Consumer Rights when item not under UK law

Seskie

Hi,

Im new to this but need some advice.

Bought a pair of Roger tennis inspired sneakers from the 'ON running' website. read the reviews (where people had posted about wearing for tennis) and brief description. Worn once on court and they were wearing out! reported this to ON under their warranty and they said these are not tennis shoes and as they have not been used correctly would not refund or replace. 
where do I stand as they say not UK company ?

user1977

Generally, you have the consumer rights (if any) under the jurisdiction of the retailer. But I see their terms say

"11.1 Contractual relations covered by these GTC between On and the Customer shall be governed by Swiss law to the exclusion of international treaties, particularly the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (CISG). All conflicts and disputes arising, directly or indirectly, under or in connection with the contractual relationship between On and the Customer shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Zurich, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. On shall be entitled to alternatively sue the Customer at the competent court at Customer's domicile.

11.2 The choice of law and jurisdiction in Section 11.1 above shall not apply if and to the extent that you (a) qualify as a consumer within the meaning of Swiss law or any other applicable legislation, and therefore (b) are mandatorily entitled to (i) invoke the application of the local law of your country of residence; and/or (ii) submit any disputes under or in connection with the Customer’s contractual relationship with On to the competent courts of the Customer’s place of residence."

so it sounds like Swiss law allows you to apply UK law to the contract - though if it came to it, I'm not sure how suing a Swiss company in UK courts works.

tightauldgit

Where are ON based is it Switzerland? 

I imagine you'd have to check the T&Cs of your purchase and the consumer law in Switzerland to see what rights you have. Their reasoning sounds like BS to me, no matter whether they are designed for tennis or not they should last more than one wear! 

Did you pay by CC? If so it might be simpler to just raise a dispute with the CC company and tell them you were sold shoddy goods and the supplier has refused to refund them. 

shiraz99

Even if they were a UK company or your consumer rights were in the UK I think you would struggle with this anyway as clearly they are a fashion shoe, albeit tennis "inspired" so I don't think you would have any argument about them not being fit for purpose if you've worn them out on court playing tennis.

sheramber

They  are described as 'tennis inspired'. That sounds like a design feature rather than a description for use.

ost syles seem to be for day to day wearing , running or light sports.

Which  model did you buy ?

You can scroll down here and compare styles to see what they are designed for.

https://www.on-running.com/en-gb/products/cloud-x/womens/aloe-surf

born_again

tightauldgit said:

Where are ON based is it Switzerland? 

I imagine you'd have to check the T&Cs of your purchase and the consumer law in Switzerland to see what rights you have. Their reasoning sounds like BS to me, no matter whether they are designed for tennis or not they should last more than one wear! 

Did you pay by CC? If so it might be simpler to just raise a dispute with the CC company and tell them you were sold shoddy goods and the supplier has refused to refund them. 

Shoddy goods is not a dispute right 🤷‍♂️

Op has not said what sort of court they played on & how long, which will have a big bearing on how they perform. 10 mins on grass is vastly different to 10 mins on gravel or tarmac. Add in these are not Tennis shoes, only inspired by Mr Federer.

But they are only "Wearing out" not worn out. Bug difference.

tightauldgit

born_again said:

tightauldgit said:

Where are ON based is it Switzerland? 

I imagine you'd have to check the T&Cs of your purchase and the consumer law in Switzerland to see what rights you have. Their reasoning sounds like BS to me, no matter whether they are designed for tennis or not they should last more than one wear! 

Did you pay by CC? If so it might be simpler to just raise a dispute with the CC company and tell them you were sold shoddy goods and the supplier has refused to refund them. 

Shoddy goods is not a dispute right 🤷‍♂️

Op has not said what sort of court they played on & how long, which will have a big bearing on how they perform. 10 mins on grass is vastly different to 10 mins on gravel or tarmac. Add in these are not Tennis shoes, only inspired by Mr Federer.

But they are only "Wearing out" not worn out. Bug difference.

Yes of course forgive me my poetic license. The product is defective, or at least that's the claim that the OP is making so the quality of the goods clearly didn't meet their expectations. They can raise with the CC company if the manufacturer refuses to refund. 

