Faulty shoes - my rights? Aldo Blanchardstown

Poor

Hi there,

I've just had a really bad experience with a pair of shoes I bougt to my gf 16 days ago. I'd like to get to know my rights.

I bougth them in Aldo in Blanchardstown shopping centre.
After the first day of wear the sole at the front of both shoes came off. The shoes were retuned to the shop where I was offered a repair and was also told that if this would happen again I would get a refund. During the next wear the front of the sole came off again so I went back to the shop where I was told I could not get a refund because the problem was caused by excessive use. The shoes had been worn only twice and even in theory could not have been excessively worn as they were bought 16 days ago. The sales assistant offered an exchange or shop credit which I refused. I just wanted my money back, seriously how could I trust in the so-called quality of the same brand again. When she refused to give my money back I asked her to call the manager. She said she was the manager so I couldn't do anything. What keeps me puzzled is why she offered an exchange if they - as she stated - were not faulty.

In my attempt to get my money back I wrote an e-mail to Aldo, can't wait there answer.

I found this on The National Consumer Agency's website:

Replacements and refunds

Any replacement offered should be the same as the item you bought, or of similar quality and price.
You should not have to pay extra for a replacement and should be entitled to the difference in value if the replacement is less expensive.
If they offer a refund, this can be in cash or by cheque, or (where appropriate) they can refund your credit card account.
If they offer you a credit note or voucher instead, it is your right not to take it and request a refund instead.

The last sentence says I can request a refund.
But What can I do if she refuses it? As she did.
I also called them (The NCA) and was told that I should make a formal complaint addressed to the shop. Since it would get into the same manager's hands I'm not sure if it is worth the effort and the €5.25 registered post fee.

Has anyone had similar problems?
Can someone advise me what to do now?

drunkmonkey

Poor wrote: »

I found this on The National Consumer Agency's website:

Replacements and refunds

Any replacement offered should be the same as the item you bought, or of similar quality and price.
You should not have to pay extra for a replacement and should be entitled to the difference in value if the replacement is less expensive.
If they offer a refund, this can be in cash or by cheque, or (where appropriate) they can refund your credit card account.
If they offer you a credit note or voucher instead, it is your right not to take it and request a refund instead.

The last sentence says I can request a refund.

The last sentence is correct, what it says is if your offered a credit note or voucher you can refuse and take the cash / laser refund etc. If you were then you can demand your money back.

BUT if your not offered a voucher or credit note the store is within it's rights to offer you a repair or replacement. The decision is up to the store what you get but it has to be reasonable.

I suspect the glue melted in the hot weather and the sole became unstuck. Maybe look for something a little bit better put together on the sole the next time.

tbh if it was me and they only have the one brand of shoes i'd be standing at the counter until she refunded me, it's not real skin off her back as she can just get a refund from the supplier.

91011

what type of shoe was it?

If it was a sports style shoe and the rubber bumper came away, then its because the incorrect glue / bad glue was used in its manufacture.

It could also be just one pair of bad shoes, so a replacement pair is perfectly reasonable, but if the replacement pair goes the same way, then you are entitled to refund as the whole batch would be considered faulty.

It could also be a design fault - the material in the shoes simply aren't suited for each other. - Happens more often that you think.


(a long time ago, I was in the shoe industry in UK)

dudara

The shoes are clearly not fit for purpose. In such a situation the retailer has to offer you a refund, replacement or repair.

Now the first time you took the repair. In such a situation, you can expect the repair to be permanent (i.e. last the lifetime of the product). In this case, the repair was not permanent. Therefore, you can reasonably refuse further offers of repair.

This leaves you with replacement or refund. It would be understandable that you have no confidence left in the shoes, leaving you with the sole option of a refund.

This is Consumer Law - the shop manager must abide by it. I would return to the store and seek my refund. Otherwise, I would take a claim to the Small Claims Court.

Poor

The last sentence is correct, what it says is if your offered a credit note or voucher you can refuse and take the cash / laser refund etc. If you were then you can demand your money back.

BUT if your not offered a voucher or credit note the store is within it's rights to offer you a repair or replacement. The decision is up to the store what you get but it has to be reasonable.

Yes, I was offered a credit note which I refused to take and asked for my money. She said all she could give me is a note or exchange but no money.

I suspect the glue melted in the hot weather and the sole became unstuck. Maybe look for something a little bit better put together on the sole the next time.

If it can melt in the dublin summer it is worth nothing. How warm was it here? Around 20 degrees, maximum 25. Your feet's temperature is much higher than that. Where I came from 35-38 degrees is not unusual and people wear shoes there too.

tbh if it was me and they only have the one brand of shoes i'd be standing at the counter until she refunded me, it's not real skin off her back as she can just get a refund from the supplier.

I can't spend all day there, I have other things to do, but I asked a few times. I asked her how it was possible to overuse them - as she said that was the problem - in 16 days. I showed her the receipt, she could see it that they had been purchased 16 days before. I told her this a few times, it wasn't like "Sorry, I can't give your money back" " Okay"

91011

call them, ask for manager, ask manager for his / her name & for the registered address for the business - she / he will ask why you want it.

Tell them its for a small claims court case you're taking as you've been refused a refund for faulty shoes that were still faulty after a repair.

- you'll get the refund then:D

VERY shoddy customer service - it wouldn't endear me to buy shoes in their store.

Poor

what type of shoe was it?

http://i46.tinypic.com/28vshas.jpg

And here's a picture of the fault:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2r3uwsn.jpg

Poor

call them, ask for manager, ask manager for his / her name & for the registered address for the business - she / he will ask why you want it.

Tell them its for a small claims court case you're taking as you've been refused a refund for faulty shoes that were still faulty after a repair.

It was the manager who I talked to. I told her that I would make a complaint but she didn't care too much.

Poor

VERY shoddy customer service - it wouldn't endear me to buy shoes in their store.

You'd better throw your money in the bin. At least that would't cause any trouble later.

Poor

Now the first time you took the repair. In such a situation, you can expect the repair to be permanent (i.e. last the lifetime of the product). In this case, the repair was not permanent. Therefore, you can reasonably refuse further offers of repair.

Yes I found the same on the NCA website.

This is Consumer Law - the shop manager must abide by it. I would return to the store and seek my refund. Otherwise, I would take a claim to the Small Claims Court.

I'm thinking about the same but it definitely wouldn't worth the effort put in it. I'd just loose more money and a lot of time. I'm talking about a €35 pair of shoes.

drunkmonkey

Poor wrote: »

It was the manager who I talked to. I told her that I would make a complaint but she didn't care too much.

Well then ask to talk to the managers manager, tell them your going to tell their manager how unhelpful they were and you were also denied your consumer rights. If that won't entice her to help you I don't know what will.
Maybe do what the Arab's do, take off your shoes and throw them at her.

Poor

Maybe do what the Arab's do, take off your shoes and throw them at her.

Probably that's what she wants. That might be the way they get shoes.

Well then ask to talk to the managers manager, tell them your going to tell their manager how unhelpful they were and you were also denied your consumer rights.

I made a complaint on Aldo's website yesterday. No response yet.

91011

OK - its a €35 pair of shoes - probably made in china for less than $7.

The problem is they have stretched the material too strongly and once the shoe is worn the normal movement of the foot has caused the material (possibly a leather skin, but doubtful if its full leather) to burst.

This cannot be repaired and should be replaced. It is probably a one off issue and a replacement pair may be the best option. If the store offers a replacement and you refuse the replacement, you unfortunately wouldn't win a small claims case. - Might be better to simply get a simple black handbag for same amount and shop in store that offers proper service next time.

Poor

This cannot be repaired and should be replaced.

It was repaired once. She offered a repair first, though I wanted a refund, I accepted it. She told if it would happen again she would give a refund. Curiously she didn't remember her own words a week later.

Might be better to simply get a simple black handbag for same amount and shop in store that offers proper service next time.

That's probably the best I can do. Still, I feel it's not right.

Poor

OK - its a €35 pair of shoes - probably made in china for less than $7.

Haha, you're right, it reads made in China.

Pythia

dudara wrote: »

leaving you with the sole option of a refund.

Good one.

dudara

Poor wrote: »

I'm thinking about the same but it definitely wouldn't worth the effort put in it. I'd just loose more money and a lot of time. I'm talking about a €35 pair of shoes.

Roll over if you want, but I would give them one more chance to resolve the issue correctly (and legally). I would mention that if it isn't resolved then I would take them to the SCC.

The cost of the SCC is small (I do realise the shoes weren't that expensive) but I wouldn't let them treat a consumer so shoddily either.

Nolimits

dudara wrote: »

Roll over if you want, but I would give them one more chance to resolve the issue correctly (and legally). I would mention that if it isn't resolved then I would take them to the SCC.

The cost of the SCC is small (I do realise the shoes weren't that expensive) but I wouldn't let them treat a consumer so shoddily either.

This absolutely, I bought an xbox from smiths in blanch a few years ago, next day it wasnt working right. I rang them up and I was told I had to contact microsoft, I told them their product wasn't fit for purpose, and the contract I had was with them not microsoft. He said there wasn't any more left, I said ok then give me my money back, well in the 20 minute walk over there apparently they found one :rolleyes: As soon as you start quoting consumer law they start rolling over pretty quickly.

axer

dudara is spot on here with his posts. Don't just let them off with this. It is not that big a deal to get them to sort it out and even if you have to go to the small claims court it would be a great opportunity to find out how it works so the next time if you happen to buy a €2,000 TV and it goes faulty you will already have a good idea what your rights are etc.

