No ugly refund

[Gob]

Man calls Solihull police to complain about prostitute's looks


A man has been warned after he dialled 999 to complain about a prostitute's looks after meeting her.

West Midlands Police said they were contacted by the caller who said he "wished to report her for breaching the Sale of Goods Act".

The force said the call was received at about 19:30 BST on Tuesday complaining that the woman was not as attractive as she had claimed.

Officers have now sent the man a letter warning him about wasting police time.

West Midlands Police said the man had claimed he met the woman in a hotel car park.

"The caller claimed that the woman had made out she was better looking than she actually was and he wished to report her for breaching the Sale of Goods Act," a spokesperson for the force said.

"When he raised this issue with the woman concerned, she allegedly took his car keys, ran away from the car and threw them back at him, prompting him to call police."

During the call, the man can be heard to say: "I've arranged a meeting with her, but beforehand I've asked her for an honest description, otherwise when I get there I'm not going to use her services.

"Basically she has misdescribed herself, misrepresented herself totally.

"She was angry because she obviously thinks I owe her a living or something."

Sgt Jerome Moran, based at Solihull police station, called the man back to offer some advice.

He said: "It was unbelievable - he genuinely believed he had done nothing wrong and that the woman should have been investigated by police for misrepresentation.

"I told him that she'd not committed any offences and that it was his actions, in soliciting for sex, that were in fact illegal."

Despite the man refusing to give his details, police were able to identify him and have sent him a letter warning him about his actions.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 gives consumers legal rights, stipulating goods which are sold must be of satisfactory quality, be fit for purpose and must match the seller's description

[oldr_n_wsr]

No use being stupid if you don't show it.

[Crackpot]

Well you have to wonder just because the commerce is illegal does this law not apply? Is this a case of false advertising or does the guy just suffer from unreasonable high standards?

[Crackpot]

Seems to me they could prosecute the case as long as they charged the plaintiff for soliciting sounds like a win-win to me.

[oldr_n_wsr]

charged the plaintiff for soliciting

Only if he offered money for the sex act. Don't think he got that far.

[Crackpot]

I'm pretty sure if they arranged a meeting price was discussed

[Joe Guy]

It could have been worse.

He could have gone through with it and then asked for a refund.

[Crackpot]

Why don't our resident legal minds ever offer an opinion on these type of threads?

[Rick]

How does one qualify for a "refund" if they haven't paid?

[Crackpot]

I'll try their call:

It is absolutely stupid that someone would the sale of goods act applies!

[Joe Guy]

The sale of goods act would not apply in this case since the claimant didn't purchase anything. If he were to take action pro per in a court of law, first it would have required Habeas Corpus and Capias Mittimus. The defendant could then declare that she is indigent and request Subpoena Duces Tecum and declare ad quod damnum, to which the judge would respond 'caveat emptor' and dismiss the case under the auspices of stare decisis.

[Rick]

Carpustule!