faulty boots compensation

RustyWhitby

I bought a pair of boots yesterday only to discover today that they are faulty. I returned to the shop this afternoon and was offered a full refund (they didn't have another pair). Given that I had to go into town again today and pay for parking, plus the inconvenience I expected some form of compensation. The manager was apparently consulted by phone and refused.
Is it reasonable for me to have expected more?
thanks

System

RustyWhitby wrote: »

Is it reasonable for me to have expected more?

Yes it is . . . . .

societys_child

RustyWhitby wrote: »

Is it reasonable for me to have expected more?

No it's not . . . . . .

want_to_save

no to be honest they gave you a refund...

earthstorm

RustyWhitby wrote: »

Given that I had to go into town again today and pay for parking, plus the inconvenience I expected some form of compensation. The manager was apparently consulted by phone and refused.
Is it reasonable for me to have expected more?
thanks

No you were refunded , which places you in the same position you were in before you purchased the boots.

bris

Actuall the law states you are entitled to consequential losses, in this case reasonable travel expenses, getting them to agree however is a different matter.

earthstorm

bris wrote: »

Actuall the law states you are entitled to consequential losses, in this case reasonable travel expenses, getting them to agree however is a different matter.

then you need to prove you only traveled back to return the goods, if you traveled their and did shopping elsewhere they could say you were traveling their anyway.

But yes as bris say it is a hard thing to get them to agree on consequential losses

halibut2209

earthstorm wrote: »

No you were refunded , which places you in the same position you were in before you purchased the boots.

No it doesn't. They are down on travel costs. But as bris said, it will be hard to get them to agree

bris

earthstorm wrote: »

then you need to prove you only traveled back to return the goods, if you traveled their and did shopping elsewhere they could say you were traveling their anyway.

But yes as bris say it is a hard thing to get them to agree on consequential losses

Where does it say that?

unholyangel

earthstorm wrote: »

then you need to prove you only traveled back to return the goods, if you traveled their and did shopping elsewhere they could say you were traveling their anyway.

But yes as bris say it is a hard thing to get them to agree on consequential losses

Yetton v. Eastwoods Froy Ltd.
"If (the plaintiff in a breach of contract case) can minimize his loss by a reasonable course of conduct, he should do so, though the onus is on the defaulting defendant to show that it could be, or could have been, done and is not being, and has not been done."

OP doesn't need to prove anything, retailer does.

CoolHotCold

But the customer has to take reasonable steps to minimise loses.


There are a ton of ways to argue out of it for the retail and so long as they were polite and reasonable in offering a refund that's all I would expect.