Sports Direct - broke the Sale of Goods Act

Freddie_Snowbits

One proffers that the OP's attitude, clearly demonstrated in this thread attributed to SD's resposne.

Another Bully Boy Know'alls comes on here demanded their rights to absolution.

No Reciept, No Refund.

You have been Freddied in less than 10 posts!

Weirdlittleman

matty_art wrote: »

How do you jump to a conclusion that I "obviously went in ranting"? I was very calm until accused of causing the fault, when I stated my disbelief, as I believe anyone would when being accused of lying to their face. However, not once did I raise my voice or swear during the whole proceedings.

I can guarentee you that SD will regularly receive deliberately defaced goods in order to get refunds hence when a customer declines a replacement they probably wonder why.

I take you did have your receipt. not sure why freddie made that leap.

matty_art

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

One proffers that the OP's attitude, clearly demonstrated in this thread attributed to SD's resposne.

Another Bully Boy Know'alls comes on here demanded their rights to absolution.

No Reciept, No Refund.

You have been Freddied in less than 10 posts!

/has a receipt actually

One understands from the responses received in said thread that it is presumed acceptable for retailers to accuse customers of lying.

Fair enough, I don't know what being Freddied means, but I'm not to going to get too upset about it.

Freddie_Snowbits

matty_art wrote: »

/has a receipt actually

Do not see this mentioned in your original post.

matty_art

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Do not see this mentioned in your original post.

Well when I purchase something, I tend to keep the receipt, and I would clearly have taken it back to the store with the receipt. I don't see that I'd need to spell that out in my post, it's pretty obvious? Bit of an odd point to get hung up on there Freddie.

Bowling_4_Gold

You were silly to turn down the offer of store credit. I totally agree with all the other posters - you were clearly in it for the money off. You even pointed out the other shirts were non-defected, yet still refused the store credit to buy another one!

Don't state your statutory rights if you don't know them. They could have quite legally replaced or repaired the top, if they wanted to. Absolutely no legal responsibility to refund you.

I suggest you find another branch of Sports Direct and get the store credit quick.

matty_art

Bowling_4_Gold wrote: »

You were silly to turn down the offer of store credit. I totally agree with all the other posters - you were clearly in it for the money off. You even pointed out the other shirts were non-defected, yet still refused the store credit to buy another one!

Don't state your statutory rights if you don't know them. They could have quite legally replaced or repaired the top, if they wanted to. Absolutely no legal responsibility to refund you.

I suggest you find another branch of Sports Direct and get the store credit quick.

Clearly this is what I will need to do. However, just to correct you, when I pointed the other shirts out to be not defected, the manager then turned to comment that seeing as they weren't defective, this was evidence that I must have done something to the shirt after leaving the store, such as pouring some ink on it. Those are pretty much his exact words. They didn't actually ever offer me an exchange, just quoting that they "don't do refunds". Accusing customers of lying (and smelling the shirt and claiming it had been worn, what's that meant to imply?) is not the way I think businesses should be run. Am I to presume that everyone else thinks the opposite?

moonrakerz

matty_art wrote: »

I'd worn it for approximately 30 minutes

matty_art wrote: »

Accusing customers of lying (and smelling the shirt and claiming it had been worn)

Am I missing something here ?

You ADMIT that you wore the shirt, then you accuse the man of lying because he said that you had worn it !!!!

anamenottaken

moonrakerz wrote: »

Am I missing something here ?

You ADMIT that you wore the shirt, then you accuse the man of lying because he said that you had worn it !!!!

What you are missing is that the OP didn't accuse the shop manager of "lying because he said that you had worn it". It was that the shop manager was accusing the OP of lying about how the logo had been damaged.

matty_art

anamenottaken wrote: »

What you are missing is that the OP didn't accuse the shop manager of "lying because he said that you had worn it". It was that the shop manager was accusing the OP of lying about how the logo had been damaged.

Yeah and I had had it on 30 minutes over a t-shirt, what's up with the smelling, seemed to be implying that my body had left the shirt smelling!

In any case, whether or not I'd worn it made no difference, it just seemed to be something that he wanted to concentrate on, and made me embarrassed in front of other customers in the store that he should be there smelling a shirt I was trying to return and claiming that it "smelled worn".