Can I ask for a refund or the correct product

Sandrah

yes they are visibly marked and the packet had 57mm on them. Not looking good I guess

ThumbRemote

I suspect then you are going to struggle. Yes the store provided the wrong products, but they could argue you have accepted them (in the terms of the Sale of Goods Act). In theory you can return under the Distance Selling Regulations, but realistically you aren't going to get a refund if the product itself is damaged.

The best bet may be to ebay them.

lucy03

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I suspect then you are going to struggle. Yes the store provided the wrong products, but they could argue you have accepted them (in the terms of the Sale of Goods Act). In theory you can return under the Distance Selling Regulations, but realistically you aren't going to get a refund if the product itself is damaged.

The best bet may be to ebay them.

I agree with your advice but personally I'd pursue it and still reject them under the DSRs and request an unconditional refund, even if the retailer counter-claims for damage caused to the product.

I understand that the problem is that it could quite possibly only be resolved by action via the small claims court route, but based on both the law and the OP having acted reasonably, I'd pursue it if it were me.

The OP does have the option of sending a letter before action which might make the retailer change their mind to avoid legal action.

But the easiest solution in terms of less stress and hassle is probably to eBay them.

cookie365

How can anyone argue that it was unreasonable that the op should not have spotted the error without also arguing that it was unreasonable for the retailer to not spot the error?

If the retailer's position is that it was obvious the wrong item was sent, why wasn't it obvious enough when they sent it?

marliepanda

cookie365 wrote: »

How can anyone argue that it was unreasonable that the op should not have spotted the error without also arguing that it was unreasonable for the retailer to not spot the error?

If the retailer's position is that it was obvious the wrong item was sent, why wasn't it obvious enough when they sent it?

Clearly the wrong item was picked up.

That does not however give the consumer the right to use/damage the product. The packaging clearly stated what the product was.

For another example, I buy a pair of size 7 shoes. They send me a size 6. It states on the box and the shoes its a size 6. I try them on, think they feel a bit tight, so decide to go run around a muddy track to test them out.

Then I get home, check the box, see they're a size 6 and say oh I'll send these muddy used shoes back as theyre the wrong size.

Yes the seller has a responsibility to send the right thing, but there has to be some responsibility on the person receiving too.

lucy03

marliepanda wrote: »

Clearly the wrong item was picked up.

That does not however give the consumer the right to use/damage the product. The packaging clearly stated what the product was.

The DSRs do in theory give them that right, there's no mention of not testing the product and the retailer is technically meant to refund (but there is the problem of having to go to court to enforce it and then facing a counter-claim).

The reality is IMO that the court would decide what was reasonable. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable for the OP to have opened the product assuming that it was the correct one. The fact that they could have double-checked isn't necessarily relevant. If it is obvious that the product was wrong then this is a mistake that the retailer has also made.

marliepanda wrote: »

For another example, I buy a pair of size 7 shoes. They send me a size 6. It states on the box and the shoes its a size 6. I try them on, think they feel a bit tight, so decide to go run around a muddy track to test them out.

Personally I don't see they're comparable products. Shoes sizes are not an exact science and so most consumers would likely try them on inside as there are many reasons they wouldn't fit, wrong width, too tight at the end, etc.

The OP ordered a specific product and deliberately picked a size they knew would work. It's not unreasonable IMO for the OP to put the wheels on and expect them to work, they were the specific item that they ordered.

marliepanda

Of course you can try a shoe on. You could in a shop. You cannot go for a run in them.

Likewise, a shop does not allow you to put the wheels on your skateboard and go ride around outside. The DSR give you the same inspection rights as a shop.

Putting them on the skateboard and testing them outside is not covered by the DSR, as no shop would allow that.

cookie365

marliepanda wrote: »

Of course you can try a shoe on. You could in a shop. You cannot go for a run in them.

Likewise, a shop does not allow you to put the wheels on your skateboard and go ride around outside. The DSR give you the same inspection rights as a shop.

Putting them on the skateboard and testing them outside is not covered by the DSR, as no shop would allow that.

This isn't a DSR issue, it's a SOGA issue. Though I don't think it would be difficult to persuade a district judge that it's unreasonable to expect somebody to test skateboard wheels by skateboarding around indoors

I would be looking at a credit card chargeback in the OP's [STRIKE]shoes[/STRIKE] wheels

marliepanda

Well that would depend if putting on the wheels and riding around on them is deemed accepting the incorrect goods. How else would you accept skateboard wheels?

I believe a judge would find it completely acceptable to read the packet the items came in...

lucy03

marliepanda wrote: »

Of course you can try a shoe on. You could in a shop. You cannot go for a run in them.

Likewise, a shop does not allow you to put the wheels on your skateboard and go ride around outside. The DSR give you the same inspection rights as a shop.

Putting them on the skateboard and testing them outside is not covered by the DSR, as no shop would allow that.

The Distance Selling Regulations do not correspond to what a shop would allow. The consumer should take reasonable care of the goods, although technically the retailer should refund them even if they don't.

The court would decide what is reasonable. It is only my opinion, but it doesn't appear unreasonable to me that a consumer would put the wheels on because they knew the wheels to be the right size, that's the size they ordered. The comparison with shoes is IMO irrelevant because those are products most people would likely try on first anyway because sizing on shoes can vary in numerous ways.

The retailer can't easily argue that the mistake should have been obvious, as in that case, the retailer too should have noticed it.

As others have pointed out, a claim under the Sales of Good Act would also be valid (and probably better), and the retailer should then refund the return postage as well.