Help regarding fit for sale

powerful_Rogue

Look at reviews of the item from various sources. If your looking for a good trail shoe at a reasonable price, I would highly recommend the Adidas Kanadia 5.

unholyangel

feygan wrote: »

How does that relate to items on sale? I can understand if the product was originally being sold at £25 then it should compare with other £25 products. But if it was originally sold at £70+ then how does the fit for sale act allow a sudden drop in quality and reliability of the product by way the sale price? Should it not be still comparable to other products that were sold at £70+ before the sale reduction?

But if you pay £25 for a pair of shoes then they're not a £70 pair of shoes, they are a £25 pair of shoes.

What joe bloggs paid for his pair of the same shoes is irrelevant because he was not party to the contract between you and the retailer (for a £25 pair of shoes).

Providing they dont discriminate based on protected characteristics, retailers are free to charge each person a different price if they so wish.

You may not think value for money is relevant to the conversation but it is relevant to SoGA - since (as above), goods are of satisfactory quality/last a reasonable length of time if they meet the expectations of the average person in the circumstances (including price paid).

Dont buy something because of the RRP and sale price, cost and worth are two entirely different things.

powerful_Rogue

feygan wrote: »

Does this also apply if the company has sold the product at a higher price before? I do not mean just the rrp listed but this being a sale price of a marked shelf price from a couple of months previous. In this situation should the product be up to the quality of a product that was also sold at the previous price at the same time or of the same quality of a product that is sold elsewhere at this new sale price?

I'm struggling to understand how the protection offered under a "price paid" can be effected by a sale reduction from a previous shelf price and how a product can suddenly be deemed for example half the quality today as it was yesterday simply by placing a 50% sale sticker on it.

The higher price paid will only be relevant to the people that purchased the shoe at that price.

For instance, shoe originally sells for £150 but only lasts for 400 miles. People complain the shoe is not fit for purpose due to the limited mileage vs the high price.

Retailer then drops the price to £30. A shoe lasting 400 miles at that price to me seems fit for purpose.

Bantex_2

feygan wrote: »

Does this also apply if the company has sold the product at a higher price before? I do not mean just the rrp listed but this being a sale price of a marked shelf price from a couple of months previous. In this situation should the product be up to the quality of a product that was also sold at the previous price at the same time or of the same quality of a product that is sold elsewhere at this new sale price?

I'm struggling to understand how the protection offered under a "price paid" can be effected by a sale reduction from a previous shelf price and how a product can suddenly be deemed for example half the quality today as it was yesterday simply by placing a 50% sale sticker on it.

You seem to have fallen for the hype. Chances are they have hardly ever sold any at the higher price.

Anyway, sale of goods act only refers to the price paid.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

ThumbRemote

Bantex wrote: »

Fit for use takes the price paid into account. Expect no more protection than you would get for any other £25.00 shoe.

OlliesDad wrote: »

No - Sales of Goods Act makes no reference to RRP's.. just the price paid.

vuvuzela wrote: »

Therefore you would expect the lifespan of a £25 pair.

This is not strictly true. The SoGA states "taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances."

An RRP or previous selling price is being used by the retailer as part of the description of the goods. This should therefore be taken into account.

Also, the retailer doesn't have any defence against this, as if the shoes do not have the expected quality of a £70+ pair then the retailer has breached the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations by deliberately misrepresenting the product.

powerful_Rogue

Forgot to add, 500 miles is the average distance quoted before you should look at replacing your running shoes.

WestonDave

One reason why it might be deemed half the quality today is that the reason behind the 50% reduction is the number of early returns because of poor quality!


The other point to bear in mind is the extent that its going to be worth pushing a "fit for purpose" case on a £30 pair of shoes. If a £100+ pair last 500 miles, and your cheap pair only do 250 you've still done better financially by buying the cheaper ones so its going to be hard to show you've suffered a loss than needs to be compensated.

feygan

Ok that clears up the confusion thank you. So in regards to the specific contract between myself and a retailer I believe to be covered I am required to ensure I ask certain questions that pertain to how I will use the product. If the retailers tells me the product will be able to perform in all situations I ask about them I am covered should it fail inside six months?

If that is correct what would I need to do to ensure I have some form of cover at that time should the worst arise. My issue is I could speak to a store assistant today who sells me the product assuring me it will me my specified demands, then should it fail and I return the product I get a manager saying "sorry he/she doesn't work here anymore and you have no proof go away". Should I be required to get anything in writing or not?

ThumbRemote

feygan wrote: »

Ok that clears up the confusion thank you. So in regards to the specific contract between myself and a retailer I believe to be covered I am required to ensure I ask certain questions that pertain to how I will use the product. If the retailers tells me the product will be able to perform in all situations I ask about them I am covered should it fail inside six months?

If that is correct what would I need to do to ensure I have some form of cover at that time should the worst arise. My issue is I could speak to a store assistant today who sells me the product assuring me it will me my specified demands, then should it fail and I return the product I get a manager saying "sorry he/she doesn't work here anymore and you have no proof go away". Should I be required to get anything in writing or not?

Good luck trying to get anything in writing!

If there's a fault, Sports Direct won't refund you, they'll claim you misused the shoes somehow. To get anywhere you'll need to go to small claims court, which you probably won't be bothered to do for £25.

It's up to you whether you want to risk it or not.

feygan

Forgot to add a quick question with regard to the price paid an rrp. I can understand SoGA applies to the price paid today. But if you are being sold a product at an amazingly low price that is %9000 lower than the rrp showing what a great deal you are getting. Then surely you can argue deception in the sale of the product if it turns out that it really isn't as good as a product sold at the level of the rrp?

A customer should take reponsibility for their own product research, but should a retailer not also sell a product without comparing it to better quality objects by means of a reduced sale price?