SPORTSDIRECT.COM - What Customer Services

thesled

Bogalot wrote: »

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

I would be very happy to accept an answer that wasn't what I wanted to hear if it made sense and the argument held water, but so far that hasn't happened.

[Deleted User]

thesled wrote: »

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.

Of course it won't go to court. No one agrees that you even have a case, let alone a "pretty good" one.

This thread is just another of those which is answered almost immediately but somehow manages to stretch for pages and goes nowhere.

NCC-1707

thesled wrote: »

I would be very happy to accept an answer that wasn't what I wanted to hear if it made sense and the argument held water, but so far that hasn't happened.

Then I'll paraphrase:- You tried on a shoe in a shop and didn't buy it despite being happy with the item...you chose to purchase elsewhere and you weren't happy...guess who is at fault?

[Deleted User]

NCC-1707 wrote: »

..you chose to purchase elsewhere and you weren't happy...guess who is at fault?

No. He chose to purchase a different item elsewhere!

thesled

NCC-1707 wrote: »

Then I'll paraphrase:- You tried on a shoe in a shop and didn't buy it despite being happy with the item...you chose to purchase elsewhere and you weren't happy...guess who is at fault?

It's not 'elsewhere'. It's the same place.

Barny1979

Do you have a link to the trainers advertised and a photo of the ones you received, so we can comment?

[Deleted User]

Barny1979 wrote: »

Do you have a link to the trainers advertised and a photo of the ones you received, so we can comment?

The OP has already admitted that the shoes he received are the same as those described. He is saying they are not the same as the ones he tried on in a shop.

thesled wrote: »

It's not 'elsewhere'. It's the same place.

This statement really does try to argue that black is white.

I'm out.

Barny1979

So ultimately the OP's mistake.

daytona0

thesled wrote: »

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.

You are trying to say that you received an item which is not as described.

May I kindly point out that, in this instance, you can't actually tell WHICH pair of shoes were the not as described ones!!!

Maybe you went into SD the other day and tried on a pair of shoes which were completely wrong in terms of what stock they have?!

Prove that wasn't the case

(would also be a fairly convincing explanation in your hypothetical scenario RE: picking up a box (without looking inside it; tool) a few days later)


This one is a simple case of "Do the shoes match the picture and the description on the website?" If yes then you have no case. If no then you have a case. Nothing more, nothing less.

unholyangel

thesled wrote: »

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.

The website provided the goods you ordered. You just happened to have ordered the wrong goods. As I said, its up to you to prove that the goods don't conform to contract - I'd wish you good luck with that but even with good luck you won't get anywhere.


Your previous post was a whole load of wishful thinking at best. The ONLY time the CRA makes mention of a reasonable person is in relation to goods being of a satisfactory quality - in that goods are of satisfactory quality if the meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account relevant information. There is NO mention of a reasonable persons standard for matching the model seen or examined.

Mass agreement between members on these forums is rare. Most things we'll disagree on and debate over - this isn't one of those things though so that should speak volumes on its own.