Faulty goods query

Cheerful_Fairy

Hi everybody

I bought some shoes for my daughter's graduation recently. I wore them for the ceremony then packed them away until we came home. In total, I cannot have had them on for more than 3 hours, most of which has been sitting down. However, the colour has scuffed completely off the inside of one of the ankle parts. I asked to return them for a refund as they had been worn once and then a light wear at best and as such I was unhappy with the quality (the colour should last longer than this). The company have said that they will repair them or return them, but will not refund my money (as it is not a manufacturing fault). I am not happy with this as a repair will surely result in the same problem the next time that I wear them, but they will not budge on this point. I paid for them on my credit cared (but they did not cost more than £100). I have read through all the consumer rights sections, but cannot be sure whether I must accept the offer of a repair (and then what happens if I have to accept it and the same thing happens again). I reported the problem on the Monday when I got back from the ceremony and in total there were 11 days from the order to me requesting a refund due to the poor quality.

TY for reading....

malchish

Do your ankles touch each other when you walk? If yes, then it is fair use... if not, - faulty.
Normally, the ankles do not touch each other when walking, so no cause for scuffing... Did I misunderstand maybe?

Cheerful_Fairy

Hi

They are not scuffed like you would expect with shoes sometimes, the colour has completely gone from them - back to bare leather, which seems a bit of an issue for such a short time wearing them. I would see scuffing as normal, but not the colour completely being worn off.

Valli

It is up to the retailer to offer the remedy which best suits them. You've been offered a repair. You cannot 'demand' an alternative; you can request; they can refuse.

I would accept the repair, see what happens and take it from there.

unholyangel

Valli wrote: »

It is up to the retailer to offer the remedy which best suits them. You've been offered a repair. You cannot 'demand' an alternative; you can request; they can refuse.

I would accept the repair, see what happens and take it from there.

Hmmm non-acceptance? OP said 11 days from "ordering" to requesting a refund and seem to have been purchased for a special occasion so quite possibly still within the period she can reject outright for a full refund - especially as its being changed later this year (afaik anyway) to give a minimum of 30 days to reject if faulty.

Problem may occur if they're claiming its not inherent though.

Cheerful_Fairy

Thanks all, it doesn't seem straight forward or simple...

dalesrider

Cheerful_Fairy wrote: »

I cannot have had them on for more than 3 hours,

most of which has been sitting down.

However, the colour has scuffed completely off the inside of one of the ankle parts.

Feet dragging against the chair leg? Or on the temporary viewing stand at the graduation? Scrapping against each other as you cross/uncross legs....

I tend to find that I damage shoes more when sat down than when walking.

jacques_chirac

unholyangel wrote: »

Hmmm non-acceptance? OP said 11 days from "ordering" to requesting a refund and seem to have been purchased for a special occasion so quite possibly still within the period she can reject outright for a full refund - especially as its being changed later this year (afaik anyway) to give a minimum of 30 days to reject if faulty.

Problem may occur if they're claiming its not inherent though.

I expect they would argue acceptance occurred when she wore them out, not afterwards.

wealdroam

unholyangel wrote: »

Hmmm non-acceptance? OP said 11 days from "ordering" to requesting a refund and seem to have been purchased for a special occasion so quite possibly still within the period she can reject outright for a full refund - especially as its being changed later this year (afaik anyway) to give a minimum of 30 days to reject if faulty.

Problem may occur if they're claiming its not inherent though.

I agree with Jacques Chirac's suggestion.

The first part of Section 35 of The Sale of Goods Act says:

35 Acceptance.
(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—
(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

I would suggest that wearing the shoes on a special occasion is doing "any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

shaun_from_Africa

wealdroam wrote: »

I agree with Jacques Chirac's suggestion.

The first part of Section 35 of The Sale of Goods Act says:

(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—
(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.


I would suggest that wearing the shoes on a special occasion is doing "any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

Surely the important part is that which I have underlined.
and as subsection 2 refers to the buyer being given an opportunity of examining the goods, the first part of the SOGA is basically saying acceptance has been deemed to occur when he does any act which is inconsistant with the owner of the goods, subject to him having had a reasonable opportunity to examine and test them.

If this wasn't the case, just about anything done with recently purchased goods such as wearing clothing, loading up and using a washing machine, or turning on and setting up a TV set would imply that you have accepted the goods.
However, all of these actions are "inconsistant with the ownership of the seller" but without doing these, how would you know if the TV or dishwasher worked as they should.
With the shoes, how would you know that the dye would come off through what may be extremely light use without actually wearing them?

wealdroam

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Surely the important part is that which I have underlined.
and as subsection 2 refers to the buyer being given an opportunity of examining the goods, the first part of the SOGA is basically saying acceptance has been deemed to occur when he does any act which is inconsistant with the owner of the goods, subject to him having had a reasonable opportunity to examine and test them.

I do have some sympathy with that view but subsection 2 says nothing about testing... only examining.

For completeness, here is subsection 2:

(2)Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection (1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose—
(a)of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract, and
(b)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, of comparing the bulk with the sample.