District Court orders refund in dispute over unopened carpet cleaner marked final sale

The District Court ordered Alder Basket Home Goods LLC to refund Erin Bell’s money in a dispute over a carpet cleaner sold as final sale. Presiding judge Counsel-946877 delivered the judgment on October 21, 2026. Bell had sought a $189 refund in exchange for leaving the cleaner with the shop.

The dispute turned on two conflicting messages: the receipt said final sale, while Bell said a sales employee specifically assured her that she could return the cleaner unopened within seven days for a refund. She said she brought it back two days after purchase with its seal intact.

The formal judgment is a single sentence. It says the court heard both parties, finds the defendant “guilty” and orders it to refund the money. It gives no legal test or explanation of how the court weighed the employee’s alleged assurance against the receipt.

During the hearing, the judge repeatedly questioned the shop about its return policy and whether an employee had promised a refund. The shop relied on its written final-sale wording but acknowledged that it had not reviewed the full conversation with Bell.

The refund order resolves the requested monetary relief in Bell’s favour. It does not specify the amount, a payment deadline or arrangements for the cleaner’s return, and it does not expressly explain why store credit was insufficient.

Bell said she bought the cleaner at the Eugene shop for $189 and relied on the employee’s seven-day refund assurance. She acknowledged that the receipt contained final-sale wording and that she did not challenge it when paying. At the hearing, she said she had not checked that wording before payment.

Alder Basket argued that the receipt made clearance purchases final sale and that no refund was available for those items. Its representative denied personally promising Bell a refund but could not say whether the employee had made that specific promise.

The shop understood the return discussion to concern store credit. It asked to keep the sale final or resolve the dispute through credit rather than a cash refund. That interpretation was qualified by its repeated acknowledgment that the full exchange had not been reviewed.

Bell said the manager refused her refund when she returned the unopened cleaner. The shop said the box remained on its premises while the dispute was unresolved.

The case illustrates a practical conflict between written sales terms and an alleged assurance given during a purchase. The judgment settles this refund dispute, but its brevity leaves unresolved the legal basis for preferring Bell’s claim over the shop’s reliance on the receipt.