Washing Instructions ‘Vital’

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30897, 2 November 1965, Page 1

Washing Instructions ‘Vital’

Consumers’ disregard of washing instructions attached to garments and the “money - back - guarantee” system used by some department stores both drew criticisms at the New Zealand Textile and Garment Manufacturers’ Federation conference at H a n m e r Springs yesterday. Mr J. Diamond, the federa-

Won’s newly elected vicepresident, said some manufacturers were buying good will with indiscriminate credit refunds. In some instances the credit refund had gone through even though the yarn, the cloth and the garment had been completely exonerated of blame by an independent investigation. “Garments made from synthetic or natural yarns cannot be safely washed or drycleaned without carrying out the manufacturer’s labelled instructions,” said Mr Diamond. If a larger manufacturer gave credit refunds indiscriminately he affected the position of the small manufacturer. In giving credit refunds the manufacturer was in fact purchasing good will for the retailer. Washing instructions on a garment were vital, and if a credit refund was passed indiscriminately after the independent inquiry had found no manufacturing fault that could only lead to increased costs. That, in effect, made the careful consumer pay for the careless consumer and obviously was both unfair and bad commercial practice. “It is well known that some consumers remove washing instructions from garments and totally disregard them,” Mr Diamond said. “A retailer recently returned to my firm a nylon garment with a hole burnt in it because it had been ironed incorrectly. The reason given in requesting the refund was that we had no right to sell inflammable materials. “That makes us the guilty party with the consumer before we have even seen the garment,” he said. The conference also criti-

cised “some money-back-guarantee” systems.

Mr M. L. Cohen asked the conference to endorse a remit to be forwarded to the New Zealand Retailers’ Federation: “That the conference finds it unreasonable to support certain departmental stores in the unconditional credit they give for goods without consulting the manufacturers.”

Mr Diamond, in suggesting that the remit should be reworded, said the manufacturer had no say in a retailer’s credit. “If a retailer wants to give his money away he can do so any time he likes.”

The conference agreed to a reworded remit advising the Retailers’ Federation that the money-back guarantee system as used by some department stores did not involve the manufacturer until the matter had been referred to the manufacturer and he had agreed to the refund.