Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

Money-Saving-King

If you try and argue with Thumbremote that the retailer isn't wrong I can guarantee the keys on your keyboard will have worn thin and and your fingers will slip off them before Thumbremote gives up!

WTFH

Hintza wrote: »

Now this is just plain wrong. ALL tyres in the UK have to meet a minimum standard.

For example a premium brand will stop a car at 70m whilst a car with a budget tyre is still travelling at 31mph and takes a further 14m to stop. Both tyres meet the minimum standard for use in the UK.

Stop arguing with ThumbRemote by presenting facts - that's not allowed.
Remember: all businesses are evil and should really just give consumers money at all times.

Here's a few facts I've found out in this thread:
1. The shoes may meet legal requirements for manufacture, but they make no claims or promises to the level of grip they will provide.
2. They were bought "recently" but were worn during the summer months. That means they are 6+ months old.
3. Until two days ago they had never had any grip problems. 6+ months of wearing, no issue with grip.
4. Suddenly they lost all grip after 6+ months of use and now they are "dangerous".
5. The OP doesn't want a refund of the £8 paid, but wants to sue, because it took them 6+ months to discover that an £8 pair of "trainers" aren't that good.

ThumbRemote

Hintza wrote: »

Now this is just plain wrong. ALL tyres in the UK have to meet a minimum standard.

For example a premium brand will stop a car at 70m whilst a car with a budget tyre is still travelling at 31mph and takes a further 14m to stop. Both tyres meet the minimum standard for use in the UK.

That's exactly what I said. There is a minimum acceptable standard.

Hintza

ThumbRemote wrote: »

That's exactly what I said. There is a minimum acceptable standard.

No it is not what you said, this is what you said:-

ThumbRemote wrote: »

A set of tyres that slip at low speed in any wet conditions will obviously be below the minimum.

ThumbRemote

What don't you understand about that?

"A set of tyres that slip at low speed in any wet conditions will obviously be below the minimum."

Therefore, a set of tyres that slip at 10mph in slightly damp conditions are below the minimum.

You're arguing exactly the same point as me.

WTFH

Thumb, is a set of tyres that slide 20% further than another set "below the minimum" in your book?

adouglasmhor

DaveTheMus wrote: »

Should the driver with the cheapest tyre's have tailored his driving based on the combination of the driving conditions and the assumed limitations of budget tyre's?

This is the correct option. As you knew :snow_grin

I went ärse over tït last week because I went out walking the dogs in an old pair of skate trainers with no grip left on them at all. On the way back I walked along a flooded (though only about an inch deep and flowing) path and fell. I had to get changed before going to work as I was drenched but was otherwise uninjured as luckily I can breakfall.:rotfl:
Funnily enough my first thought was not what can I claim.

ThumbRemote

WTFH wrote: »

Thumb, is a set of tyres that slide 20% further than another set "below the minimum" in your book?

It depends on how far the other set slide.

Hintza

ThumbRemote wrote: »

What don't you understand about that?

All tyres in this country have to meet a minimum specification so they are all de facto classified as "safe" and meet that minimum standard, therefore what you are saying is nonsense because they will have met the minimum standard even if they slide.

WTFH

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It depends on how far the other set slide.

Simple - as I explained. One set slides 20% futher than another set. The difference between the two is 20%.
At 30mph, that would be 14 metres difference (roughly 46 feet), or to use FFF system "longer than a double decker bus"