The Law To Know

Bring-Your-Own-AI Lab · For lawyers · Free

The split stitching

The brief

A consumer wants her money back for a sofa that developed a fault after two weeks, and the retailer cites a short returns policy. You will ask an AI to advise on a short fictional file, then check its answer against six hidden traps. Run it twice: once with a plain prompt and once with a better one.

  1. Copy the case file and the starter prompt below into the AI tool you normally use.
  2. Read its answer. Do not look for our traps yet: read it as you would at work.
  3. Come back and score the answer against the six checks.
  4. Improve the prompt, run it again, and score the second answer.

The file is entirely fictional, so it is safe to paste into any tool. Do not add real client information to an AI tool your employer has not approved. We do not see your AI’s answer or your scores: nothing leaves this page.

The case file

FICTIONAL CASE FILE: PALMER AND TRELLIS HOME LTD (Republic of Eastmark)

DOCUMENT 1: Extracts from the Consumer Goods Act 2016 (Eastmark)
Section 8. Goods sold to a consumer must be of satisfactory quality and fit for their ordinary purpose.
Section 9. If goods are not of satisfactory quality, the consumer may reject them and claim a full refund within 30 days of delivery.
Section 10. After 30 days, the consumer may no longer reject the goods, but may ask the seller to repair or replace them. If one repair or replacement fails, the consumer may then claim a price reduction or a refund.
Section 11. A fault that appears within six months of delivery is presumed to have been present at delivery, unless the seller proves otherwise. After six months, the consumer must prove it.
Section 12. A term that reduces a consumer’s rights under sections 8 to 11 has no effect.
Section 13. A consumer who buys at a distance may cancel within 14 days of delivery without giving any reason. The consumer pays the cost of returning the goods unless the seller has agreed to pay it.

DOCUMENT 2: Trellis Home’s website terms
‘Returns policy: you have 14 days from delivery to return any item for a refund. After 14 days, no returns or refunds will be given.’

DOCUMENT 3: Correspondence and records
Palmer bought a sofa online from Trellis Home Ltd for £900. It was delivered on Sunday 3 March 2024. On 20 March, Palmer noticed that the stitching on one cushion had split. On 21 March she emailed Trellis Home: ‘The stitching has split after two weeks. I want a refund.’
On 22 March, Trellis Home replied: ‘Our returns period ended on 17 March. We cannot give a refund. We can offer a 10% discount.’ Palmer has not sent photos. The file does not say whether the sofa was used heavily, or what caused the split.

DOCUMENT 4: Note from Palmer
Palmer wants to know whether she can insist on a refund and what to do next.

The starter prompt

You are helping a consumer. Using the documents below, advise whether Palmer can insist on a full refund for the sofa, and list the steps she should take.

[Paste the case file here]

“Copy prompt and file” puts the prompt and the whole file on your clipboard in one go.

Before you run it · optional

Where do you expect an AI to go wrong on a file like this? Tick any that apply.

Run 1 · score the answer to the starter prompt

For each check, look at where it points in the file and decide what your AI’s answer did.

  1. Check 1

    Look at: Section 9; Section 13; Document 2; Document 3.

    Does the AI apply the 14-day period to a faulty item, or treat the retailer’s deadline of 17 March as decisive?

  2. Check 2

    Look at: Section 12; Document 2.

    Does the AI treat the website’s returns policy as controlling, or as binding on Palmer?

  3. Check 3

    Look at: Sections 8 and 9; Document 3: the file’s last paragraph.

    Does the AI treat the split stitching as proven to be a fault in quality, without noting that nothing shows what caused it?

  4. Check 4

    Look at: Section 11; Document 3: delivery 3 March, complaint 21 March.

    Does the AI say Palmer must prove the fault was there at delivery, or miss the presumption in her favour?

  5. Check 5

    Look at: Section 10; Document 3: the reply of 22 March.

    Does the AI treat the 10% discount as Palmer’s only or her final remedy?

  6. Check 6

    Look at: The whole file: only sections 8 to 13 are given.

    Does the AI cite any other statute, case or regulator guidance, or state who will win?

Professional skills training with fictional material. It is not legal advice and is not accredited by any court, regulator or professional body. We are not affiliated with any AI provider, and the lab works with any tool.