I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
in the meantime:

What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?

Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
their point, but.

What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Society has the right to punish wrongdoing; it doesn't have the right to make
punishment a form of entertainment. This is where things have gone wrong:
humiliating other people has become both a blood sport and a narcotic.
- Joe Queenan, RT 2015/6/27-7/3

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>in the meantime:
>
>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>
>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>their point, but.

You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
email? Or twitter.
>
>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...

On 20/02/2024 21:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
> in the meantime:
>
> What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
> at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>
> Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
> only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
> little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
> inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
> said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
> their point, but.
>
> What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
> price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
> them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
> (try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
> usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...

I think you are up a gum tree without a paddle. If an item is replaced
under guarantee the guarantee on the replacement runs from the original
purchase date, not the date the replacement was provided. This sounds
like an equivalent situation.

--
Ric

In message <jg7atitl7t9j9sk8rrg0r6md664e829190@4ax.com> at Tue, 20 Feb
2024 21:49:37, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>>in the meantime:
>>
>>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>>
>>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>>their point, but.
>
>You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
>for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
>email? Or twitter.

"Freeland", "Made in Turkiye". I don't think I have much hope there!

I'll almost certainly just have to put it down to experience, as it
wasn't a lot of money anyway. (Besides, as any consumer programme will
confirm, it's the shop, not the manufacturer, with whom you have a
contract. [Usually cited re electrical/electronic devices.]) It's more
the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>
>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness.
-Leo Tolstoy, novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <jg7atitl7t9j9sk8rrg0r6md664e829190@4ax.com> at Tue, 20 Feb
> 2024 21:49:37, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>>>in the meantime:
>>>
>>>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>>>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>>>
>>>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>>>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>>>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>>>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>>>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>>>their point, but.
>>
>>You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
>>for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
>>email? Or twitter.

> "Freeland", "Made in Turkiye". I don't think I have much hope there!

> I'll almost certainly just have to put it down to experience, as it
> wasn't a lot of money anyway. (Besides, as any consumer programme will
> confirm, it's the shop, not the manufacturer, with whom you have a
> contract. [Usually cited re electrical/electronic devices.]) It's more
> the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
> not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
> talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
> might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>>
>>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
I think what Ric says has you banged to rights, mate. I can't see how anybody could frame a piece of legislation to both encompass any consumer exception and be fair to retailers and manufacturers. I think your only way out is to place an advert in eBay/Facebook Marketplace/Instagram/TikTok/your corner shop window and offer something like "One men's boot in good working order for sale. Second, nonworking boot also available for quick sale" and hope for the best. It's amazing what some people will buy.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:47:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <jg7atitl7t9j9sk8rrg0r6md664e829190@4ax.com> at Tue, 20 Feb
>2024 21:49:37, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>>>in the meantime:
>>>
>>>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>>>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>>>
>>>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>>>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>>>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>>>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>>>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>>>their point, but.
>>
>>You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
>>for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
>>email? Or twitter.
>
>"Freeland", "Made in Turkiye". I don't think I have much hope there!
>
>I'll almost certainly just have to put it down to experience, as it
>wasn't a lot of money anyway. (Besides, as any consumer programme will
>confirm, it's the shop, not the manufacturer, with whom you have a
>contract. [Usually cited re electrical/electronic devices.]) It's more

The Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 14(2) implies a term into a sale
contract (in the course of a business) that the goods are of
satisfactory quality. This includes fitness for purpose, freedom from
minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

What is Section 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979?
Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that goods sold should
comply with their description. Under section 14(2) of the Sale of
Goods Act 1979 there is an implied term that the goods must be
objectively of satisfactory quality.

What is the consumer Rights Act against manufacturers?
Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Part 1)

This legislation allows a person to claim compensation if they are
injured by a defective product. Depending on the circumstances a claim
might be made against anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer /
importer to retailer.

I don't know if shoes failing is an injury.

>the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
>not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
>talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
>might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>>
>>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...

