Help regarding fit for sale

Bantex_2

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?

If the is SportDirect forget any level of customer service etc. They are fine for what they are which is cheap chav "sportswear" but if you want any serious kit go to a proper retailer.

The shoes could be worth a punt at £25.00, if they are not much cop just use them for gardening.

unholyangel

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?

Ask them in writing (ie email)?

Small claims goes on the balance of probabilities, so while having it in writing isnt necessary, it does make it easier rather than arguing who said what. However for the price involved (£25), small claims would be counter productive.

If goods fail within the first 6 months its up to them to prove it was through misuse/natural wear n tear.

However do be aware that employees are not expected to be flawless. They'd only be expected to be as good as their ability (so asking them questions only experts would know wouldnt likely hold up).

ThumbRemote

feygan wrote: »

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?

Yes, you're correct. This is covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

feygan

Ok one final thing and I should be in a better state of understanding. SoGA states that a customer needs to ask about the use of the product to have any chance of arguing an unfit for purpose case. So for example I ask "I intend to run 30 miles a week on stony forest trails in these. Will they last me for the next six months used that way." If in four months they fall to a thousand pieces then the retailers has broken contract and I am within my rights to request a replacement only as SoGA does not allow for demanding refunds etc?

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Yes, you're correct. This is covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Which part of the UTR's?

ThumbRemote

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Which part of the UTR's?

Section 5, misleading actions, paragraphs 2 and 4g covers misleading pricing.

Of course, as per my earlier post, the retailer could claim that the product is comparable to one at the higher price - but then they have to deal with it under the SoGA.

feygan

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Section 5, misleading actions, paragraphs 2 and 4g covers misleading pricing.

Of course, as per my earlier post, the retailer could claim that the product is comparable to one at the higher price - but then they have to deal with it under the SoGA.

Claiming comparable qualifies as a customer saying "so is this product as good at that one" and pointing at a product not on sale and being told yes?

ThumbRemote

feygan wrote: »

Claiming comparable qualifies as a customer saying "so is this product as good at that one" and pointing at a product not on sale and being told yes?

Yes, although you'd have a devil of a job to prove that later in court.

feygan

Ok so really the entire issue then just comes down to the ability to prove the specifics of a contract exist or not. Thanks for the help.

Bantex_2

feygan wrote: »

Ok so really the entire issue then just comes down to the ability to prove the specifics of a contract exist or not. Thanks for the help.

For the sake of £25 quid?