Question

A customer goes into a pharmacy complaining of “hay fever” (an allergy that is caused by pollen of dust) which includes symptoms of runny nose and watery eyes (but is not due to a cold). A pharmacist, maintaining that he had the same medical issue, in the shop suggests a certain brand. The pharmacist maintained that “it worked for him.” The customer buys a six-month supply (180 capsules with each of six boxes containing 30 capsules). The customer takes the capsules for 30 days and finds no relief from his hay fever despite the promise of the medication is one of the most effective treatments for hay fever on today’s market. In fact, the pharmacist directed the customer to the medication that he knew to be most costly and least effective. Later, the customer returned to the pharmacy insisting on returning the remaining 5 packets of 30 capsules per packet. The pharmacy refused on the grounds that the policy of the pharmacy is that all sales are final and no returns/exchanges are possible.

Q2 Would a judge be willing to set aside this contract of sale between the customer? Briefly explain. (maximum of 70 words)

Answer 1

No, the judge would not be willing to set aside this contract. As a business owner or sales person, they would tke steps to maximise their profit. In this scenario the pharmacist could be the owner or the sales person, they might even be getting a certain commision on the sale of that particular product. In this case buying the product is in the hand of the consumer, the pharmacist could lead you to whatever product they might prefer. But, there should have been more research done by the consumer, they could have taken the advise of a doctor or even skimmed through the net to find out answers. Upon that there is already a policy of no returns or exchanges.