Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Faulty shoes - my rights? Aldo Blanchardstown

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    91011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭91011


    axer - I was purely posting from a legal point of view under the strict meanings within the legislation. As the store offered a replacement and the customer could have accepted that replacement and seen if the same fault devloped. Therefore the court would decide that the case should not have been brought until after a replace pair had been tried. As the court looks very poorly on unnecessary actions, it would find in favour of the store based on current standing.

    If you read my original post - I state quite categorically that a refund should have been offered or at the very least and immediate replacement should have been given as the fault in my opinion is not a repairable fault, but again in my opinion, it is not a design fault but rather a fault in the piece of material used in this particular pair of shoes and as such a replacement pair probably would not have the same fault.


  • Options
    #33
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    91011 wrote: »
    axer - I was purely posting from a legal point of view under the strict meanings within the legislation. As the store offered a replacement and the customer could have accepted that replacement and seen if the same fault devloped. Therefore the court would decide that the case should not have been brought until after a replace pair had been tried. As the court looks very poorly on unnecessary actions, it would find in favour of the store based on current standing.
    Show me where in the law where it says that. I have quoted the law above which backs my assertation.
    91011 wrote: »
    If you read my original post - I state quite categorically that a refund should have been offered or at the very least and immediate replacement should have been given as the fault in my opinion is not a repairable fault, but again in my opinion, it is not a design fault but rather a fault in the piece of material used in this particular pair of shoes and as such a replacement pair probably would not have the same fault.
    The item purchased was not of marchantable quality thus because of the short period after purchase that it became apparent it was clear that the fault existed at the time of purchase thus the buyer had the right to repudiate the contract.


  • Options
    #34
    91011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭91011


    axer wrote: »
    The item purchased was not of marchantable quality thus because of the short period after purchase that it became apparent it was clear that the fault existed at the time of purchase thus the buyer had the right to repudiate the contract.

    and the store can remedy the situation by offering a Repair, Replacement or Refund.

    The repair did not work, so the store offered a Replacement.

    If the replacement did not work, the store would have to offer a Refund.

    The consumer does not have to accept the store's offer, but if it went to court the judge would think it would not have been too difficult for the consumer to try a replacement to see if that worked and therefore the court action would be regarded as unnecessary and as such the jusge would rule in the store's favour.


  • Options
    #35
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    91011 wrote: »
    and the store can remedy the situation by offering a Repair, Replacement or Refund.
    Ok, show me where it says that in law.
    91011 wrote: »
    If the replacement did not work, the store would have to offer a Refund.
    The store doesn't have to do anything. It is a contract if there is a breach the parties negotiate if they cannot come to an agreement then it goes to court.
    91011 wrote: »
    The consumer does not have to accept the store's offer, but if it went to court the judge would think it would not have been too difficult for the consumer to try a replacement to see if that worked and therefore the court action would be regarded as unnecessary and as such the jusge would rule in the store's favour.
    Nope, not in this case. The customer has already been reasonable by accepting a repair but since the product went faulty again a short while afterwards a reasonable person would loose faith in the product and demand their rights under law.


  • Options
    #36
    chappy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 105 ✭✭chappy


    axer wrote: »
    Ok, show me where it says that in law.

    Not wanting to get involved in your fight but this is stated in Consumer Law that if there is a perceived fault with product that the customer can be offered repair,replacement or refund.

    I have worked for 6 biggish retailers and this would be the order we would always have followed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    chappy wrote: »
    Not wanting to get involved in your fight but this is stated in Consumer Law that if there is a perceived fault with product that the customer can be offered repair,replacement or refund.
    where in law?


  • Options
    #38
    91011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭91011


    axer wrote: »
    where in law?

    As per below - the retailer offers to remedy the breach (repair) or replace. In the OP case, the retailer has tried initiallty to remedy which was not suficcient and now has moved to replace the product. Only after this does not work can the OP legally demand a refund and repudiate the contract.

    53.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects, or is compelled, to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but he may—

    ( a ) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or
    b ) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty

    (2) Where—
    a ) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and
    ( b ) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not in conformity with the condition

    then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:

    (i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or
    ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him


  • Options
    #39
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    91011 wrote: »
    As per below - the retailer offers to remedy the breach (repair) or replace. In the OP case, the retailer has tried initiallty to remedy which was not suficcient and now has moved to replace the product. Only after this does not work can the OP legally demand a refund and repudiate the contract.

    53.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects, or is compelled, to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but he may—

    ( a ) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or
    b ) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty

    (2) Where—
    a ) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and
    ( b ) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not in conformity with the condition

    then,if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:

    (i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or
    ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him
    What about the above? the OP in this case would not be compelled to treat the breach of condition as a breach of warranty as I don't think he/she had the goods long enough to deem acceptance of them before the fault appeared. That is why I said earlier that it would have been a different story if the OP had the product longer before the fault appeared.


  • Options
    #40
    91011
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭91011


    axer wrote: »
    What about the above? the OP in this case would not be compelled to treat the breach of condition as a breach of warranty as I don't think he/she had the goods long enough to deem acceptance of them before the fault appeared. That is why I said earlier that it would have been a different story if the OP had the product longer before the fault appeared.

    That's your opinion, I gave it from a different opinion and a court may take another opinion altogether.:)

    At the end of the day, a judge absolutely hates when unnecessary cases are taken (e.g. the recent bollickling both parties got in the van morrison Trees / bushes row). - I sat through 20 years of home cooked sunday dinner discussions:D with the auld fella & sister going loggerheads on cases. (both in legal profession, though he's well retired)


  • Options
    #41
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    91011 wrote: »
    That's your opinion, I gave it from a different opinion and a court may take another opinion altogether.:)
    There would be a very strong case for the OP due to the short period after which the faults appeared but of course a judge decides at the end of the day if both parties cannot agree. I just strongly disagree with you that the seller has the upper hand here.
    91011 wrote: »
    At the end of the day, a judge absolutely hates when unnecessary cases are taken (e.g. the recent bollickling both parties got in the van morrison Trees / bushes row). - I sat through 20 years of home cooked sunday dinner discussions:D with the auld fella & sister going loggerheads on cases. (both in legal profession, though he's well retired)
    There's a massive difference between taking a case to the small claims court and the district court with regards wasted time so I very much doubt that would come into play considering the OP has already shown reasonableness due to accepting a repair first.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement