SPORTSDIRECT.COM - What Customer Services

NCC-1707

thesled wrote: »

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

It's not!! Why didn't you?

thesled

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

No, I didn't order the wrong goods because that suggests I had the choice of ordering the right goods. I simply ordered the same goods that were available in the shop. The fact that the website sent me something different is down to them.

I don't think the courts would have a problem applying a reasonable person test regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the act in the form I describe above. It is a very standard device.

If there is one thing I've learnt spending many hours in courts and tribunals is that judges (contrary to what many people expect) are very rarely interested in technicalities. That's why I think all that's required is for me to have a reasonable expectation that the shoes I get from the website should be the same as the ones I saw in the shop, given the various qualifications previously discussed.

Billy_Bullocks

thesled wrote: »

No, I didn't order the wrong goods because that suggests I had the choice of ordering the right goods. I simply ordered the same goods that were available in the shop. The fact that the website sent me something different is down to them.

I don't think the courts would have a problem applying a reasonable person test regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the act in the form I describe above. It is a very standard device.

If there is one thing I've learnt spending many hours in courts and tribunals is that judges (contrary to what many people expect) are very rarely interested in technicalities. That's why I think all that's required is for me to have a reasonable expectation that the shoes I get from the website should be the same as the ones I saw in the shop, given the various qualifications previously discussed.

Just give up with this thread mate.

Do what you want, you obviously know best.

unholyangel

thesled wrote: »

No, I didn't order the wrong goods because that suggests I had the choice of ordering the right goods. I simply ordered the same goods that were available in the shop. The fact that the website sent me something different is down to them.

I don't think the courts would have a problem applying a reasonable person test regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the act in the form I describe above. It is a very standard device.

If there is one thing I've learnt spending many hours in courts and tribunals is that judges (contrary to what many people expect) are very rarely interested in technicalities. That's why I think all that's required is for me to have a reasonable expectation that the shoes I get from the website should be the same as the ones I saw in the shop, given the various qualifications previously discussed.

If you truly had spent many hours in courts and tribunals then you should know judges can't just make up law as they go along. In a nutshell they have to interpret & apply the law as it was written & intended by lawmakers.

If your claim is not founded on law then you have no legal claim - the judge cannot just invent one based on what you think is fair.

thesled

unholyangel wrote: »

If you truly had spent many hours in courts and tribunals then you should know judges can't just make up law as they go along. In a nutshell they have to interpret & apply the law as it was written & intended by lawmakers.

If your claim is not founded on law then you have no legal claim - the judge cannot just invent one based on what you think is fair.

I think the view I've taken is well within the terms of the relevant law.

daytona0

thesled wrote: »

That's why I think all that's required is for me to have a reasonable expectation that the shoes I get from the website should be the same as the ones I saw in the shop, given the various qualifications previously discussed.

But, as I previously stated, what if the shop was wrong?

What if your whole sentence was re-written like this;

re-written wrote:

That's why I think all that's required is for me to have a reasonable expectation that the shoes I get from the shop should be the same as the ones I saw on the website, [STRIKE]given the various qualifications previously discussed.[/STRIKE][you haven't previously discussed my hypothetical]

Bit bold to state that the online store are in the wrong here, when it is not impossible to rule out the SHOP being in the wrong here...

(and that ASSUMES that there IS an issue!! I'm not confident that there is )

thesled

daytona0 wrote: »

But, as I previously stated, what if the shop was wrong?

Bit bold to state that the online store are in the wrong here, when it is not impossible to rule out the SHOP being in the wrong here...

The concept of one being right and one being wrong really doesn't help very much. The point is that they are not the same. I suppose you could make an argument that if you bought something on the website you could reasonably expect to find the same thing in the shop, but it doesn't really work on any practical level.

steampowered

I don't think this was a 'sale by sample'. You sampled a different model of shoe.

I do not see how the reference to a 'reasonable person' is relevant.

Personally I think you are on to a loser here Op. Sorry.

The important thing is to make sure that you give notice that you wish to return the goods within the relevant deadline, so that you can at least return the trainers for a refund even if you end up out of pocket for the postage.

thesled

steampowered wrote: »

I don't think this was a 'sale by sample'. You sampled a different model of shoe.

I do not see how the reference to a 'reasonable person' is relevant.

Personally I think you are on to a loser here Op. Sorry.

The important thing is to make sure that you give notice that you wish to return the goods within the relevant deadline, so that you can at least return the trainers for a refund even if you end up out of pocket for the postage.

Yes, but the point is I didn't KNOW it was a different model, nor could I reasonably have been expected to. SD certainly didn't tell me. Otherwise yes. Even if I have a case, SD certainly won't accept it and my only remedy is to go to court, which for £9 I won't be. So I will probably just return the shoes for the bog standard 14 day refund.

wealdroam

thesled wrote: »

Yes, but the point is I didn't KNOW it was a different model, nor could I reasonably have been expected to. SD certainly didn't tell me.

Did you ask?