In message <bmfbtipngkcsmkjc38nltsh41uj6cdtbia@4ax.com> at Wed, 21 Feb
2024 09:20:14, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:47:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <jg7atitl7t9j9sk8rrg0r6md664e829190@4ax.com> at Tue, 20 Feb
>>2024 21:49:37, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>>>>in the meantime:
>>>>
>>>>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>>>>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>>>>
>>>>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>>>>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>>>>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>>>>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>>>>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>>>>their point, but.
>>>
>>>You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
>>>for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
>>>email? Or twitter.
>>
>>"Freeland", "Made in Turkiye". I don't think I have much hope there!
>>
>>I'll almost certainly just have to put it down to experience, as it
>>wasn't a lot of money anyway. (Besides, as any consumer programme will
>>confirm, it's the shop, not the manufacturer, with whom you have a
>>contract. [Usually cited re electrical/electronic devices.]) It's more
>
>The Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 14(2) implies a term into a sale
>contract (in the course of a business) that the goods are of
>satisfactory quality. This includes fitness for purpose, freedom from
>minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
>
Indeed. (I must get round to printing off a copy sometime.)
[]
>Goods Act 1979 there is an implied term that the goods must be
>objectively of satisfactory quality.
[]
>This legislation allows a person to claim compensation if they are
>injured by a defective product. Depending on the circumstances a claim
>might be made against anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer /
>importer to retailer.
>
>I don't know if shoes failing is an injury.
>
I suppose it would be if they caused you to trip and fall and thus
injure yourself!
>
Followup: I did call CAB (I object that CAB, who are a charity, have to
do this: IMO it should be part of Trading Standards), and spoke to a
very helpful chap: I apologised, saying I was worried about wasting
his/their time for such a small amount of money, but he assured me that
I wasn't, and gave me a link to a template letter (actually it's a
webform you fill in, and it generates the letter, but you download it -
it's in .rtf format - so you can amend it afterwards). [He did also
mention the injury matter! I said I wasn't going there, but I think it
was just something he had to do.]
>
So I've done it, and sent it off. He did say use the head office, not
the shop, and that I could do it by email If I wanted, provided I asked
for a received request - I did tick the box in my email software that
usually isn't ticked. I've received an (automated it looks like)
response - I think because they'd have done so anyway, rather than the
automated result of my ticking that box. We'll see what happens!
>
I found the head office address - and the email - on the back of the
receipt; I also found "If you have no proof of purchase we will exchange
up to the current value", which made me wonder if I should have _not_
shown the receipt when I went into the shop yesterday; however, it's a
style that would only be in summer (they certainly had none in), so
they'd have deduced something and probably still have said no.
>
>>the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
>>not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
>>talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
>>might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>>>
>>>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...

Basically, although I think your _rights_ /are/ protected, it's probably
best _not_ to buy things unless you're going to start using them
straight away: In the case of clothing or footwear, you probably _can_
prove (to the satisfaction of a court, anyway, if it were to come to
that) that you _haven't_ used them much, but for something like an
appliance - say, you bought a radio because it was a good price and you
thought your current one was going to fail soon (or "it's fine, but
that's a good price, and I've had the old one for years so it must go
before too long) and it doesn't, it'd be quite hard to _prove_ you
didn't take the new one out of its box until a year or two after you
bought it.

I _will_ let this run its course - I'm not really bothered, just (a)
curious to see what happens, (b) I _am_ rather curious about the
_principle_.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Victory does not bring with it a sense of triumph - rather the dull numbness
of relief..." - Cecil Beaton quoted by Anthony Horowitz, RT 2015/1/3-9

In message <ur3dk3$2odru$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:46:09,
Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> writes
[]
>I think you are up a gum tree without a paddle. If an item is replaced

I don't - but the shop obviously do (or, at least, are instructed to
think they do).

>under guarantee the guarantee on the replacement runs from the original
>purchase date, not the date the replacement was provided. This sounds
>like an equivalent situation.
>
I've never had much truck with "guarantees": I usually rely on the Sale
of Goods act "merchantable quality" aspect. In addition, _most_
"guarantees" are used by the retailer to make you think you have to go
back to the manufacturer rather than the retailer. Sure, for practical
purposes, the manufacturer might well be able to fix or replace better
than the retailer, but it's still the retailer's responsibility (e. g.
to deal with - and pay for! - postage).

An exception is where a guarantee is freely offered for a period longer
than the usual year (we're lucky to get that: my understanding is that
in the USA much shorter - even 30 days! - is common); for example, most
electronic devices sold by (surprisingly) Lidl and Aldi have a three or
five year g'tee. The time - I think only once - I've had to invoke that,
I was refunded without question.

