Adidas World Cup Shirts Don't fit Advertised Size

Manxman_in_exile

Manxman_in_exile said:

...It seems quite obvious - to me at least - that selecting an Argentine shirt with the name "Messi" on the back or a Netherlands shirt with "de Bruyne" on the back is a selection from standard pre-set options made available by Adidas to the consumer ...

Of course, if anyone were actually stupid enough to opt for "de Bruyne" on the back of a NL shirt that would be a non-standard option and couldn't be cancelled...   

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

I'm fairly certain that if you buy a shirt from a sports shop (JD Sports or Sports Direct or whatever) with a name on the back it's the sport shop that does the printing and therefore the item can't be returned back to the manufacturer unless its faulty. So to me that's what matters is whether the item can be returned and the retailer is not out of pocket. 

The relationship between the manufacture and trader has nothing to do with consumer rights at all.

No but it does have to do with whether something is exempt from being able to be returned. If the items aren't coming out of the factory with the names on them and they are being added based on your personal request for your specific order then there's a sound argument to be made that they are personalised. 

While an item with a players name on the back in theory can be resold it's not as easy to sell as one without. 

You can argue the opposite if you want but the law isn't tested and since it says clearly when you buy something with a name on it that it is not returnable its going to be a big ask to get someone to accept a return on the item.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

I'm fairly certain that if you buy a shirt from a sports shop (JD Sports or Sports Direct or whatever) with a name on the back it's the sport shop that does the printing and therefore the item can't be returned back to the manufacturer unless its faulty. So to me that's what matters is whether the item can be returned and the retailer is not out of pocket. 

The relationship between the manufacture and trader has nothing to do with consumer rights at all.

No but it does have to do with whether something is exempt from being able to be returned. 

No it doesn’t

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

I'm fairly certain that if you buy a shirt from a sports shop (JD Sports or Sports Direct or whatever) with a name on the back it's the sport shop that does the printing and therefore the item can't be returned back to the manufacturer unless its faulty. So to me that's what matters is whether the item can be returned and the retailer is not out of pocket. 

The relationship between the manufacture and trader has nothing to do with consumer rights at all.

No but it does have to do with whether something is exempt from being able to be returned. 

No it doesn’t

Aye, ok then. Yawn.

tightauldgit

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

...Specification/personalisation in this context should be taken to mean that the goods are, in principle, unique and produced according to the individual wishes and requirements stated by the consumer and agreed with the trader.

In contrast, where the consumer simply makes up the goods by picking from the standard (pre-set) options provided by the trader, it should not be possible to speak of either ‘specification’ or ‘personalisation’ in the narrow sense of this provision. Thus, the exception would not apply in the following examples:

—	choosing furniture with specific colour or texture by selecting from the manufacturer’s catalogue;

—	car with additional equipment, selected from the manufacturer’s catalogue;

—	a set of furniture on the basis of standard elements.

That makes sense to me.   Picking the names Messi, Di Maria and de Bruyne from a list of name options linked to their respective national shirts is not going to produce a shirt that is "unique... according to the individual wishes... [of]... the consumer."

I'm sure Adidas will sell hundreds of thousands if not millions of Argentine and Netherlands shirts with those names on.

Moreover, the names are being slected "... from the standard (pre-set) options provided by the trader... "

I really doubt they are selling more than hundreds in certain sizes, particularly children’s. That’s where I see it as to your specification, a particular name on a particular size. If no other customer ever wants age 9 with Messi then you do indeed have a unique item. 

Also if this ever does go to court and get a ruling all that will change is having to type the name into a box, many people will still want the players names and will have to check the spelling themselves.

And relying on the difference between a dropdown and writing the name in a box is a bit silly really. What actually matters is whether the seller can be expected to reasonably resell the item because that's why the exemption exists - you don't want businesses investing time and effort to make a product to someone's unique specs and then the buyer just turns round and says 'sorry changed my mind. Don't like it.' and the business is stuck with something they can't sell. 