You can make your claim online here.

Poor

It would be understandable that you have no confidence left in the shoes, leaving you with the sole option of a refund.

Thats exactly how I feel.

Thanks for the link axer. I'll probably use it if I get nowhere. I got an answer to my e-mail from the company, it says that my comments will be passed on to the district manager. I also made a complaint on the NCA website, they advised me to write a formal letter complaint to the company.

I'm off to a week holiday now, I'll continue with this case when I'm back.

Thanks for all the comments and advice, I found them all really useful and encouraging.

Have a nice weekend everyone!

ShooterSF

91011 wrote: »

OK - its a €35 pair of shoes - probably made in china for less than $7.

The problem is they have stretched the material too strongly and once the shoe is worn the normal movement of the foot has caused the material (possibly a leather skin, but doubtful if its full leather) to burst.

This cannot be repaired and should be replaced. It is probably a one off issue and a replacement pair may be the best option. If the store offers a replacement and you refuse the replacement, you unfortunately wouldn't win a small claims case. - Might be better to simply get a simple black handbag for same amount and shop in store that offers proper service next time.

How so?

91011

ShooterSF wrote: »

How so?

Because the store has offered a reasonable resolution that is within the remit of legislation. This has been refused by the customer. The store also offered a credit note.

In a court case the store would simply say that they offered a replacement and the judge would ask why did the customer not accept it. For a customer to simply say that they did not trust that the fault would not happen on a second pair of shoes would not be sufficient and therefore the judge would rule against the customer.

axer

91011 wrote: »

Because the store has offered a reasonable resolution that is within the remit of legislation. This has been refused by the customer. The store also offered a credit note.

In a court case the store would simply say that they offered a replacement and the judge would ask why did the customer not accept it. For a customer to simply say that they did not trust that the fault would not happen on a second pair of shoes would not be sufficient and therefore the judge would rule against the customer.

I would agree if the shoes were 2 or 3 months old but they were only 2-3 weeks old. I would not have confidence in a particular pair of shoes that were made that badly once. The credit note offer would not even come into the case as an option.

91011

axer wrote: »

I would agree if the shoes were 2 or 3 months old but they were only 2-3 weeks old. I would not have confidence in a particular pair of shoes that were made that badly once. The credit note offer would not even come into the case as an option.

my reply was from a legal point of view rather than a moral point of view. The store offered a replacement. This was refused. The store is under no LEGAL obligation to offer a different remedy. A judge must rule based on point of law.

Morally & from a customer service point of view a refund should have been offered immediately. - In most cases the customer will end up purchasing a higher priced item and both the store & customer is happy.

axer

91011 wrote: »

my reply was from a legal point of view rather than a moral point of view. The store offered a replacement. This was refused. The store is under no LEGAL obligation to offer a different remedy. A judge must rule based on point of law.

Morally & from a customer service point of view a refund should have been offered immediately. - In most cases the customer will end up purchasing a higher priced item and both the store & customer is happy.

Really?

Sale of Goods and Supply of Service Act 1980 wrote:

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness.

14.—
(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—

...

(3) Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances, and any reference in this Act to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/print.html

The goods supplied were not of merchantable condition thus there was a right to repudiate the contract due to breach of this implied condition of the contract.

I was merely pointing out in plain language that due to the short period after purchase that the defect appeared is a very strong indication that the defect was present at sale thus the goods were not of merchantable quality when sold. If it was 2-3 months afterwards then the shop could put up an argument and treat the breach as a warranty thus negating the OP's ability to repudiate the contract.

Millicent

91011 wrote: »

my reply was from a legal point of view rather than a moral point of view. The store offered a replacement. This was refused. The store is under no LEGAL obligation to offer a different remedy. A judge must rule based on point of law.

Morally & from a customer service point of view a refund should have been offered immediately. - In most cases the customer will end up purchasing a higher priced item and both the store & customer is happy.

ETA: The store is not obligated. Apologies for the error.

_michelle_

i had a similar situation with aldo 3 weeks ago, went into shop on henry st and manager refused point blank to give me refund , said repair was only option to which i didnt want. now i know legally they are in a position to offer me repair, replace or refund, but i only wanted a refund. it took me 25mins but i got my refund, make sure you say it to evey customer arriving at the till that this is how they treat customers when items are faulty. they dont seem to like customers just walking away form till and not buying item they had intended to buy. i usually find this is the best course of action if being nice doesnt work

mdebets

Millicent wrote: »

...If the repair does not last, it is the customer's choice whether they want a refund or replacement, not the shop's.