As for replacement under guarantee giving you a guarantee that only runs
to when the original did, then - assuming you're actually accepting the
principle anyway - that would seem fair enough - IF the new guarantee
were to run to when the original did _plus the repair/replacement time_.
Which I've never heard of being the case. (My argument being: if you
bought it with say a year's guarantee, then you're expecting to get a
year's service out of it. If they take a couple of months to fix/replace
it, you've not had that.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Victory does not bring with it a sense of triumph - rather the dull numbness
of relief..." - Cecil Beaton quoted by Anthony Horowitz, RT 2015/1/3-9

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:18:43 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <bmfbtipngkcsmkjc38nltsh41uj6cdtbia@4ax.com> at Wed, 21 Feb
>2024 09:20:14, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:47:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <jg7atitl7t9j9sk8rrg0r6md664e829190@4ax.com> at Tue, 20 Feb
>>>2024 21:49:37, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:09:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>>>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
>>>>>in the meantime:
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
>>>>>at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
>>>>>only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
>>>>>little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
>>>>>inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
>>>>>said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
>>>>>their point, but.
>>>>
>>>>You tried the shop. I think the manufacturer might be jointly liable
>>>>for reasonable quality for the money.You can try a letter or call or
>>>>email? Or twitter.
>>>
>>>"Freeland", "Made in Turkiye". I don't think I have much hope there!
>>>
>>>I'll almost certainly just have to put it down to experience, as it
>>>wasn't a lot of money anyway. (Besides, as any consumer programme will
>>>confirm, it's the shop, not the manufacturer, with whom you have a
>>>contract. [Usually cited re electrical/electronic devices.]) It's more
>>
>>The Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 14(2) implies a term into a sale
>>contract (in the course of a business) that the goods are of
>>satisfactory quality. This includes fitness for purpose, freedom from
>>minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
>>
>Indeed. (I must get round to printing off a copy sometime.)
>[]
>>Goods Act 1979 there is an implied term that the goods must be
>>objectively of satisfactory quality.
>[]
>>This legislation allows a person to claim compensation if they are
>>injured by a defective product. Depending on the circumstances a claim
>>might be made against anyone in the supply chain from manufacturer /
>>importer to retailer.
>>
>>I don't know if shoes failing is an injury.
>>
>I suppose it would be if they caused you to trip and fall and thus
>injure yourself!
>>
>Followup: I did call CAB (I object that CAB, who are a charity, have to
>do this: IMO it should be part of Trading Standards), and spoke to a
>very helpful chap: I apologised, saying I was worried about wasting
>his/their time for such a small amount of money, but he assured me that
>I wasn't, and gave me a link to a template letter (actually it's a
>webform you fill in, and it generates the letter, but you download it -
>it's in .rtf format - so you can amend it afterwards). [He did also
>mention the injury matter! I said I wasn't going there, but I think it
>was just something he had to do.]
>>
>So I've done it, and sent it off. He did say use the head office, not
>the shop, and that I could do it by email If I wanted, provided I asked
>for a received request - I did tick the box in my email software that
>usually isn't ticked. I've received an (automated it looks like)
>response - I think because they'd have done so anyway, rather than the
>automated result of my ticking that box. We'll see what happens!
>>
>I found the head office address - and the email - on the back of the
>receipt; I also found "If you have no proof of purchase we will exchange
>up to the current value", which made me wonder if I should have _not_
>shown the receipt when I went into the shop yesterday; however, it's a
>style that would only be in summer (they certainly had none in), so
>they'd have deduced something and probably still have said no.
>>
>>>the principle I'm curious about: if something has been little used or
>>>not at all, and you can show that, is calendar time relevant? (I'm not
>>>talking about things _many_ years old, where e. g. problems of spares
>>>might be relevant - which they wouldn't be for footwear.)
>>>>>
>>>>>What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>>>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
>>>>>them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
>>>>>(try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
>>>>>usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
>
>Basically, although I think your _rights_ /are/ protected, it's probably
>best _not_ to buy things unless you're going to start using them
>straight away: In the case of clothing or footwear, you probably _can_
>prove (to the satisfaction of a court, anyway, if it were to come to
>that) that you _haven't_ used them much, but for something like an
>appliance - say, you bought a radio because it was a good price and you
>thought your current one was going to fail soon (or "it's fine, but
>that's a good price, and I've had the old one for years so it must go
>before too long) and it doesn't, it'd be quite hard to _prove_ you
>didn't take the new one out of its box until a year or two after you
>bought it.
>
>I _will_ let this run its course - I'm not really bothered, just (a)
>curious to see what happens, (b) I _am_ rather curious about the
>_principle_.

Did you pay by credit card? The cc co is liable with the shop/.

On 20/02/2024 21:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I have a problem I'll ask trading standards about when they're open, but
> in the meantime:
>
> What is the situation where you buy something, but use it little or not
> at all for some time, and it then fails after little use?
>
> Mine is some footwear I bought and "kept for best" - but it failed on
> only about the fifth or tenth time of wearing. It can clearly be seen as
> little-used: the soles show hardly any wear, there's even a label on the
> inside sole that hasn't worn off. The shop (I'd still got the receipt)
> said as I'd bought it in 2022, they couldn't do anything. I sort of see
> their point, but.
>
> What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
> price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one of
> them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you _did_
> (try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to normal
> usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...

I'm pretty sure that, in theory, you could be entitled to get them
repaired / replaced but, in practice, it could be a challenge. After
six months, it's up to you to prove that the fault was an inherent
manufacturing defect and not something that is down to anything you may
have done to it since its manufacture, such as storing them somewhere
the stitching could rot, for example.

If the vendor won't take your word for it, you'd have to get a report
from a specialist to assess what has caused the problem and to confirm
that it's a manufacturing fault rather than misuse. Inevitably, such a
report would cost considerably more than than the shoes did. If it had
been a pricey piece of electronics though, that might be a different matter.

--
Best wishes, Serena
"No one can defeat us unless we first defeat ourselves." - Dwight D.
Eisenhower

In message <ur5hj9$3acf3$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 21 Feb 2024 19:06:19,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>On 20/02/2024 21:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> What if you'd bought two of something, maybe because it was a good
>>price, or a model that was going to be withdrawn, or similar, and one
>>of them you hadn't used _at all_, and it failed the first time you
>>_did_ (try to) use it (maybe when the first one had failed due to
>>normal usage)? Say, an appliance, piece of clothing, ...
>
>I'm pretty sure that, in theory, you could be entitled to get them
>repaired / replaced but, in practice, it could be a challenge. After

Other than the administrative hassle, I didn't think it would be _that_
much of one ...

>six months, it's up to you to prove that the fault was an inherent
>manufacturing defect and not something that is down to anything you may
>have done to it since its manufacture, such as storing them somewhere
>the stitching could rot, for example.

.... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going to
that sort of trouble. They've only been stored in the same rooms as I've
been living in, and show no sign of rot. (It's not the stitching that
has.)
>
>If the vendor won't take your word for it, you'd have to get a report
>from a specialist to assess what has caused the problem and to confirm
>that it's a manufacturing fault rather than misuse. Inevitably, such a
>report would cost considerably more than than the shoes did. If it had

Indeed. Even at minimum wage, I suspect I've spent more time on it than
that already!

>been a pricey piece of electronics though, that might be a different
>matter.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut.

In message <pfhcti1o9re26er75aut9vnrkqbb57a8r1@4ax.com> at Wed, 21 Feb
2024 18:51:10, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
[]
>>I _will_ let this run its course - I'm not really bothered, just (a)
>>curious to see what happens, (b) I _am_ rather curious about the
>>_principle_.
>
>Did you pay by credit card? The cc co is liable with the shop/.

I did; interesting point. I'll go to them if no result otherwise - at
least, I might.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut.

On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going to
> that sort of trouble.

Oh good - you've named the shop involved. If "they" have any sense at
all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."

If they do, lots of Umrats will say to themselves - and their friends
and families - "Mmm! I think Shoezone must be a good place to buy
shoes." Whereas if they don't the "Mmm!" will be followed by "I will
make sure I never shop at Shoezone and I will warn off everyone I know."
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
<NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going to
>> that sort of trouble.
>
>Oh good - you've named the shop involved. If "they" have any sense at
>all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
>all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."
>
>If they do, lots of Umrats will say to themselves - and their friends
>and families - "Mmm! I think Shoezone must be a good place to buy
>shoes." Whereas if they don't the "Mmm!" will be followed by "I will
>make sure I never shop at Shoezone and I will warn off everyone I know."

