Sold "seconds" at full price

jfk123

A few weeks ago I bought a new pair of Church's shoes from one of their Westfield stores.

After polishing them I spotted some quite severe blemishes in the leather and, more importantly, noticed a small 'S' marked on the insole of both shoes. Having contacted Church's, they have confirmed that this 'S' denotes them as factory-marked "seconds".

I paid full price for the shoes and am needless to say rather annoyed that I have been sold sub-standard shoes. I shall be returning them tomorrow, but was wondering exactly what rights I have to do so- any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

System

jfk123 wrote: »

A few weeks ago I bought a new pair of Church's shoes from one of their Westfield stores.

After polishing them I spotted some quite severe blemishes in the leather and, more importantly, noticed a small 'S' marked on the insole of both shoes. Having contacted Church's, they have confirmed that this 'S' denotes them as factory-marked "seconds".

I paid full price for the shoes and am needless to say rather annoyed that I have been sold sub-standard shoes. I shall be returning them tomorrow, but was wondering exactly what rights I have to do so- any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

When you say full price does that mean the remaining identical boots were all new? If they were all seconds then full price would be the full price of the seconds and if they were new then would have cost more. So you haven't in fact overpaid.

It depends on how they are sold instore really

jfk123

goater78 wrote: »

When you say full price does that mean the remaining identical boots were all new? If they were all seconds then full price would be the full price of the seconds and if they were new then would have cost more. So you haven't in fact overpaid.

It depends on how they are sold instore really

Thanks for your swift response. The price I paid was the price advertised for "perfect" shoes.

wealdroam

After "a few weeks" you could be seen to have accepted the goods offered.

How long ago is "a few weeks"?

System

jfk123 wrote: »

Thanks for your swift response. The price I paid was the price advertised for "perfect" shoes.

Did it say perfect? Usually you see a product and it has a price on it. You look at the product and decide whether its worth that price. You did this and were happy with the product and price.

The issue is whether a brand new version of the shoe would sell at the same price. If it would you deserve a refund.

jfk123

wealdroam wrote: »

After "a few weeks" you could be seen to have accepted the goods offered.

How long ago is "a few weeks"?

10 weeks. Although, if it makes any difference, they have only been worn once (inside) and I have been in discussions with Church's regarding what the 'S' meant for the last 2 weeks.

jfk123

goater78 wrote: »

Did it say perfect? Usually you see a product and it has a price on it. You look at the product and decide whether its worth that price. You did this and were happy with the product and price.

The issue is whether a brand new version of the shoe would sell at the same price. If it would you deserve a refund.

Sorry, "perfect" probably wasn't the best choice of words. But yes, a brand new version of the shoe sells at the same price as what I paid (this is advertised on their website and in store)

arcon5

There is no obligation for them to reduce the price of the shoes because they are 'seconds'. There is however an obligation to describe the shoes accurately. And i'd say a shop offering new shoes, not stating a pair are not 'new' could well be considered misleading and probably breach of contract if a reasonable person would expect to be buying 'new'.

The fact it's been 10 weeks since purchase could muddy the waters though

lincroft1710

arcon5 wrote: »

There is no obligation for them to reduce the price of the shoes because they are 'seconds'. There is however an obligation to describe the shoes accurately. And i'd say a shop offering new shoes, not stating a pair are not 'new' could well be considered misleading and probably breach of contract if a reasonable person would expect to be buying 'new'.

The fact it's been 10 weeks since purchase could muddy the waters though

But they are "new" because they haven't been previously sold. Not of the standard the manufacturer would normally offer for sale, but still new.

prowla

Palming off seconds as a full-price item is pretty shoddy.
Hopefully it is an error on the shop's part.

mikeandrach_2

it took you 8 weeks to notice? cant have been that bad then