Shoes ruined in 4 weeks

bbelt

Dr.Rock wrote: »

I meant speak to each customer individually and warn them, not make a scene in the store.
Wear and tear and misuse are very different things. Misuse is deliberately or maliciously damaging something or allowing damage to be caused to something through negligence. Wear and tear is the deterioration in condition of something that should be reasonably expected given proper use over time. I certainly don't think that wearign a pair of shoes on 4 occasions should reasonably be expected to cause that type of damage; and if you do then I wish I owned the store where you buy your shoes.

If the manager doesnt want you there, which if you are scaring off potential customers i think is extremely likely, he will probably ask you to leave. You could of course refuse, which would result in the police being called. Both of these are not going to get you a refund for your shoes, just the toolbag tag!

you wouldnt look too clever in your small claim either (which is your only official route to potentially getting a refund for your shoes).

damage consistent with salt damage and bad weather isnt fair wear and tear when the shoes are not intended for that purpose (wooden soles?)

bbelt

jgallcash wrote: »

Thanks for that - I will include the section.

.

NO.

Dont include any references to legislation.

Thats what the Sheriff does.

bbelt

Equaliser123 wrote: »

For added effect, why not send them a draft copy of the proceedings?

no need.

the defender will be given a copy of the summons prior to the proceedings by the Clerk of the Court.

if they want to settle out of court they will.

jgallcash

bbelt wrote: »

If the manager doesnt want you there, which if you are scaring off potential customers i think is extremely likely, he will probably ask you to leave. You could of course refuse, which would result in the police being called. Both of these are not going to get you a refund for your shoes, just the toolbag tag!

you wouldnt look too clever in your small claim either (which is your only official route to potentially getting a refund for your shoes).

damage consistent with salt damage and bad weather isnt fair wear and tear when the shoes are not intended for that purpose (wooden soles?)

Can I just clarify that I do not intend to go into the shop at all, regardless of what may happen.

"damage consistent with salt damage and bad weather isnt fair wear and tear when the shoes are not intended for that purpose (wooden soles?)

Yes they were wooded soles - can you clarify this a little more for me please? Are you saying that they cannot say that this is fair wear and tear in terms of bad weather and salt damage? :beer:

bbelt

firstly, im glad - going to the shop (again) for any reason will not result in your bring refunded for your shoes, which is what you are seeking.

goods need to be "fit for the common purpose in which they are supplied"

i seriously doubt wooden soled shoes are commonly supplied for use in bad weather!

jgallcash

I'm not sure if there has been some confusion: I never said i was going back. It was another poster. You are indeed right - I want my money back.

Sorry to be thick here: are you saying that I should not have worn them at this period of the year or that they are supplying shoes that are hardly fit for purpose?

Dr.Rock

bbelt wrote: »

If the manager doesnt want you there, which if you are scaring off potential customers i think is extremely likely, he will probably ask you to leave. You could of course refuse, which would result in the police being called. Both of these are not going to get you a refund for your shoes, just the toolbag tag!

you wouldnt look too clever in your small claim either (which is your only official route to potentially getting a refund for your shoes).

damage consistent with salt damage and bad weather isnt fair wear and tear when the shoes are not intended for that purpose (wooden soles?)

Or you could leave. No harm done. Just a concerned person trying to save other people from wasting their money on a low quality product. If someone saved me from wasting almost £100 I wouldn't think they were a toolbag.

I must admit I've never heard of shoes with wooden soles either. I once owned a pair of completely wooded shoes that I picked up in Holland but they were so uncomfortable (and heavy, and noisy) that they never got worn, but nothing as insignificant as snow or salt would damage them. I guess there are people out there who buy shoes because they are fashionable rather than well-made and maybe getting one or two wears out of them IS what is expected. Glad I'm not one of those people though.

Equaliser123

bbelt wrote: »

NO.

Dont include any references to legislation.

Thats what the Sheriff does.

Is this Scotland?

Certainly in England and Wales you SHOULD set out the full basis of the claim including references to statutory authority.

Equaliser123

bbelt wrote: »

no need.

the defender will be given a copy of the summons prior to the proceedings by the Clerk of the Court.

if they want to settle out of court they will.

No need but it sends out a very clear message that the OP is serious. And the Clerk sends the claim to the Defendant once issued.

Dr.Rock

jgallcash wrote: »

I'm not sure if there has been some confusion: I never said i was going back. It was another poster. You are indeed right - I want my money back.

Sorry to be thick here: are you saying that I should not have worn them at this period of the year or that they are supplying shoes that are hardly fit for purpose?

Sorry that was me, who made one slightly tongue-in-cheek comment which some people obviously took as serious advice. Having a sense of humour myself I wrongly assumed everyone would have one. My apologies. I now realise that this board is no place for smart alec comments or differing opinions.