Item not as described, used, can I return?

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

it should be easy to find and quote the parts that say goods which fail to meet the description must be unused when returned 

You mean this part (under "Right to Reject"):

There is no entitlement to receive a refund—

(a)if none of subsections (10) to (12) applies,

(b)to the extent that anything to which subsection (12) applies cannot be given back in its original state

(10) to (12) refers to the consumer must have paid for the item one way or another.

It is clear that these trainers after a months' use cannot be returned in their original state.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

it should be easy to find and quote the parts that say goods which fail to meet the description must be unused when returned 

You mean this part (under "Right to Reject"):

There is no entitlement to receive a refund—

(a)if none of subsections (10) to (12) applies,

(b)to the extent that anything to which subsection (12) applies cannot be given back in its original state

(10) to (12) refers to the consumer must have paid for the item one way or another.

It is clear that these trainers after a months' use cannot be returned in their original state.

What you've quoted also refers to the payment, I doubt it was what they were thinking off but off the top of my head if you barter for goods and make payment with a nice homemade cake you can't receive a refund once it's been eaten as that payment can't be given back in it's original state. 

It may also be referring to part exchange where what the consumer exchanged has either been sold on or altered (e.g a car that's been stripped for parts). 


(9)The consumer’s entitlement to receive a refund works as follows.

(10)To the extent that the consumer paid money under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of money.

(11)To the extent that the consumer transferred anything else under the contract, the consumer is entitled to receive back the same amount of what the consumer transferred, unless subsection (12) applies.

(12)To the extent that the consumer transferred under the contract something for which the same amount of the same thing cannot be substituted, the consumer is entitled to receive back in its original state whatever the consumer transferred.

(18)There is no entitlement to receive a refund—

(a)if none of subsections (10) to (12) applies,

(b)to the extent that anything to which subsection (12) applies cannot be given back in its original state, or

shiraz99

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

it should be easy to find and quote the parts that say goods which fail to meet the description must be unused when returned 

You mean this part (under "Right to Reject"):

There is no entitlement to receive a refund—

(a)if none of subsections (10) to (12) applies,

(b)to the extent that anything to which subsection (12) applies cannot be given back in its original state

(10) to (12) refers to the consumer must have paid for the item one way or another.

It is clear that these trainers after a months' use cannot be returned in their original state.

Have you actually read and, importantly, understood subsection 12?

It has nothing to do with not being able to send your goods back in their original state.

I'm not sure that anyone is aware but the gov site publishes explanatory notes alongside it's legislation. The following is the notes for section 20 (Right to Reject) of the CRA which I suggest you have a read of - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/2

NeedSomeHRadvice

I've returned them so we'll wait for the response of JD and I will update the thread. And I didn't run in them at 14km/h only 8.5km/h. I ran at 14km/h in my old reebok trainers which were not cushioned and ended up with a load of injuries so I looked at a few Youtube reviews and the trainers I bought from JD were highly reviewed and reccommeded for cushioning. However, they sent me the wrong model which I only realised after looking at them more closely, but I'd already used them by that point.

cymruchris

NeedSomeHRadvice said:

I've returned them so we'll wait for the response of JD and I will update the thread. And I didn't run in them at 14km/h only 8.5km/h. I ran at 14km/h in my old reebok trainers which were not cushioned and ended up with a load of injuries so I looked at a few Youtube reviews and the trainers I bought from JD were highly reviewed and reccommeded for cushioning. However, they sent me the wrong model which I only realised after looking at them more closely, but I'd already used them by that point.

Look forward to seeing how you get on - and what kind of responses you get. Hopefully positive. 

unholyangel

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

it should be easy to find and quote the parts that say goods which fail to meet the description must be unused when returned 

You mean this part (under "Right to Reject"):

There is no entitlement to receive a refund—

(a)if none of subsections (10) to (12) applies,

(b)to the extent that anything to which subsection (12) applies cannot be given back in its original state

(10) to (12) refers to the consumer must have paid for the item one way or another.

It is clear that these trainers after a months' use cannot be returned in their original state.

Grumpy, as others have explained, that relates to what consideration the consumer provided for the contract. 

And while retailers do also have rights, they're largely contractual and common-law, which take a backseat to statute (which consumer rights are). The purpose of consumer rights is (unsurprisingly imo, given it's name) to try and correct the imbalance in power between a business and a consumer. In other words, the terms are drafted by the business and those terms will seek to protect the business, often to the detriment or exclusion of the consumer and their rights or interests. They are strict in some areas precisely because businesses have previously exploited consumers in these areas. Because consumers dont enter contracts with the same frequency as businesses . Nor do they pass prescriptive laws for a group unless that group was being exploited or treated unfairly and serious/numerous enough to warrant the time spent debating, drafting and passing those prescriptive laws. 

If it is less than 30 days, the consumer can exercise the short term right to reject. 

If it is beyond 30 days then the consumer can request a repair or replacement. The retailer gets 1 attempt to repair or replace. If it fails to bring the goods within conformity then the consumer again has the final right to reject. If the final right to reject is exercised within 6 months, the refund cannot be reduced to take account of use they had. Plus any lack of conformity is presumed to be inherent within the first 6 months, unless retailer proves otherwise or it is incompatible with the nature of the inconformity. Obviously a repair isn't possible in circumstances like this. So that would leave replacement. 

I'm not sure why you feel it fair to criticise the OP for not noticing immediately upon seeing the box, when the retailer didn't notice either. And they sell the things, so will have seen more boxes than OP...but the only difference is probably the information on the side and not the box itself since it was same retailer and range. In what way is OP repeating their mistake worse than the original mistake, so that the OP should be liable for the retailer's negligence while the retailer escapes? 

It is for the party in breach to cover the loss caused by their breach. While in claims for loss the other party can argue you didn't mitigate your loss (and therefore, they shouldn't be liable for the costs that could be reasonably mitigated), I have never heard any argument that the party not in breach should be liable to mitigate the breaching party's losses (thats what any depreciation of the trainers is, a loss of the retailer). That's for the party in breach to do, if they wish.

The law has no problem with the party in breach being liable for their breach, regardless of how expensive it is for them. It's inherently fair that someone should be liable for mistakes they made. 

As a final point, while I do have a very strong reaction to the thought of getting used shoes, this is because I have an aversion to feet full stop.

Shoes are shared by some people (siblings, friends for nights out etc), sold second hand and (back in the day when things were built from quality materials made to last) shoes were often passed down several times to siblings then more distant relatives! But, as others have also said, that's only relevant whether the party in breach can mitigate their loss and to what degree. It doesn't affect the OP's consumer rights. 

Comsumerhelpgenius

cymruchris said:

 your options might be limited as the product is no longer new. Yes they made errors - but you've used both pairs, so they may accept a return at a reduced value as they can no longer sell them at full price. 

No, if they did send the wrong trainers, they should make a full refund if returned within 30 days, it is irrelevant if the trainers were used or new. Deduction for use can be only done if the product was kept for 6 months +