I think they have an outlet locally in the Asda hypermarket. Very
cheap shoes, always a sale, more than once closed down and then open
as if new. Their shoes would tend to be poor quality.
'Discount shoe chain selling a wide range of styles for men, women &
children, plus bags.'

In message <dr4dti18ocjb229vq3skji5kfm779ipqhv@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
2024 00:25:13, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
><NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going to
>>> that sort of trouble.
>>
>>Oh good - you've named the shop involved. If "they" have any sense at
>>all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
>>all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."

That _really_ irritates me; it's companies' way of not admitting
liability. I _think_ Lidl used it when giving me the voucher for not
having a smartphone. (Which I couldn't use on Tuesday because I was
using the self-checkout and they only accept such vouchers at the tills
- I took pity and said I'll use it next time.)
>>
>>If they do, lots of Umrats will say to themselves - and their friends
>>and families - "Mmm! I think Shoezone must be a good place to buy
>>shoes." Whereas if they don't the "Mmm!" will be followed by "I will
>>make sure I never shop at Shoezone and I will warn off everyone I know."

OK on Twitter maybe (or the dreaded Facebook perhaps?); I fear they'd
never have heard of usenet, let aline UMRA.
>
>I think they have an outlet locally in the Asda hypermarket. Very
>cheap shoes, always a sale, more than once closed down and then open
>as if new. Their shoes would tend to be poor quality.
>'Discount shoe chain selling a wide range of styles for men, women &
>children, plus bags.'

(Ah, shoes for bags. Not sure what style of shoe a bag would want.)

Acceptable-to-me-quality sandals, especially when they're getting rid of
them at the end of summer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <dr4dti18ocjb229vq3skji5kfm779ipqhv@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
> 2024 00:25:13, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
>><NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going to
>>>> that sort of trouble.
>>>
>>>Oh good - you've named the shop involved. If "they" have any sense at
>>>all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
>>>all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."

> That _really_ irritates me; it's companies' way of not admitting
> liability. I _think_ Lidl used it when giving me the voucher for not
> having a smartphone. (Which I couldn't use on Tuesday because I was
> using the self-checkout and they only accept such vouchers at the tills
> - I took pity and said I'll use it next time.)
>>>
>>>If they do, lots of Umrats will say to themselves - and their friends
>>>and families - "Mmm! I think Shoezone must be a good place to buy
>>>shoes." Whereas if they don't the "Mmm!" will be followed by "I will
>>>make sure I never shop at Shoezone and I will warn off everyone I know."

> OK on Twitter maybe (or the dreaded Facebook perhaps?); I fear they'd
> never have heard of usenet, let aline UMRA.
>>
>>I think they have an outlet locally in the Asda hypermarket. Very
>>cheap shoes, always a sale, more than once closed down and then open
>>as if new. Their shoes would tend to be poor quality.
>>'Discount shoe chain selling a wide range of styles for men, women &
>>children, plus bags.'

> (Ah, shoes for bags. Not sure what style of shoe a bag would want.)

> Acceptable-to-me-quality sandals, especially when they're getting rid of
> them at the end of summer.

As a sort-of thought experiment, John, I just remembered that about five years ago I bought an absolutely brand new Pentax SFXn camera. It was still in its original box in its original wrapping and had never been used. It's still in exactly the same condition, in the same wrapping, in the same box and I've never used it. If I were to take it out and find that it were faulty, do you think I might have a claim against someone?

If I now tell you that it was NOS (new old stock) and that model was last manufactured in 1991, does that alter your opinion in any way? How old would a new thing have be before before the seller/manufacturer should be absolved of responsibility for it?

Nick
(FWIW I have two more SFXn cameras but they are in use: one here in Argentina, one in the UK and I love each of them dearly. The NOS one was such a bargain that I decided to buy it just in case one of the others were to ever break down.)

In message <384c2225600dad4c90a4ff16331d3a83@www.novabbs.com> at Thu, 22
Feb 2024 03:17:03, nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
[]
>As a sort-of thought experiment, John, I just remembered that about
>five years ago I bought an absolutely brand new Pentax SFXn camera. It
>was still in its original box in its original wrapping and had never
>been used. It's still in exactly the same condition, in the same
>wrapping, in the same box and I've never used it. If I were to take it
>out and find that it were faulty, do you think I might have a claim
>against someone?
>
>If I now tell you that it was NOS (new old stock) and that model was
>last manufactured in 1991, does that alter your opinion in any way? How

Was it sold as "sold as seen" or other such phrase?

