Sold "seconds" at full price

pinkshoes

The shop should have clearly labelled that they were selling seconds.

I'd expect a replacement for a new pair, or a refund.

mikeandrach_2

so would i, but not 8-10 weeks later

mattyprice4004

jfk123 wrote: »

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.

Since when is 10 a few?!

Herongull

If you buy a pair of shoes, you shouldn't be sold seconds unless they were clearly described as such.

If they were not described as seconds, then they should be "regular" shoes.

Selling seconds as regular shoes may be misrepresentation (which could get the retailer into trouble). You could report them to trading standards. NB This is my view as a layperson.

As others have said 10 weeks is probably to late to insist on a refund.

But you can still demand a replacement (with equivalent regular shoes!) or a repair (not sure how?) under SOGA.

If they can't replace or repair, then they have to refund.

unholyangel

Herongull wrote: »

If you buy a pair of shoes, you shouldn't be sold seconds unless they were clearly described as such.

If they were not described as seconds, then they should be "regular" shoes.

Selling seconds as regular shoes may be misrepresentation (which could get the retailer into trouble). You could report them to trading standards. NB This is my view as a layperson.

As others have said 10 weeks is probably to late to insist on a refund.

But you can still demand a replacement (with equivalent regular shoes!) or a repair (not sure how?) under SOGA.

If they can't replace or repair, then they have to refund.

Not quite sure you understand the acceptance part of SoGA.

If you buy goods (and if you havent previously had the opportunity to examine them - key part there as you cant return items for anything that would have been obvious upon inspection if you had opportunity to inspect), you are deemed to have accepted the goods where 1) you tell the retailer you accept them, 2) use the goods in a way that is inconsistent with the retailer being the owner or 3) a reasonable length of time passes without you telling the retailer you reject them. The whole purpose of this is for the consumer to examine and decide whether its within conformity of the contract or not. They can either accept the goods as they are or reject them.


While I think it would be good customer service to refund the OP/replace the shoes.......the OP may not actually be legally entitled to either.

Unless OP bought the shoes for a wedding (for example), a reasonable time may have already passed.

jfk123

Thanks for all the interesting discussion on whether I am legally entitled to a refund/ replacement. As an update, Church's have agreed to replace the shoes for new ones (I didn't ask for a refund and am satisfied with that).

I discovered that their retail stores aren't actually supposed to stock seconds (only outlets), so they knew it was a mistake on their part.

prowla

jfk123 wrote: »

Thanks for all the interesting discussion on whether I am legally entitled to a refund/ replacement. As an update, Church's have agreed to replace the shoes for new ones (I didn't ask for a refund and am satisfied with that).

I discovered that their retail stores aren't actually supposed to stock seconds (only outlets), so they knew it was a mistake on their part.

That's what you get for dealing with a reputable company!