SPORTSDIRECT.COM - What Customer Services

thesled

Well I think I have found the answer to this and I have to say it's pretty much no thanks to any of you lot. I'm amazed that so many people, on what is supposed to be a pro-consumer website, have just piled in automatically on the side of SportsDirect based largely on guesswork and a very limited interpretation of the CRA.

It may be 'unreasonable' for SD to have to ensure product integrity across their shops and website but that does not mean they don't have to unless there is a very good reason why not, which it turns out there actually is.

As you know the CRA is based on the law of contract, so its important to establish who the contract is actually with. In the absence of any specific provisions to the contrary, I've suggested that SD would not be able to argue that their website was in any way separate from the shops, mainly because of the extraordinary lengths they go to make them appear the same. Therefore any contract made by reference to 'SportsDirect' the organization would be deemed to include the shops AND the website.

It looks like this worried their lawyers as well, so when you buy from SD-online, you have to tick a box which says this - Goods are supplied by SDI (Brook UK) Limited - I accept the terms and conditions of supply

The terms and conditions include a clause so - 'SportsDirect.com does not sell goods via the Website. The goods available for sale via the Website are sold to you by SDI (Brook UK) Limited, SDI (Brook EU) Limited or SDI (Brook ROW) Limited, depending on your location. Each of these entities is a member of the Sports Direct group'

So what this tells you is that 'SportsDirect.com is actually just the name of the shops - not the website (the webaddress which of course is sportsdirect.com - you really couldn't make it up). But, what it does is to explicitly remove your contract from 'SportsDirect.com' and park it with some other company which runs the website. I'm still not 100% sure this would wash in a court of law as I'm not sure what reliance they would place on a single tickbox, but. . . . .

So I maintain that a buyer who viewed a model or sample of an item in a shop can reasonably expect to be provided with the exact same item when buying from the website unless some explicit (and legally watertight) provision is made that they are contracting with a completely different legal entity. I don't know what other retailer websites do as I don't do much on-line buying but it would be interesting to find out. Another implication of this is without the get-out clause a buyer would be legally allowed to return a faulty website item to a shop whether the shop wanted it or not.

Fosterdog

So you have "discovered" the answer that numerous posters have been trying to tell you all along.

I think you also misunderstood the point of this forum if you thought it was pro consumer. The point of it is to help people know their rights, sometimes the consumer is in the right and we back them all the way and offer as many ways as possible to help them enforce their rights. Other times the consumer is in the wrong and we point that out and try to explain why they don't have the rights they think they have or want to have.

thesled

Fosterdog wrote: »

So you have "discovered" the answer that numerous posters have been trying to tell you all along.

What, so 'we told you you were wrong based on a popular vote and without being able to explain why'. That's pretty useless isn't it?

Billy_Bullocks

thesled wrote: »

What, so 'we told you you were wrong based on a popular vote and without being able to explain why'. That's pretty useless isn't it?

Have you got your refund yet or has your focus being arguing the toss online?

thesled

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Have you got your refund yet or has your focus being arguing the toss online?

What amazes me is the number of people prepared to come out and tell me I'm wrong, especially as they don't have any real clue why.

wealdroam

thesled wrote: »

Well I think I have found the answer to this and I have to say it's pretty much no thanks to any of you lot.

You were told yesterday:

Barny1979 wrote: »

Ultimately Sports Direct stores and their online business are seperate entities...

...but decided that a court wouldn't be interested in that information...

thesled wrote: »

They may will be technically but I don't think a court would be very interested in that when they bend over backwards to present themselves to the consumer as a seamless entity even to the extent of putting the name SPORTSDIRECT.COM over the shop. So I don't think there would be any mileage in trying to maintain that the shops did not represent the website.

What a joke.

Billy_Bullocks

thesled wrote: »

What amazes me is the number of people prepared to come out and tell me I'm wrong, especially as they don't have any real clue why.

So if you know you're right why bother asking?

thesled

wealdroam wrote: »

You were told yesterday:

Ultimately Sports Direct stores and their online business are seperate entities...

...but decided that a court wouldn't be interested in that information...

What a joke.

That fact that 'stores and their online business are seperate entities' doesn't matter. What does is the explicit provision via the tick box/get out clause. Try reading the post properly before commenting.

wealdroam

thesled wrote: »

That fact that 'stores and their online business are seperate entities' doesn't matter. What does is the explicit provision via the tick box/get out clause. Try reading the post properly before commenting.

Then what is post#82 about if it isn't about the sores and their online business being separate entities?

I thought I'd read it properly, but perhaps I misunderstood.

thesled

wealdroam wrote: »

Then what is post#82 about if it isn't about the sores and their online business being separate entities?

I thought I'd read it properly, but perhaps I misunderstood.

The point is that the consumer wouldn't be expected to know they were separate entities (making it an irrelevant technicality) unless they pointed it out in pretty unequivocal terms, which it turns out they do via the tickbox (arguably).