If sold as new and by allegation working (and I'd include "new old
stock" if that implied in any way that it was fine, which the phrase
does to me - unless the model is _known_ to fail in storage), then the
fact it was made in 1991 wouldn't fase me; the about five years ago,
though, would be decidedly marginal. Something like that, I can see as
being very hard to prove you hadn't used it (or mis-stored it).

[Is that how you spell fase? I've used and heard used the word plenty,
but never seen it written down. Can't think what its etymology is.]

>old would a new thing have be before before the seller/manufacturer
>should be absolved of responsibility for it?

Definitely the seller, not the manufacturer.
>
>Nick
>(FWIW I have two more SFXn cameras but they are in use: one here in
>Argentina, one in the UK and I love each of them dearly. The NOS one
>was such a bargain that I decided to buy it just in case one of the
>others were to ever break down.)

And you'd be sad if, were that to happen, the "new" one were to be found
to be DOA. Though, practically, do you know enough about them (and have
the skills and tools) to make a working one out of the two? (Which
question suggest that my answer to your thought experiment is that I
_don't_ really think you'd have much claim - more because of the five
years than the 1991.)

Just out of curiosity - is this model a film or digital camera? If film
(and you say "they are in use"), I admire your dedication: keeping film
photography going these days (perhaps especially in Argentina, though
that may actually have the opposite effect) must require some effort.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep decide what is for dinner.
(quoted by) Ipraylam, 2015-07-13

nick wrote:

>As a sort-of thought experiment, John, I just remembered that about five years ago I bought an absolutely brand new Pentax SFXn camera. It was still in its original box in its original wrapping and had never been used. It's still in exactly the same condition, in the same wrapping, in the same box and I've never used it. If I were to take it out and find that it were faulty, do you think I might have a claim against someone?
>
>If I now tell you that it was NOS (new old stock) and that model was last manufactured in 1991, does that alter your opinion in any way? How old would a new thing have be before before the seller/manufacturer should be absolved of responsibility for it?
>
>Nick
>(FWIW I have two more SFXn cameras but they are in use: one here in Argentina, one in the UK and I love each of them dearly. The NOS one was such a bargain that I decided to buy it just in case one of the others were to ever break down.)

During my thin sandwich degree course, I spent time at Eggborough
power station. All that generation of power stations with 500 MW
alternators had suffered from delays and faults requiring
significant repair work - things were about 5 years late at the
time. The previous designs had been 120 MW, and a number of
aspects hadn't scaled well, resulting in premature and
catastrophic failures.

One of my tasks involved taking the shipping rubber bands off
a cabinet of relays, which were already well outside their
stamped 5-year warranty date. I was intrigued by one relay whose
function was, as condenser vacuum fell, to open the turbine hall
roof vents, so that the anticipated blast (1) didn't take all the
windows out.

(1) The low pressure turbine casings included a special explosion
vent comprising a thin metal sheet normally sucked onto a mesh
frame, with a sharp spike poised above it. If pressure becomes
positive, the metal bulges and is pierced by the spike to vent to
atmosphere

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 02:29:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>Acceptable-to-me-quality sandals, especially when they're getting rid of
>them at the end of summer.

I've always had a problem with shoes/feet. I buy shoes and then they
hurt to walk in. Actually some cheap trainers have been fine for
years, until they begin to fall to bits, but some good ones ditto. So
I am picky about sandals. I tend to try and get solid, wide, boys'
ones if I find ones that go up to my size. Those cost more and come
from main shops, not discount.

In message <576etihl091kq7ld5dmsq1diti89hcnhhj@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
2024 09:52:58, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 02:29:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>Acceptable-to-me-quality sandals, especially when they're getting rid of
>>them at the end of summer.
>
>I've always had a problem with shoes/feet. I buy shoes and then they
>hurt to walk in. Actually some cheap trainers have been fine for
>years, until they begin to fall to bits, but some good ones ditto. So
>I am picky about sandals. I tend to try and get solid, wide, boys'
>ones if I find ones that go up to my size. Those cost more and come
>from main shops, not discount.

I can understand that - from what I've seen, sandals for ladies are
rather flimsy.

