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

Branded Shoe staff amazing response to fault

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    King Orange Species wrote: »
    It's more than technically a bit naughty. It is, plain and simply, fraud.

    No it's not. If the retailer made very specific requirements as to the return then it might be. However the retailer is simply asking do you have a receipt. If the retailer wants to check it they can and they would be entitled to say no, this is the wrong receipt. If the retailer is bothered about a contract being in place, a reciept would be useless in proving that anyway.

    Further more if you look through the Theft and Fraud Offences Act almost all the relevant provisions contain this language.

    A person is guilty of an offence if he or she dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another...

    There's no gain and no loss.

    Maybe you know of other criminal liability, maybe you're talking about some sort of civil issue I dunno, but it's at best a bit naughty.


  • Options
    #33
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 69,024 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    There is a very real possibility of a loss to the retailer - they may not be in any position to recover the value of a replacement pair from their upstream supplier and the now fraudulent receipt is what caused that.


  • Options
    #34
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    L1011 wrote: »
    There is a very real possibility of a loss to the retailer - they may not be in any position to recover the value of a replacement pair from their upstream supplier and the now fraudulent receipt is what caused that.

    Fair enough, it's certainly not a situation I've ever come across. It would not be the fraudulent receipt that causes it either, it might be accepting something outwith a return period, but again we're not talking about a consumer who is trying to do anything other than assert his consumer rights. Given the OP has a right to return the goods, the loss is not caused by his act with the receipt ergo it's not an attributable loss. . Edit: Unless the manufacture was looking for customer side receipts - that's really out there, but could it happen? I dunno I've not worked for every retailer so fair enough I have to concede that point. There's also no intention to cause that loss.

    Should he do it through insisting that the purchase records are checked, CCTV is pulled etc. Yes absolutely. I refuse however to categorise this as fraud. Self-help perhaps.

    Edit: You've been very patient with this, I've made my point for what it's worth, I'm no longer advocating doing it. I'll shut up now :pac:


  • Options
    #35
    doublej
    Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭doublej


    Having read the very use article on inherent crumbling propensity in rubber soles shoes, a propensity that increases over the lifetime of the shoe and therefore is going to be active even when the shoe is in storage, whether in a warehouse, store or home, it's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to be obliged to Datestamp the product/box to allow end users the information regarding the amount of expired time that has already elapsed on the shoes.A kind of Use by/best before consumer information thing.
    I never thought that these shoes had a built in expiry but now that I know that they do, I'd be seeking reassurance from ECCO that I will have a reasonable period of enjoyment before the crumbling commences.


  • Options
    #36
    Delacent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Delacent


    doublej wrote: »
    Having read the very use article on inherent crumbling propensity in rubber soles shoes, a propensity that increases over the lifetime of the shoe and therefore is going to be active even when the shoe is in storage, whether in a warehouse, store or home, it's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to be obliged to Datestamp the product/box to allow end users the information regarding the amount of expired time that has already elapsed on the shoes.A kind of Use by/best before consumer information thing.
    I never thought that these shoes had a built in expiry but now that I know that they do, I'd be seeking reassurance from ECCO that I will have a reasonable period of enjoyment before the crumbling commences.

    Its not brand specific - its any ruber made soles. Some will have chemicals added to give more protection, but it can lose its elasticity which can mean some loss of comfort.

    Once UV light hits rubber sole shoes, the degradation begins. From manufacture to warehouse and wrapped within a box, little if any UV will get at the shoes.

    Once opened in a store, it begins. Its a slow process so normal purchasing would not be affected, but purchasing and leaving aside for 6 months+ can affect life of the shoe if not stored properly.

    If intent of keeping a pair for 6 months, keep in a box in a cool dry and dark place. (I used to work with Converse many years ago)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement