Sports Direct refusing refund for a faulty Squash Racket

frugal_mike

krisdorey wrote: »

And no offense, but do you guys really go 10+ years between re-strings? Or just that you haven't experienced a snapped string in that period. If so Id say you were really lucky.

I've owned both rackets for about 20 years and have never had either restrung. Now obviously they are not in the best condition, but I don't play at a semi professional level so I live with it. I don't play as much as I used to and if I started playing more or playing against better players then I would get a new racket.

wealdroam

geri1965 wrote: »

Why would they? They are not designed to be "used up" in the same way that an ink cartridge would be.

Similarly, rechargeable batteries "are not designed to be "used up" in the same way that an ink cartridge would be".

However, for some reason rechargeable laptop batteries are apparently designated as consumables.

In the case of racquet strings and laptop batteries, it seems to me that these might well be designated as consumables simply because their manufacturers cannot produce a more long lasting item.

None of this alters the fact that the sale of "consumables" is covered by the Sale of Goods Act.

paddyrg

Ah, Dunlop, Sports Direct, RRP £99.99. I'll bet a quid it's just a cheapo own brand under licenced name. Sports Direct co-own the Dunlop brand in fact, that £99.99 figure is pretty notional.

Computer consumables - blank CD's are consumables, power supplies, CPU fans etc you wouldn't normally think of as consumables, which is why I don't think that line of argument helps your case.

That aside, I'd press for the restring, it seems the fairest option. If they don't go for that, go to a better sports shop instead?

jasear

wealdroam wrote: »

Jasear, you have written quite a lot here comparing 'the average user' (my words) with the F1 or Wimbledon pros.

You must concede that SD have no way of knowing how you have used that racket.

For all they know a team of ten people has used it for some 24-hour, 48-hour, even week long marathon for charity, etc, etc.

You may have even rigged it up in a machine to fire rocks at seagulls... who knows.

Now, I am not suggesting that you have done any of these things, but from the seller's point of view, it is possible to break a string within a week.

As has been said, it is for the seller to prove the thing wasn't faulty at the point of sale...

...no need for me to write more as I would only be repeating what I said in post #9.

I might have but in that case the racket is there for the seller to prove I did misuse it. Apart from the string it is in almost brand new condition.

I have done some more research on the issue and I am pessimistic about Sports Direct doing anything about it (I have contacted their HQ). It seems that retailers take the general line that the manufacturers dont provide a warranty for the strings (which is kind of irrelevant because warranty or no warranty you have your statuary rights).

Looking through various websites I have realised that what I feared was actually true and is happening i.e. I have been on several squash sites that recommend you change the strings on a racket because the ones that are fitted by the factory are cheap quality substandard strings that are no good for performance and are not very durable. Obviously they will do that because they know they can just fob off the consumer by saying they cant guarantee the strings and play the "consumable" argument.

However, I am confident that if I take this all the way then I will get what I feel is due to me.

bris

So by your way of thinking if you buy a tv and then a week later drop it and break the screen you can take it back and say, "hey it's under six months prove I dropped it".

It doesn't work like that, this is physical damage, that's all the proof they need, it then falls back to you to prove otherwise.

George_Michael

bris wrote: »

It doesn't work like that, this is physical damage, that's all the proof they need, it then falls back to you to prove otherwise.

A heel falling off a shoe that was bought 2 days earlier.
A door falling off a recently purchased oven.
A key sticking in on a new computer keyboard.
Etc
Etc

All physical damage so according to your theory, the purchaser of the items above would have to prove that they didn't damage the goods, and they couldn't rely on the SOGA, an act which is very specific about this:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods
or the nature of the lack of conformity.

Trading Standards also clearly state that a retailer must prove that the consumer caused the fault.
Physical damage is just that, physical damage. On its own it is not proof of anything.

A professional squash player, or someone employed in the manufacture of rackets might be able to look at a broken string and give an informed opinion of how the damage happened, but I would be extremely surprised if the manager of a budget sporting equipment store had the required expertise to make an informed decision.

jasear

bris wrote: »

So by your way of thinking if you buy a tv and then a week later drop it and break the screen you can take it back and say, "hey it's under six months prove I dropped it".

It doesn't work like that, this is physical damage, that's all the proof they need, it then falls back to you to prove otherwise.

Sorry but this is such a terrible example.

Its not part of the normal function of a TV to drop it hence if you drop it then it is your negligence.

On the other hand you dont buy a squash racket to put it on a table to watch and admire it. The normal function of a squash racket is to hit a ball and use it to play squash. If as part of its normal function it stops functioning in a week then why should I not expect better? Who in their right mind pays £40+ to get 1 weeks worth of games from a squash racket?

Taking your TV example it would have made more sense if you said something like if you went to switch the tele on and the power button broke. If that happened within a week would you not be !!!!ed off? Would u not be annoyed that such an expensive TV is made of such terrible quality that within a week its button got damaged from normal usage?

Of course you would.