Latest in my saga: I received an email from "Shoezone Customer
Services", saying:

===
How did we do?

Hello J. P. Gilliver,

Thank you for reaching out to shoezone customer services and your ticket
has now been resolved.

We'd love to hear your feedback! Simply click on the appropiate image
below and tell us your thoughts on the next page.
===

Needless to say, I'd not heard anything, so I clicked (had to export the
email to a browser to even _find_ "the appropiate image" [I hadn't
noticed the spelling error!]) and told them so; I also rang them, and
the person I spoke to said it _hadn't_ been resolved, so the email
shouldn't have been sent.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than
to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US
president, architect and author (1743-1826)

On 22/02/2024 03:17, nick wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> In message <dr4dti18ocjb229vq3skji5kfm779ipqhv@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
>> 2024 00:25:13, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
>>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone
>>>>> going to
>>>>> that sort of trouble.
>>>>
>>>> Oh good - you've named the shop involved.  If "they" have any sense at
>>>> all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
>>>> all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."
>
>> That _really_ irritates me; it's companies' way of not admitting
>> liability. I _think_ Lidl used it when giving me the voucher for not
>> having a smartphone. (Which I couldn't use on Tuesday because I was
>> using the self-checkout and they only accept such vouchers at the
>> tills - I took pity and said I'll use it next time.)
>>>>
>>>> If they do, lots of Umrats will say to themselves - and their friends
>>>> and families - "Mmm!  I think Shoezone must be a good place to buy
>>>> shoes."  Whereas if they don't the "Mmm!" will be followed by "I will
>>>> make sure I never shop at Shoezone and I will warn off everyone I
>>>> know."
>
>> OK on Twitter maybe (or the dreaded Facebook perhaps?); I fear they'd
>> never have heard of usenet, let aline UMRA.
>>>
>>> I think they  have an outlet locally in the Asda hypermarket.  Very
>>> cheap shoes, always a sale, more than once closed down and then open
>>> as if new.  Their shoes would tend to be poor quality.
>>> 'Discount shoe chain selling a wide range of styles for men, women &
>>> children, plus bags.'
>
>> (Ah, shoes for bags. Not sure what style of shoe a bag would want.)
>
>> Acceptable-to-me-quality sandals, especially when they're getting rid
>> of them at the end of summer.
>
> As a sort-of thought experiment, John, I just remembered that about five
> years ago I bought an absolutely brand new Pentax SFXn camera. It was
> still in its original box in its original wrapping and had never been
> used. It's still in exactly the same condition, in the same wrapping, in
> the same box and I've never used it. If I were to take it out and find
> that it were faulty, do you think I might have a claim against someone?
>
> If I now tell you that it was NOS (new old stock) and that model was
> last manufactured in 1991, does that alter your opinion in any way? How
> old would a new thing have be before before the seller/manufacturer
> should be absolved of responsibility for it?
>
> Nick
> (FWIW I have two more SFXn cameras but they are in use: one here in
> Argentina, one in the UK and I love each of them dearly. The NOS one was
> such a bargain that I decided to buy it just in case one of the others
> were to ever break down.)

The WD website refused to let me register (register, not make a claim)
an HDD I'd just bought because it had been sitting in Curry World's
warehouse for over a year (or was it two).

--
Ric

On 22-Feb-24 8:45, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> nick wrote:
>
>> As a sort-of thought experiment, John, I just remembered that about five years ago I bought an absolutely brand new Pentax SFXn camera. It was still in its original box in its original wrapping and had never been used. It's still in exactly the same condition, in the same wrapping, in the same box and I've never used it. If I were to take it out and find that it were faulty, do you think I might have a claim against someone?
>>
>> If I now tell you that it was NOS (new old stock) and that model was last manufactured in 1991, does that alter your opinion in any way? How old would a new thing have be before before the seller/manufacturer should be absolved of responsibility for it?
>>
>> Nick
>> (FWIW I have two more SFXn cameras but they are in use: one here in Argentina, one in the UK and I love each of them dearly. The NOS one was such a bargain that I decided to buy it just in case one of the others were to ever break down.)
>
> During my thin sandwich degree course, I spent time at Eggborough
> power station. All that generation of power stations with 500 MW
> alternators had suffered from delays and faults requiring
> significant repair work - things were about 5 years late at the
> time. The previous designs had been 120 MW, and a number of
> aspects hadn't scaled well, resulting in premature and
> catastrophic failures.
>
> One of my tasks involved taking the shipping rubber bands off
> a cabinet of relays, which were already well outside their
> stamped 5-year warranty date. I was intrigued by one relay whose
> function was, as condenser vacuum fell, to open the turbine hall
> roof vents, so that the anticipated blast (1) didn't take all the
> windows out.
>
> (1) The low pressure turbine casings included a special explosion
> vent comprising a thin metal sheet normally sucked onto a mesh
> frame, with a sharp spike poised above it. If pressure becomes
> positive, the metal bulges and is pierced by the spike to vent to
> atmosphere

