Rugby Top faulty

System

George_Michael wrote: »

And there was me thinking that this was a customer's rights forum.

Yes, the top may have suffered damage due to the nature of the game, but it might also have a manufacturing defect (faulty materials or dodgy stitching), and it is up to the retailer to prove how the damage was caused.

I played rugby for many years (both at school and for 8 years afterwards) and I certainly didn't have to replace my top every 6 games.
It's probably different for professional players but I would still expect a bit of durability from any sports gear.

Yes but the nature of rugby is it can rip. You expect it to last longer but when you're being pushed, pulled, tackled it could literally go at anytime.

I bought a piñata last week. It broke within 5 minutes of us hitting it with a stick. Perhaps I should take it back as it's less than 6 months old?

George_Michael

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but the nature of rugby is it can rip.
You expect it to last longer but when you're being pushed, pulled, tackled it could literally go at anytime.

I bought a piñata last week. It broke within 5 minutes of us hitting it with a stick. Perhaps I should take it back as it's less than 6 months old?

Yes, it can rip, but as the law currently stands, it is the legal obligation of the retailer to prove why the rip occurred in the 6 months following purchase.

I could understand if you wanted to return a piñata that wouldn't break, but why would you want to return a broken one as it would have performed exactly as intended whereas a rugby shirt is not designed to be ripped.

System

George_Michael wrote: »

Yes, it can rip, but as the law currently stands, it is the legal obligation of the retailer to prove why the rip occurred in the 6 months following purchase.

I could understand if you wanted to return a piñata that wouldn't break, but why would you want to return a broken one as it would have performed exactly as intended whereas a rugby shirt is not designed to be ripped.

Should have lasted longer than 5 minutes. I thought it was going to provide hours of entertainment for the kids.

ThumbRemote

Sale of Goods Act defines quality of goods to include "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied"

A rugby top where the seam comes unstitched is not fit for the purpose of wearing to play rugby. It is down to the retailer to prove that the fault was caused by misuse. Otherwise they need to provide repair/replacement/refund.

McKneff

Do you know something, I would have just got a blummin needle and thread out and restitched the seam.

What a palaver.....

Hintza

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Sale of Goods Act defines quality of goods to include "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied"

A rugby top where the seam comes unstitched is not fit for the purpose of wearing to play rugby. It is down to the retailer to prove that the fault was caused by misuse. Otherwise they need to provide repair/replacement/refund.

You are as always being very black and white and I personally don't think this is as simple as that in this particular instance.

JReacher1

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Sale of Goods Act defines quality of goods to include "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied"

A rugby top where the seam comes unstitched is not fit for the purpose of wearing to play rugby. It is down to the retailer to prove that the fault was caused by misuse. Otherwise they need to provide repair/replacement/refund.

I don't agree.

SuperHan

Wait a minute, who said that anyone has played rugby in the top?

Little Henry may be wearing it when he goes along to watch the match, and not having the top pulled at and torn at all (or one would hope not!)

Either way, the law states that it is the shop to prove how the top has been damaged, not the consumer to defend their story. So even if it has been ripped in a game, the retailer needs to show that before they deny a refund/repair/replacement!

ThumbRemote

Hintza wrote: »

You are as always being very black and white and I personally don't think this is as simple as that in this particular instance.

Feel free to explain.

JReacher1 wrote: »

I don't agree.

The law is not based on your agreement.

Poppie68

McKneff wrote: »

Do you know something, I would have just got a blummin needle and thread out and restitched the seam.

What a palaver.....

:rotfl:Was going to say the same thing...whats wrong with people these days?
I bought a duvet cover last week, a ten inch section had been missed when being manufactured, i got my sewing machine out and it took me less than 60 seconds to repair. would of took 5 mins with a needle and cotton.