Credit note, not refund - when shop cannot supply suitable item

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078474#Comment_122078474

You're the person claiming a credit note would be considered a replacement; you need to back up that assertion.

What I am saying is that the retailer needs to offer one of a Repair, a Refund or a Replacement.

You chimed in to say a Credit Note is a replacement so back that up; point to any source that agrees with you.

AnnieinDundrum

a replacement is something that has the same function.

A pair of shoes in this instance.
you can’t wear a credit note on your feet.

A fridge doesn’t replace a cooker. A gas hob doesn’t replace an electric hob.

magicbastarder

based on the info available - OP was, quote, 'talked into badly fitting ones as they didnt have my size' - then the shop have to 'own' this error.

if the OP had gone into the shop and bought the wrong size of his or her own volition, that's one thing. but if the shop assistant made them a verbal promise that the shoes would be fine despite being the wrong size, the shop erred and should make good that error as they are unable to provide the correct size.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080076#Comment_122080076

It isn’t at all clear that this is anything other than a change of mind, so before you go telling other posters what the retailer has to do, consider that they may have to do nothing and the credit note could be a courtesy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080691#Comment_122080691

OP went to a specialist shoe shop and was advised to buy a pair of shoes that don't fit.

Its not a change of mind, the shoes are not fit for purpose. Section 17 of the Consumer Rights Act covers it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080707#Comment_122080707

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the op was actually present during the transaction, and tried on the shoes before buying them.

GBX

A shoe is a personal item, be it mass produced by child labourers or hand stitched. If the OP tried them on before completing the transaction, the sales assistant would have to go by their word that they were suitable. Yes, the sales person may have advised various aspects on the shoe, but at the end of the day, if the OP took the item as being a good fit, that's not the sales persons fault.

ozmo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122077787#Comment_122077787

Dont want to get into too much detail - Shop was recommended after visit to a doctor about sore knees on long walks
- told they were experts for walking shoes.

I asked for size I would normally get - told didnt have it - but a smaller one should be fine once broken in - I suggested not - but gave in after sizing computer scanner and sales guy convinced me otherwise.

Normally I would agree that I bought it - its my fault - but in this case I feel I was measured incorrectly - coincidentally to match what they had in stock and convinced by their systems it was fine. Shoes was only a small part of total bill that day.

They have more stock coming in in two weeks - Im going try then use my credit note then.
They dont know whats coming in - if they dont have what I told them I was looking for - I will ask again for a refund of the credit note, but not hopeful.

Thanks for all comments!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080906#Comment_122080906

I'm not ignoring that, the shoes still need to fit the purpose for which the OP requires of them.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122079761#Comment_122079761

They never had the size that suits his needs. And they likely have lots of other shoes for him to choose from.

He can either have exactly the same gas hob as he took before, or he can have one of the other gas hobs. But what they can't give him is a gas hob that they never had to begin with, no matter that it would be the one he actually wants.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080076#Comment_122080076

I've said multiple times that the credit facilitates the replacement, that whatever he/she takes is the replacement, and that he/she could take that replacement at any time if they wanted to. Try reading what I actually said.

If you aren't going to offer anything more than "no u", then at least be accurate about what I am saying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082063#Comment_122082063

They do fit the purpose, the op tried them on, and paid for a size that isn’t comfortable. I understand it was after receiving advice from the salesperson, but that doesn’t mean the op was obligated to take that advice. There is no indication that the shoes are in any way defective, the op just isn’t happy with them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080707#Comment_122080707

The item not fitting you does not mean that it is not fit for purpose. Not fit for purpose means that the item cannot be used for the purpose that it was made for.

Presumably these shoes do function as shoes, just on a smaller footed person.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082125#Comment_122082125

Can you quote the section of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act/Consumer Rights Act that says a credit note can act as a replacement ?

Accepting a credit note is a voucher and not a replacement and a credit note can't be relied upon to take away your statutory rights under SGA or CRA

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082851#Comment_122082851

TBF, if you want to be pedantic, a replacement would be the same item, and I doubt the op wants the exact same footware again. It is generally accepted that the replacement should be at least the value of the original item. With a credit note, the consumer can pick any item to that value. So I’m not sure why people are getting so hung up on this is the op doesn’t want the same footware again. As has been pointed out, there is no indication that the shoes are defective or not fit for purpose, so the credit note is a lot better than the item being replaced as a courtesy.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082923#Comment_122082923

Agreed, this is a change of mind situation so no onus on the shop to provide an RRR.

OP has explained that shoes should fit once broken in, given they returned them soon after they never gave them a chance to break in, that's their issue.

That said i think the shop just should have issued a refund from a customer relations aspect, though i believe there is no such thing as 'specialist' shoes to alleviate pain and it's all smoke and mirrors to charge a fortune for a pair of shoes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082125#Comment_122082125

The CRA 2022 doesn't require the retailer to facilitate a replacement, it requires them to offer one within a reasonable timeframe. If they can't then they must offer a repair or refund. Sections 23-25 of the CRA 2022

That's me backing up my assertion. Now, you need to back up your claim that facilitating the replacement is considered a replacement.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082143#Comment_122082143

No one has said the OP is obligated to take their advice but he did and the shoes are not fit for the purposes he described; section 17B of the CRA.