I remember working on equipment which was fully built and tested, but
the customer had serious delays with the building it was intended for.

Our company agreed to store the equipment until they were ready for it
(I assume they paid us for this).

Time went by, and when they eventually were ready to take delivery, all
the component parts were well outside the manufacturers' warranty period.
Despite this, we were somehow on the hook to give the customer 2 years
warranty on the whole thing (some of those component parts were very
delicate and incredibly expensive).

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <ur7md5$3ttnk$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:40:36,
Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> writes
[]
>The WD website refused to let me register (register, not make a claim)
>an HDD I'd just bought because it had been sitting in Curry World's
>warehouse for over a year (or was it two).
>
Latest in my saga: they've asked for photographs:

Pictures Required:
Image 1: Birds eye view of both of the shoes
Image 2: Full image of the soles of the shoes
Image 3: Detailed image of the faults

So I've sent them. (I assume image 2, in particular, was to assess wear,
and does indeed show [lack thereof].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look at those early black-and-white episodes of /Coronation Street/;
like Ibsen in an flowered pinny. - Iam McMillan, RT 2020/2/22-28

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 02:29:33 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <dr4dti18ocjb229vq3skji5kfm779ipqhv@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
> 2024 00:25:13, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
>><NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/02/2024 20:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> ... but I admit I hadn't thought of that! I can't see shoezone going
>>>> to that sort of trouble.
>>>
>>>Oh good - you've named the shop involved. If "they" have any sense at
>>>all they would immediately offer you a full refund, even if they deny
>>>all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."
>
> That _really_ irritates me; it's companies' way of not admitting
> liability. I _think_ Lidl used it when giving me the voucher for not
> having a smartphone. (Which I couldn't use on Tuesday because I was
> using the self-checkout and they only accept such vouchers at the tills
> - I took pity and said I'll use it next time.)

You might like to think of using the tills as a matter of principle
anyway. The supermarkets¹ would love nothing more than to do away with
tills altogether and thus do away with another job option for the hard-
pressed.

Rosie

¹ With the honorary exception of the excellent Booths, which has done away
with self-checkout in all but two of its locations. Unfortunately confined
to Lancashire and surrounding areas.

In message <ur8k2m$4fee$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:07:02,
Rosie Mitchell <walneyrose@gmail.com> writes
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 02:29:33 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> In message <dr4dti18ocjb229vq3skji5kfm779ipqhv@4ax.com> at Thu, 22 Feb
>> 2024 00:25:13, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>>On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:23:03 +0000, Jenny M Benson
>>><NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
[]
>>>>all responsibility and say it is a "gesture of goodwill."
>>
>> That _really_ irritates me; it's companies' way of not admitting
>> liability. I _think_ Lidl used it when giving me the voucher for not
>> having a smartphone. (Which I couldn't use on Tuesday because I was
>> using the self-checkout and they only accept such vouchers at the tills
>> - I took pity and said I'll use it next time.)
>
>You might like to think of using the tills as a matter of principle
>anyway. The supermarkets¹ would love nothing more than to do away with
>tills altogether and thus do away with another job option for the hard-
>pressed.

I would have loved to use the tills - since I shop with a large folding
crate, I have to call the assistant anyway, because the self-scan
checkouts Lidl uses haven't got a big enough "bagging area" for it.
(Some of the other supermarkets have _some_ self-scan ones with a big
flat area.) But - for the first time ever that I can remember - Lidl
didn't have _any_ tills operating. (They did open one, but only after I
was well into scanning anyway.)
>
>Rosie
>
>¹ With the honorary exception of the excellent Booths, which has done away
>with self-checkout in all but two of its locations. Unfortunately confined
>to Lancashire and surrounding areas.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012