The issue here is maybe disguised by the fact it's a Messi shirt - could they be expected to resell a kids Messi shirt? Probably - but if you apply that principle generally could they be expected to resell a size XXL shirt with Palacios on the back? They might otherwise sell 0 of those shirts in a year so hard to argue that's not been made to someone's personal specifications. 

There's also a huge element of risk to manufacturer's from the specific nature of football - should everyone who bought a Man Utd shirt with Ronaldo on the back in November now be able to return it for a refund (provided they are in the window to do so)?

Loads of kids will get Xmas presents on the 25th of December with footballers names on them who could well change clubs on Jan 1st. Should all those shirts be returnable if the customer doesn't want them anymore?  

Of course you could take the approach of some posters and try to suggest that none of this matters but good luck with that argument in court. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

There's also a huge element of risk to manufacturer's from the specific nature of football - should everyone who bought a Man Utd shirt with Ronaldo on the back in November now be able to return it for a refund (provided they are in the window to do so)?

Manufacturers have nothing to do with consumer rights in this regard.

When I said they have nothing to do with consumer rights you said but no they do with the right to change your mind and return, given the right to cancel is consumer rights this highlights your knowledge the subject and IMO you fall into the trap which is often seen here of giving an opinion which you think is "right" from a moral viewpoint rather than having understanding or consideration of the legislation. 

And yes if a company sells a Man Utd shirt with Ronaldo on the back in November (that hasn't been personalised, lets say even without the dropdown menu issue i.e there was no choice that's just how it's sold) then it can be returned, exactly the same as if you buy Christmas decorations online a week before Christmas you can return them after Christmas. You could even use them on your tree and be entitled to cancel (although not necessarily obtain a full refund if the trader could distinguish that you diminished the value by doing so). 

tightauldgit said

No but it does have to do with whether something is exempt from being able to be returned. 

No it doesn’t

Aye, ok then. Yawn.

The only thing that matters is whether the goods were:

the supply of goods that are made to the consumer’s specifications or are clearly personalised;

Now you can say a dropdown menu is or isn't custom and that's a point to debate, however it has nothing to do with manufacturers.

For one thing many traders don't deal with manufacturer, some traders are the manufacturer and any trader* than deals with the manufacturer probably can't return goods because the buyer has changed their mind and sent it back to the retailer anyway. Agreements between traders and suppliers will vary greatly, those considerable variables mean the B2B relationship between supplier and trader are irrelevant.  

*Massive companies like Amazon, etc might have agreements in their favour that allow them to return anything for any reason but they are a exception as they obtain this due to their market dominance. 

I understand the point you are trying make but the manufactures agreements with the retailer has no bearing on this issue at all and as a general point, unless any of the limits of application apply then the trader's ability to resell the goods does not affect the consumer's right to cancel their contract in any way. 

jon81uk

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

There's also a huge element of risk to manufacturer's from the specific nature of football - should everyone who bought a Man Utd shirt with Ronaldo on the back in November now be able to return it for a refund (provided they are in the window to do so)?

Manufacturers have nothing to do with consumer rights in this regard.

When I said they have nothing to do with consumer rights you said but no they do with the right to change your mind and return, given the right to cancel is consumer rights this highlights your knowledge the subject and IMO you fall into the trap which is often seen here of giving an opinion which you think is "right" from a moral viewpoint rather than having understanding or consideration of the legislation. 

And yes if a company sells a Man Utd shirt with Ronaldo on the back in November (that hasn't been personalised, lets say even without the dropdown menu issue i.e there was no choice that's just how it's sold) then it can be returned, exactly the same as if you buy Christmas decorations online a week before Christmas you can return them after Christmas. You could even use them on your tree and be entitled to cancel (although not necessarily obtain a full refund if the trader could distinguish that you diminished the value by doing so). 

tightauldgit said

No but it does have to do with whether something is exempt from being able to be returned. 

No it doesn’t

Aye, ok then. Yawn.