Not it for purpose does not mean defective. If I go into a hardware shop for something to remove nails from a wall, explain this to the shop and am advised to buy a spanner then that spanner is not fit for purpose. It isn't defective, works fine as a spanner but is absolutely worthless for removing nails.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082204#Comment_122082204

No it doesn't. Not fit for purpose means not fit for "any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them". Also Section 17B of the CRA 2022, and that's a direct quote btw.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084423#Comment_122084423

I hate to break it to you, if you buy the spanner, you aren’t entitled to a refund if it doesn’t remove nails, the spanner will still function if used correctly, and if you buy it to take out nails, that’s on you. The op bought running shoes, there is no indication that the shoes cannot be used for the purposes of running, whereas a spanner is not used to remove nails and no salesperson would advise it be used in such a manner.

You seem to be digging in on this, again, there is no indication that the shoes are defective, the op just says they don’t fit his/her feet comfortably. We have all been there with new shoes.

XsApollo

you are entitled to return items if you were mislead in their function, now wether that applies to trying on shoes in this case is up for debate.
the discussion about wether the op got what they deserved within their rights is moot, as we don’t know the shops take on the situation. If the shop agreed that the return of items was under consumer protection then the credit note isn’t a means of reimbursement. If they took the item back as a gesture of goodwill , then that’s their choice and they gave a credit note.

OP needs to talk to the shop and see their stance, if they can’t agree then take your chance in the small claims court, I don’t think you have grounds myself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084423#Comment_122084423

Go back and read section 17b including (i) and (ii) of 17B

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122077671#Comment_122077671

The OP had opportunity to try them on. Therefore the OP was not "forced" nor were they provided wrong information as they tried them on, accepted them and then afterwards decided they were not suitable.

The sales person can provide correct information, but the OP's foot might simply not suit the shoe and only the OP can know that. I think the OP is trying to put blame on the shop when its the OP themselves that tried them on, accepted the shoes and paid for them.

If the OP did not have the opportunity to try them on (highly unlikely) different rules apply.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084559#Comment_122084559

The shoes don't have to be defective to not be fit for purpose. You've tried to sneak that word in at least twice now but if the shoes were defective the OP would be entitled to a remedy under section 17A.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122085590#Comment_122085590

Go back and read the OP, both those criteria were met.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122085673#Comment_122085673

Not sure why forced is in quotation marks.

The shoe shop advised OP on what shoes to buy and the OP taking their advice bought shoes that were not fit for their purpose.

I think this is going around in circles, I think the op did well to get a credit note, he/she had the opportunity to try the shoes on before he/she left the shop ( in snee’s analogy, tried out the spanner to remove a nail whilst in the hardware shop), if they didn’t fit, why complete the purchase? That’s the crux of it, the op tried on the shoes before purchasing.

For me, it’s buyers remorse, nothing more.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122086051#Comment_122086051

No, you stated- “Not fit for purpose means not fit for "any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them". Also Section 17B of the CRA 2022, and that's a direct quote btw.”

You left out that (i) that the consumer made known to the trader at the time of, or before, the conclusion of the sales contract, and (ii) that the trader has accepted.

Regardless, it still doesn’t apply in this situation because the shoes, which are required to function as shoes, are able to function as shoes, as far as we know. Please elaborate on how you think that the shoes are not able to be used as shoes thus making them not fit for purpose.

If I’m a size large in a jumper and go into a shop and buy a medium, this does not mean that the jumper is not fit for purpose. They may certainly have an argument of being mis-sold the item, but “not fit for purpose” simply does not apply here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122086449#Comment_122086449

The law is "be fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them", not fit for the purpose for which the product was designed or ordinarily used or any other definition you come up with.

So, yes they still function as shoes but not for the purpose the OP requires of them ergo they are not fit for purpose.

I left out i) and ii) because its pretty clear that by advising the OP to buy those particular sized shoes both criteria have been met.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084423#Comment_122084423

Your spanner analogy is just stupid. A spanner is not designed to remove nail.

That would be like saying you are looking for a hat and the shop recommending a pair of underpants.

OP had the opportunity to try them on. Accepted them and then changed their mind.

OP says they were the wrong size - but different shoes can mean different sizes. I'm size 45 or 46 generally but 47 in some styles. Its for me to decide in the store if they fit me when trying them on. No store assistant can do that as they are my feet 😀

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088743#Comment_122088743

It doesn't matter that a spanner isn't designed to remove a nail, all that matters is the retailer sold me a spanner after I explained that I needed a tool to remove a nail.

"be fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088566#Comment_122088566

You either lack the understanding or you refuse to comprehend.

The law does not state for any purpose the consumer wishes. Can I return a dishwasher if I want to use it as a parachute and it doesn’t function as a parachute? Can I return a bath if I want to use it as an oven and it doesn’t function as an oven?

Have a bit of sense! The law states it must be fit for any purpose in which I made clear to the trader before buying and that the trader comfirmed. So if I went into Harvey Norman looking for something to boil water and they told me this tv can be used to boil water, I go home and have no way to boil water with the Tv, then section 17B applies and I can return it under the consumer act.

Something not fitting does not fall into this part of the law as the item is still fit for purpose. Op went into the shop for shoes and he/she got shoes.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088797#Comment_122088797

I sincerely hope you never get into a legal dispute.

Your argument smacks of the Ammi Burke school of legal argument where basic common sense bears no part of the argument.