they don't have a legal obligation to refund you in cash afaik in this case
it's really your own fault anyway for
1) not trying them on, and
2) not even opening the box and checking the size..
it's not "unfit for purpose" at all
you bought some shoes without checking what size they were!
I would still hazard the statement that he's a numpty for not trying on a pair of shoes before buying.
Can't believe some people are blaming him for taking the word of the sales assistant!
I mean, say you went into a grocers and asked for some seedless grapes, assistant bags them up, then you get them home and find they have seeds in. It's not your fault they didn't give you what you ordered! Or maybe a more extreme example, you asked for potatoes but got parsnips instead.
Personally, I always try shoes on before buying. But that is to make sure that given size/brand combo fits. It's not like the OP asked for a pair of size 11s, got home, and found them too small. That would have been his fault. He asked for size 12s, yet was sold size 11s.
You didn’t check to see what size you had being given? That’s daft you should have checked.
I know that in my favoured running shoe, a Mizuno Galaxy Wave-8 (yes, really), I'm a size 8. I'd never ever buy a pair without trying them on, because theres a chance my feet could have changed, and with the kind of stress that running (and football) puts on your legs and joints, it's something that isn't worth risking.why?
I know i'm a size 14 when it comes to hi-tec magnums, if i went into the supplier, ask for a size 14 magnum elite, and get given a size 13 magnum elite instead, am I a numpty for not trying them on? I know the 14s fit, why should i get them out of the box and waste time checking them until I need them?
A bit of an over-sealous analogy. Getting the wrong model isn't the end of the world, but getting shoes that don't fit properly can have serious medical consequences.No he shouldn't. The shop should have checked. Thats like saying you should have opened the box of the brand new tomtom you bought at currys to check the correct model was inside.
I would still hazard the statement that he's a numpty for not trying on a pair of shoes before buying.
Have you called trading standards?just called head office, she said "try some other stores in Hampshire and see if they have a 12" - idiots! i have an address to write to, but no one on the phone to moan at- jokers
No he shouldn't. The shop should have checked. Thats like saying you should have opened the box of the brand new tomtom you bought at currys to check the correct model was inside.
The point stand though, he asked for a 12 and got a '12'. The error is on behalf of the store. For someone buying the same trainers, it's easily done.Checked for what? For all the counter staff new he asked for a size 11 which he got, he should have checked himself or said to the counter staff 'they are size 12?' or ‘can I just have a check’ electrical goods have a seal on them so your example is flawed, you should have checked simple.
They denying you ever asked for 12's? That's predictable. Sounds like a shady bunch, I'd suggest trying consumer direct or local trading standards for advice.
It comes down to what small claims would believe at the end of the day - do they side with the shop or the consumer in 'his word against mine' cases?