The only thing that matters is whether the goods were:

the supply of goods that are made to the consumer’s specifications or are clearly personalised;

Now you can say a dropdown menu is or isn't custom and that's a point to debate, however it has nothing to do with manufacturers.

For one thing many traders don't deal with manufacturer, some traders are the manufacturer and any trader* than deals with the manufacturer probably can't return goods because the buyer has changed their mind and sent it back to the retailer anyway. Agreements between traders and suppliers will vary greatly, those considerable variables mean the B2B relationship between supplier and trader are irrelevant.  

*Massive companies like Amazon, etc might have agreements in their favour that allow them to return anything for any reason but they are a exception as they obtain this due to their market dominance. 

I understand the point you are trying make but the manufactures agreements with the retailer has no bearing on this issue at all and as a general point, unless any of the limits of application apply then the trader's ability to resell the goods does not affect the consumer's right to cancel their contract in any way. 

But the manufacturer of the customised specification might be the trader rather manufacturer of the shirt. 

Sports Direct also offer personalised shirts with a similar option of choose a player or type your own name, they also class both options as non-refundable because an item has been personalised to your specification.
So the manufacturers agreement with the trader is irrelevant. But the customer ordering a size XL with an obscure player may be making a unique item that the trader is unable to resell, nothing to do with the manufacturer. 

user1977

tightauldgit said:

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

...Specification/personalisation in this context should be taken to mean that the goods are, in principle, unique and produced according to the individual wishes and requirements stated by the consumer and agreed with the trader.

In contrast, where the consumer simply makes up the goods by picking from the standard (pre-set) options provided by the trader, it should not be possible to speak of either ‘specification’ or ‘personalisation’ in the narrow sense of this provision. Thus, the exception would not apply in the following examples:

—	choosing furniture with specific colour or texture by selecting from the manufacturer’s catalogue;

—	car with additional equipment, selected from the manufacturer’s catalogue;

—	a set of furniture on the basis of standard elements.

That makes sense to me.   Picking the names Messi, Di Maria and de Bruyne from a list of name options linked to their respective national shirts is not going to produce a shirt that is "unique... according to the individual wishes... [of]... the consumer."

I'm sure Adidas will sell hundreds of thousands if not millions of Argentine and Netherlands shirts with those names on.

Moreover, the names are being slected "... from the standard (pre-set) options provided by the trader... "

I really doubt they are selling more than hundreds in certain sizes, particularly children’s. That’s where I see it as to your specification, a particular name on a particular size. If no other customer ever wants age 9 with Messi then you do indeed have a unique item. 

Also if this ever does go to court and get a ruling all that will change is having to type the name into a box, many people will still want the players names and will have to check the spelling themselves.

What actually matters is whether the seller can be expected to reasonably resell the item  

So why doesn't the law say anything resembling that? There are countless other examples of products which retailers are obliged to accept returns of, which they have no reasonable prospect of re-selling quickly (e.g. what happens to all the festive-themed products people change their minds about in a couple of weeks?). It's all part of the risk of being a retailer.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

jon81uk said:

But the manufacturer of the customised specification might be the trader rather manufacturer of the shirt. 

Sports Direct also offer personalised shirts with a similar option of choose a player or type your own name, they also class both options as non-refundable because an item has been personalised to your specification.
So the manufacturers agreement with the trader is irrelevant. But the customer ordering a size XL with an obscure player may be making a unique item that the trader is unable to resell, nothing to do with the manufacturer. 

As I say the point is up for debate, just that the other poster's reasoning with manufacturer's doesn't have any bearing.

The guidance say the clause should be interrupted narrowly which means exactly as written rather than debated perhaps on spirit of the law or similar.

I do understand a dropdown menu set up may result in you purchasing something no one else does that would then be unique but this hypothetical scenario wouldn't be a narrow interruption. It's also impossible to show either way (without either trust of the trader's word or a full audit of their sales and either way with consideration for what might be ordered it the future) so the balance of probability angle IMHO is dropdown menus aren't creating unique products.