Shoes ruined in 4 weeks

Equaliser123

bbelt wrote: »

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!

Fitness for purpose should be an alternative argument. OP should claim that the goods were not of satisfactory quality within the meaning of s.14(2) SOGA.

Ivory_Tinkler

I'd wait for your independent inspection from the cobbler before you send the letter as there may be additional information that can be added to the letter to back up your claim. However, I personally wouldn't wear wooden soled shoes in bad weather for fear of spoiling them and the weather was particularly bad at the beginning of the year. This may be what the shop deems as "wear and tear" but they don't seem to have been very specific so I'd wait to see what the cobbler says.

bbelt

Dr.Rock wrote: »

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.

QUOTE]

Your missing the point.

I think what the OP wants is a remedy to her problem? ie a refund. Not some advice on becoming some sort of pro-consumer super hero? :rotfl:

its not a low quality prodcuct if its been misused either? Thats the fact that is in dispute, its not up to you to make the judgement, thats the role of the Sheriff surely?;)

bbelt

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Fitness for purpose should be an alternative argument. OP should claim that the goods were not of satisfactory quality within the meaning of s.14(2) SOGA.

the point i was trying to get across is this:-

the defence is going to be that they were not of SQ as they were not used for the purpose in which they are commonly supplied - defeating both arguments if proved!

Equaliser123

bbelt wrote: »

the point i was trying to get across is this:-

the defence is going to be that they were not of SQ as they were not used for the purpose in which they are commonly supplied - defeating both arguments if proved!

No - the argument would be that they are not reasonably durable. End of.

Realistically, the Defendant will settle this straight away.

What other purpose can a pair of flipping shoes be put to?

gemstars

Not really got any helpful advice - just wishing good luck.

Out of interest - there seems to be some debate as to whether the fact that the shoes have rubber soles caused the damage..... but it's the leather uppers that have split/cracked. As far as I can tell the wooden soles have held up fine in the bad weather and grit, surely the grit shouldn't cause leather to crack, otherwise almost all of us would be in trouble come winter! :-)

bbelt

Equaliser123 wrote: »

No - the argument should be that they are not reasonably durable. End of.

QUOTE]

agreed

bbelt

gemstars wrote: »

Not really got any helpful advice - just wishing good luck.

Out of interest - there seems to be some debate as to whether the fact that the shoes have rubber soles caused the damage..... but it's the leather uppers that have split/cracked. As far as I can tell the wooden soles have held up fine in the bad weather and grit, surely the grit shouldn't cause leather to crack, otherwise almost all of us would be in trouble come winter! :-)

no odds really.

they are going to argue that its common sense that leather shoes are not intended for bad weather.

jgallcash

So the cobbler will not write anything down as he says its policy. Honestly this was before i even showed him the shoes so I don't think he was just unwilling to do it because he thought I was in the wrong.

Informally he says that the quality of the leather is poor and it seems that may be why the crack has appeared. he said that they should probably have offered some protective product on purchase, which usually they do but not in this case. To be honest i would have turned it down anyway at the point of sale.

I wanted his informal opinion as i don't want to chase a lost cause. And if i felt that I had been in the wrong would genuinely have just accepted it.

equaliser / bbelt - could you potentially give me an example sentance to include the fitness for purpose part you are mentioning?

Equaliser123

jgallcash wrote: »

So the cobbler will not write anything down as he says its policy. Honestly this was before i even showed him the shoes so I don't think he was just unwilling to do it because he thought I was in the wrong.

Informally he says that the quality of the leather is poor and it seems that may be why the crack has appeared. he said that they should probably have offered some protective product on purchase, which usually they do but not in this case. To be honest i would have turned it down anyway at the point of sale.

I wanted his informal opinion as i don't want to chase a lost cause. And if i felt that I had been in the wrong would genuinely have just accepted it.

equaliser / bbelt - could you potentially give me an example sentance to include the fitness for purpose part you are mentioning?

Hi - just tried to PM you but your mailbox is full. I have acted on a case like this in the not too distant past.