SPORTSDIRECT.COM - What Customer Services

thesled

steampowered wrote: »

I can see how this is a really annoying situation.

However I don't think this means the shoes were not 'as described'. It is entirely possible that a shoe manufacturer will make multiple different models of a similar shoe, and also possible that the model sold online is slightly different to what you saw in store.

Not so sure about that. Consider this -

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Section 14 Goods to match a model seen or examined

(1) This section applies to a contract to supply goods by reference to a model of the goods that is seen or examined by the consumer before entering into the contract.

(2) Every contract to which this section applies is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the model except to the extent that any differences between the model and the goods are brought to the consumer's attention before the consumer enters into the contract.

DoaM

Beat me to it ... OP clarified the situation 1.5 hours after wealdroam had posted.

DoaM

thesled wrote: »

Not so sure about that. Consider this -

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Section 14 Goods to match a model seen or examined

(1) This section applies to a contract to supply goods by reference to a model of the goods that is seen or examined by the consumer before entering into the contract.

(2) Every contract to which this section applies is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the model except to the extent that any differences between the model and the goods are brought to the consumer's attention before the consumer enters into the contract.

You're flogging a dead horse with this ... devil woman has already highlighted the flaw in your argument (i.e. not exclusively a distance contract if you make reference to trying on a pair in the shop. You would have to prove that what SD supplied [per the online order] did not match what they described [for the online order]).

LABMAN

wealdroam wrote: »

In the way the OP described it in their original post.

Not in my reading of the OP. OP was ambiguous and needed clarified and when it was...?

thesled

DoaM wrote: »

You're flogging a dead horse with this ... devil woman has already highlighted the flaw in your argument (i.e. not exclusively a distance contract if you make reference to trying on a pair in the shop. You would have to prove that what SD supplied [per the online order] did not match what they described [for the online order]).

Nope. Don't accept any of that. For a start, all this stuff about distance/not distance is a complete red herring because that's just about the 14-day rule and that is not what is in question here.

Consider this - If you tried on a shoe in SD and they were fine, went back a few days later and just picked up a box from the shelf (even maybe from another branch), then when you took them home you found they weren't quite the same and they didn't fit, you would think you would have a case for return wouldn't you?

I would argue my case is no different. SD-online is just another branch of SD for the purposes of, and I think being run by the same people, using the same logo and selling basically the same stuff they would have a pretty hard job proving otherwise.

In the CRA there are clear provisions, referred to above, that 'The Goods should be what the consumer expects'. There is in law a 'reasonable person test' and that is referred to quite a few times in the CRA. In this case it would be that a reasonable person, having examined/tried on/inspected goods in a shop belonging to an organisation could reasonably expect when ordering goods of the exact same name from the online part of that organisation to be provided with the exact same goods, unless clearly notified to the contrary.

So I am certain I have a pretty good case but will it have it's day in court for £9? I seriously doubt it. This seems to be the problem with the CRA. There are a lot of fine words but very litte you can do about it if things go wrong other than take stuff to court which is potentially expensive and risky. Not to mention ridiculously time consuming.

Bogalot

thesled wrote: »

Nope. Don't accept any of that. For a start, all this stuff about distance/not distance is a complete red herring because that's just about the 14-day rule and that is not what is in question here.

Consider this - If you tried on a shoe in SD and they were fine, went back a few days later and just picked up a box from the shelf (even maybe from another branch), then when you took them home you found they weren't quite the same and they didn't fit, you would think you would have a case for return wouldn't you?

I would argue my case is no different. SD-online is just another branch of SD for the purposes of, and I think being run by the same people, using the same logo and selling basically the same stuff they would have a pretty hard job proving otherwise.

In the CRA there are clear provisions, referred to above, that 'The Goods should be what the consumer expects'. There is in law a 'reasonable person test' and that is referred to quite a few times in the CRA. In this case it would be that a reasonable person, having examined/tried on/inspected goods in a shop belonging to an organisation could reasonably expect when ordering goods of the exact same name from the online part of that organisation to be provided with the exact same goods, unless clearly notified to the contrary.

So I am certain I have a pretty good case but will it have it's day in court for £9? I seriously doubt it. This seems to be the problem with the CRA. There are a lot of fine words but very litte you can do about it if things go wrong other than take stuff to court which is potentially expensive and risky. Not to mention ridiculously time consuming.

You might not want to accept it but that doesn't make DoaM wrong.

If you are confident of your case then small claims would cost you nothing. So are you confident or are you going to listen to the advice you're being given and accept you made a mistake?

unholyangel

thesled wrote: »

Not so sure about that. Consider this -

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Section 14 Goods to match a model seen or examined

(1) This section applies to a contract to supply goods by reference to a model of the goods that is seen or examined by the consumer before entering into the contract.

(2) Every contract to which this section applies is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the model except to the extent that any differences between the model and the goods are brought to the consumer's attention before the consumer enters into the contract.

Again you're not understanding what its saying. First of all, this isn't a contract to supply goods by reference to a model of the goods that is seen or examined by you before entering into the contract. Its a contract for goods by description.

Whatever goods you saw in store is irrelevant because you didn't buy those goods, you bought different ones.

The explanatory notes helps clarify:

Section 14: Goods to match a model seen or examined

76.This section establishes that if the trader displays or provides a model of the goods in question, then the goods received should match that model, except that any differences brought to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made would not breach this protection.

77.An example is a consumer viewing a television on the shop floor but receiving a boxed television from the stockroom. Under this section the delivered model should match the viewed model (unless any differences are brought to the consumer’s attention before it is bought).

First, the model seen wasn't of the goods in question - it was a model for different goods.

Its also for you to prove that the goods fail to conform to contract - and you're never going to achieve that when the goods do conform to contract, they just don't conform to your expectations because you ordered the wrong goods (ie not because they sent the wrong goods).

thesled

Bogalot wrote: »

You might not want to accept it but that doesn't make DoaM wrong.?

Wrong? Not even technically correct, let alone morally.

Bogalot

thesled wrote: »

Wrong? Not even technically correct, let alone morally.

Is there any point in you posting if you're only going to accept answers that tell you what you want to hear?

thesled

unholyangel wrote: »

Again you're not understanding what its saying. First of all, this isn't a contract to supply goods by reference to a model of the goods that is seen or examined by you before entering into the contract. Its a contract for goods by description.

Whatever goods you saw in store is irrelevant because you didn't buy those goods, you bought different ones.

First, the model seen wasn't of the goods in question - it was a model for different goods.

Its also for you to prove that the goods fail to conform to contract - and you're never going to achieve that when the goods do conform to contract, they just don't conform to your expectations because you ordered the wrong goods (ie not because they sent the wrong goods).

No, I didn't buy different goods. The website supplied different goods. The goods I bought had exactly the same name on the website as they did in the shop (and the same description as far as it goes) and therefore the shop goods provide a reasonable expectation of what I can expect from the website.

Your argument is dependent on establishing that the website and the street shops are separate organisations. Well good luck with that when the shops say 'SPORTSDIRECT.COM' above the door. My argument is that what I see in the shop counts as a model or sample of the goods I can expect from the website. The two are not seperable. See my previous post about the 'reasonable person' test.