I don't really care if the goods were worn on a building site they should last more than one wear. And the fact that they aren't tennis-specific shoes is neither here nor there - playing sport is a typical use-case for any trainer. Unless they came with a specific warning not to use them to play tennis then I can't see that the manufacturer has any comeback on that front, as much as they might try. 

If they aren't actually defective then of course that's different but I'm going on what the OP tells us. I don't know what Swiss law says but I can't imagine it's all that different from UK and EU consumer law and if the trainers are genuinely knackered after 1 use then they are not up to scratch. 

RogerBareford

tightauldgit said:

born_again said:

tightauldgit said:

Where are ON based is it Switzerland? 

I imagine you'd have to check the T&Cs of your purchase and the consumer law in Switzerland to see what rights you have. Their reasoning sounds like BS to me, no matter whether they are designed for tennis or not they should last more than one wear! 

Did you pay by CC? If so it might be simpler to just raise a dispute with the CC company and tell them you were sold shoddy goods and the supplier has refused to refund them. 

Shoddy goods is not a dispute right 🤷‍♂️

Op has not said what sort of court they played on & how long, which will have a big bearing on how they perform. 10 mins on grass is vastly different to 10 mins on gravel or tarmac. Add in these are not Tennis shoes, only inspired by Mr Federer.

But they are only "Wearing out" not worn out. Bug difference.

Yes of course forgive me my poetic license. The product is defective, or at least that's the claim that the OP is making so the quality of the goods clearly didn't meet their expectations. They can raise with the CC company if the manufacturer refuses to refund. 

I don't really care if the goods were worn on a building site they should last more than one wear. And the fact that they aren't tennis-specific shoes is neither here nor there - playing sport is a typical use-case for any trainer. Unless they came with a specific warning not to use them to play tennis then I can't see that the manufacturer has any comeback on that front, as much as they might try. 

If they aren't actually defective then of course that's different but I'm going on what the OP tells us. I don't know what Swiss law says but I can't imagine it's all that different from UK and EU consumer law and if the trainers are genuinely knackered after 1 use then they are not up to scratch. 

Say the shoes are "defective" ans "Knackered" is a bit of a stretch from the OP.

"they were wearing out" could just mean they are showing signs of being scuffed on the bottom.

tightauldgit

RogerBareford said:

tightauldgit said:

born_again said:

tightauldgit said:

Where are ON based is it Switzerland? 

I imagine you'd have to check the T&Cs of your purchase and the consumer law in Switzerland to see what rights you have. Their reasoning sounds like BS to me, no matter whether they are designed for tennis or not they should last more than one wear! 

Did you pay by CC? If so it might be simpler to just raise a dispute with the CC company and tell them you were sold shoddy goods and the supplier has refused to refund them. 

Shoddy goods is not a dispute right 🤷‍♂️

Op has not said what sort of court they played on & how long, which will have a big bearing on how they perform. 10 mins on grass is vastly different to 10 mins on gravel or tarmac. Add in these are not Tennis shoes, only inspired by Mr Federer.

But they are only "Wearing out" not worn out. Bug difference.

Yes of course forgive me my poetic license. The product is defective, or at least that's the claim that the OP is making so the quality of the goods clearly didn't meet their expectations. They can raise with the CC company if the manufacturer refuses to refund. 

I don't really care if the goods were worn on a building site they should last more than one wear. And the fact that they aren't tennis-specific shoes is neither here nor there - playing sport is a typical use-case for any trainer. Unless they came with a specific warning not to use them to play tennis then I can't see that the manufacturer has any comeback on that front, as much as they might try. 

If they aren't actually defective then of course that's different but I'm going on what the OP tells us. I don't know what Swiss law says but I can't imagine it's all that different from UK and EU consumer law and if the trainers are genuinely knackered after 1 use then they are not up to scratch. 

Say the shoes are "defective" ans "Knackered" is a bit of a stretch from the OP.

"they were wearing out" could just mean they are showing signs of being scuffed on the bottom.

If they're just scuffed on slightly on the bottom then it really wouldn't be worth complaining about on the warranty and whether or not they were designed for tennis would be irrelevant as it would be normal wear and tear - so I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that it was something worth complaining about. 

Obviously I haven't seen the shoes or the damage.