'proof of purchases' is you are referencing a third party which the establishment has no reason to trust and no obligation to trust either. And while they may work for purposes of 'legal mediation' where you can present them as proof of a third party to confirm the purpose. Walking into Wal-mart with a bankstatement from the bank of 'whatever' that says I bought something costing 27 dollars on this date from code *walbank12349 doesn't necessarily confirm what you purchased assumed they trust your source. And to take it that far, requires legal intervention to get 'someone' to declare your evidence of purchase does indeed result in you purchasing an item and being due a refund.
The only things which they can reliably trust without much fuss are documents produced by them so they are a witness to their own transaction, which is a 'receipt'.
The thing is using your 'invoice' idea PROVES you didn't purchase it in the store, which means someone trying to save shipping by dumping stock of a local store doesn't have to be accepted. They probably *WLL* allow it, but they wouldn't have to, and I would think they would be incentivize to give store credit instead of cash refund, especially since any online purchase was paid for with credit card and giving cash for a credit card transaction is a slippery slope as well as them losing credit card fees. Almost universally a sale with credit card has to be refunded to the credit card.
So I would say the receipt is the only valid way to prove in-store purchase at the establishment you are attempting to return it to. All that other stuff is nice and all, but they don't have to accept it per their policy, and they choose the right to bend the rules however they see fit.
Again my point is that in the
UK the law is that the customer has to produce "proof of purchase" not a receipt and I then gave some examples of things that
may serve as as "proof of purchase", including a letter from your mum. Many receipts actually don't prove that a particular person purchased a particular item, merely that an item was bought, when it was bought and for how much. That many shops in the
UK (and presumably the US) accept the receipts as proof of purchase is handy and in those instances the receipt is acceptable a proof of purchase. The invoice (with paid on it) was again, just an example of something which a particular vendor may accept as a "proof of purchase" (some shops in the
UK will in fact produce a "paid invoice" as your receipt, as it is acknowledgement that they received your payment, weirdly usually computer hardware shops and car spares) and this proof of purchase concept does not only pertain to bricks and mortar store but to any like transaction.
Take for example a receipt I received for a USB cable bought. It said the date, £2 and the name of the shop. That does not prove I bought that USB cable, it merely proves I bought something for £2 on that day in that shop(actually it does not even prove I bought it, just somebody did). If I turned up the day after holding the cable they could just turn around and say I could not prove I bought that cable in that shop.
So anything that proves the purchase will suffice in the
UK, but of course it must in the 1st instance satisfy the vendor, not the consumer that is indeed proof and in the 2nd instance a court, a vendor could just take my word for it if it took his fancy. In the US I do not know. Riquende comment serves to back this up (were I to present a bank statement to a vendor as proof and their systems were capable of tracking the transaction an they did not recognise it as proof a court would probably rule against them and in my favour).
