In message <
bmfbtipngkcsmkjc3...@4ax.com> at Wed, 21 Feb
2024 09:20:14, Vicky <
vicky...@gmail.com> writes
Indeed. (I must get round to printing off a copy sometime.)
[]
>Goods Act 1979 there is an implied term that the goods must be
>objectively of satisfactory quality.
[]
>This legislation allows a person to claim compensation if they are
>injured by a defective product. Depending on the circumstances a claim
>might be made against anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer /
>importer to retailer.
>
>I don't know if shoes failing is an injury.
>
I suppose it would be if they caused you to trip and fall and thus
injure yourself!
>
Followup: I did call CAB (I object that CAB, who are a charity, have to
do this: IMO it should be part of Trading Standards), and spoke to a
very helpful chap: I apologised, saying I was worried about wasting
his/their time for such a small amount of money, but he assured me that
I wasn't, and gave me a link to a template letter (actually it's a
webform you fill in, and it generates the letter, but you download it -
it's in .rtf format - so you can amend it afterwards). [He did also
mention the injury matter! I said I wasn't going there, but I think it
was just something he had to do.]
>
So I've done it, and sent it off. He did say use the head office, not
the shop, and that I could do it by email If I wanted, provided I asked
for a received request - I did tick the box in my email software that
usually isn't ticked. I've received an (automated it looks like)
response - I think because they'd have done so anyway, rather than the
automated result of my ticking that box. We'll see what happens!
>
I found the head office address - and the email - on the back of the
receipt; I also found "If you have no proof of purchase we will exchange
up to the current value", which made me wonder if I should have _not_
shown the receipt when I went into the shop yesterday; however, it's a
style that would only be in summer (they certainly had none in), so
they'd have deduced something and probably still have said no.
>
>>the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
>>not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
>>talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
>>might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>>>
>>>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
Basically, although I think your _rights_ /are/ protected, it's probably
best _not_ to buy things unless you're going to start using them
straight away: In the case of clothing or footwear, you probably _can_
prove (to the satisfaction of a court, anyway, if it were to come to
that) that you _haven't_ used them much, but for something like an
appliance - say, you bought a radio because it was a good price and you
thought your current one was going to fail soon (or "it's fine, but
that's a good price, and I've had the old one for years so it must go
before too long) and it doesn't, it'd be quite hard to _prove_ you
didn't take the new one out of its box until a year or two after you
bought it.
I _will_ let this run its course - I'm not really bothered, just (a)
curious to see what happens, (b) I _am_ rather curious about the
_principle_.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Victory does not bring with it a sense of triumph - rather the dull numbness
of relief..." - Cecil Beaton quoted by Anthony Horowitz, RT 2015/1/3-9