No it's not, the store still has the right to offer a replacement. The customer however does not need to accept it, but can go to the Small Claims Court instead.

Millicent wrote: »

From a legal standpoint, the judge would have to side with the customer.

Not true. If the judge thinks it's reasonable to offer a replacement first, he can side with the store. It really depends on each circumstance (which product, what type of problem with it, etc.) as to what the judge thinks is reasonable.

91011

Millicent wrote: »

The store is obligated. .

Its this type of utter MIS-Information that causes so many rows in shops.

PLEASE do not post such mis-information as it does not help either the customer or the store.



If in any case that comes to court & it is shown that either party made an offer that is considered reasonable and that offer was refused, the judge will side with the party that made the offer.

In this case the store (who for customer service reasons should have offered a refund immediately) was technically in its right to offer a replacement pair of shoes as remedy. - They could quite rightly argue that they sold x thousands of the shoes (they are worldwide) and only had x number of returns. Therefore the pair the customer had is a one-off and another pair would unlikely to have the same fault. - Even go back to my previous posts, I was in the footwear trade a good while ago, both retail & manufacturing, & from my own substantial experience, & based on the photo the fault is caused by a too thin piece of material being over stretched. - The chances of the same fault being on another shoe is miniscule.

This is what the store would argue and as they are in the trade and would be considered "expert" , the ruling would have to go in the favour. If however a second pair developed a similar fault, THEN a refund would have to be made.

Millicent

mdebets wrote: »

No it's not, the store still has the right to offer a replacement. The customer however does not need to accept it, but can go to the Small Claims Court instead.


Not true. If the judge thinks it's reasonable to offer a replacement first, he can side with the store. It really depends on each circumstance (which product, what type of problem with it, etc.) as to what the judge thinks is reasonable.

91011 wrote: »

Its this type of utter MIS-Information that causes so many rows in shops.

PLEASE do not post such mis-information as it does not help either the customer or the store.



If in any case that comes to court & it is shown that either party made an offer that is considered reasonable and that offer was refused, the judge will side with the party that made the offer.

In this case the store (who for customer service reasons should have offered a refund immediately) was technically in its right to offer a replacement pair of shoes as remedy. - They could quite rightly argue that they sold x thousands of the shoes (they are worldwide) and only had x number of returns. Therefore the pair the customer had is a one-off and another pair would unlikely to have the same fault. - Even go back to my previous posts, I was in the footwear trade a good while ago, both retail & manufacturing, & from my own substantial experience, & based on the photo the fault is caused by a too thin piece of material being over stretched. - The chances of the same fault being on another shoe is miniscule.

This is what the store would argue and as they are in the trade and would be considered "expert" , the ruling would have to go in the favour. If however a second pair developed a similar fault, THEN a refund would have to be made.

Apologies, I had been misinformed on another website. If you refuse the replacement and the store will not give you a refund, you must take legal action. Post edited to clarify.

axer

91011 wrote: »

If in any case that comes to court & it is shown that either party made an offer that is considered reasonable and that offer was refused, the judge will side with the party that made the offer.

Yes it is all about being reasonable. I would argue that it would have been reasonable for the OP to have pushed for a refund immediately after it was apparent the goods were not of merchantable quality due to the short period after which the fault was apparent. I think the OP was being very reasonable in accepting a repair but after that it was very clear the goods were very badly made.

91011 wrote: »

In this case the store (who for customer service reasons should have offered a refund immediately) was technically in its right to offer a replacement pair of shoes as remedy.

The shop could have offered a monkey as damages for the breach of contract - its all the same in that the customer would still have to bring them to court since it is only a contract after all.

91011 wrote: »

They could quite rightly argue that they sold x thousands of the shoes (they are worldwide) and only had x number of returns. Therefore the pair the customer had is a one-off and another pair would unlikely to have the same fault.

That's irrelevant and the case for a refund is stronger than that. Obviously this is up to a judge to decide but it is clear under the Sale of Goods ... Act 1980 that the customer has a right here to repudiate the contract.

91011 wrote: »

Even go back to my previous posts, I was in the footwear trade a good while ago, both retail & manufacturing, & from my own substantial experience, & based on the photo the fault is caused by a too thin piece of material being over stretched. - The chances of the same fault being on another shoe is miniscule.

I don't think that is as relevant as it may seem as it was reasonable that the customer had lost faith in this product after two faults shortly after purchase.

91011 wrote: »

This is what the store would argue and as they are in the trade and would be considered "expert" , the ruling would have to go in the favour. If however a second pair developed a similar fault, THEN a refund would have to be made.

I would be very doubtful that the store would win in this case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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.