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

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

2

Comments

  • #32
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • #33
    AnnieinDundrum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 283 ✭✭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.



  • #34
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,734 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • #36
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • #38
    GBX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,040 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #39
    ozmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭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!

    “Roll it back”



  • #40
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • #41
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,978 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,978 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • #44
    Sadb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,672 ✭✭✭✭Sadb


    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.



  • #45
    ants09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 721 ✭✭✭ants09


    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



  • #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • #47
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭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.



  • #48
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • #50
    XsApollo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭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.



  • #51
    Sadb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,672 ✭✭✭✭Sadb


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

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



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    JVince
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭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.



  • #53
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • #55
    Sadb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,672 ✭✭✭✭Sadb


    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.



  • #56
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.



  • #57
    JVince
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭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 😀



  • #58
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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"



  • #59
    Sadb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,672 ✭✭✭✭Sadb


    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.

    Post edited by Sadb on


  • #60
    JVince
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088864#Comment_122088864

    It literally does though, and even your own analogy supports my argument.

    If you were sold a dishwasher and told it could function as a parachute then yes, you can return it.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088895#Comment_122088895

    And yet you can't actually argue against what the law says and have to resort to attempted insults.

    Any way it's clear both of you have never worked in retail in any senior role or seen how consumer rights work so probably best we leave it there. Hopefully the OP and the retailer can come to a resolution that both are happy with, if not, then the OP can use the Small Claims Court and I've no doubt they'll win.



Advertisement