My wife purchased two skirts for our 14-year-old daughter from a store owned by Jewish people. Both of the skirts were similar in material and construction and were made in the USA exclusively for that store and labeled under the store brand.  Both skirts had issues where a seam opened up. Our daughter only wore them a couple of times and used them in a normal fashion. We called the store owner, who said that she has had no other complaints about these skirts and refused to take them back. After much discussion, she finally said that she would give us store credit to repair the skirts but adamantly refused to give us a refund. We all agreed to contact your hotline.

Q: Am I obligated to accept that offer, or may I insist on a cash refund?

A: Shulchan Aruch (C. M. 232:7) writes that purchases are made with the assumption that the product is not damaged. In the event that it is discovered that merchandise was damaged or blemished in a way that people would return the damaged item to the store, the buyer has the right to a refund of his money (C. M. 232:6). The fact that the store has not had issues with these skirts in the past does not exempt them from liability for the ones that are damaged. Similarly, the store cannot deflect blame to the manufacturer. They are obligated to refund the purchase and, if need be, deal with the manufacturer themselves.

What makes your circumstance different is the owner’s insistence to give you store credit towards the repair of the skirts. Upon the discovery of a defect, may the seller insist that the item should be repaired or does the customer have the right to demand a full refund?

Shulchan Aruch (C. M. 232:5) teaches that if a sold item is discovered to be blemished but can be repaired, the sale remains in force and the seller must provide the means to repair the blemish (see Ulam HaMishpat). The only limitation to this is that if the repair is so extensive that it amounts to manufacturing a new item altogether (panim chadashos), a customer may demand a full refund of his money and is not required to accept the “new” item. These are the principles that are to be applied to your circumstance. If the necessary repair is minor, the store owner has the right to have the skirts repaired and is not required to issue you a cash refund. If the repair would essentially involve the making of a new skirt, it is not necessary for you to accept that offer and you may return the skirts for a full refund of your purchase money unless a policy of no cash refunds was declared at the time of the purchase.

Q: I purchased Tefillin for my son at his bar-mitzvah. He had them checked five years later when he was in Yeshiva, and the parshas were found to be pasul. Am I entitled to new parshas from the sofer that wrote them?

A: This depends of on nature of the p’sul. If the defect was clearly there from the time that they were purchased – e.g. a missing or improperly written letter – the sofer owes you new parshas even if this was discovered many years later (C. M. 232:3).

However, if a letter was cracked or faded, the sofer does not owe you new parshas. The reason for this is that it is possible that the parshas were kosher when he sold them to you, and the ink faded or cracked over time.

Even if a letter was cracked in a manner that may have been there from the time the Tefillin were first bought, the sofer would still be exempt out of doubt. Since the defect was discovered in your possession, we assume that it developed here later on (C. M. 224:1 and Kessef Hakodoshim 232:11).