I didn't know that shoe size is small and I decided to send it back.
Just got an email saying It shows partially signs like the soiled insole.
so I am gonna record the package when I got it back and show there is no soil or worn mark and make an inquiry to fair trade
Would it be fine??
tried on carpeted my room once
soiled insole
That would mean your foot was dirty when you tried it on.
You aren't entitled to a change of mind refund.
It was not change of mind, it was wrong size. I am assuming he ordered his normal size but as what can sometimes happen the shoes were not physically that size.
I recently had to return a pair that was my regular aust size but they were just far to narrow for a normal foot.
Oddly enough I see the supplier has realised this and drastically reduced the price.
A lot of people will now be buying very cheap brand name shoes that dont fit!! LOL
Then I have no proper reason to make an inquiry???
I tried that shoes in carpeted room for once and they said they can see worn signs soiled insole
The wear marks are probably from the last person who bought them and found they didn't fit.
Unless our friend had dirty socks how could they possibly tell they had been worn by looking inside the soles were perfectly clean ?
Unless they advertise you can order things, try them on and return them if they're the wrong size (or other criteria OP might match).
It is one of their return policies that I can send it back if it is too big or small
This is a very important point. You probably would have gotten a lot less push back from the OzB community if you mentioned this in the OP.
ozbargain pointless forum post syndrome strikes again
What shanakatak said, you are not entitled to a refund for a change of mind, or because you bought the wrong shoe size.
The physical sizes do vary even though you order the size you always wear. It happens a lot with clothing also.
Actually i believe they are entitled because the size of the shoe was not the expected size. Its nt our friends fault numerous shoe makers have slightly bigger or small shoe sizes for what are supposed to be standard sizing numbers.
Change of mind is when you decide you don't want the item anymore for no reason.
Wouldn't this fit under the category "Not fit for purpose" ? which under the Trade Practices Act is widely accepted reason for return of product.
Under the circumstances where a person cannot measure before purchase would this not be reasonable?
Wrong size doesn't make it not fit for purpose, unless there was a sizing chart that was wrong or you were sent the wrong shoe size.
@ Michegianni, that's not how "fit for purpose" works. They are fit for purpose, because the purpose of the shoes is to wear them (and OP didn't state there's a defect in them). The fact that they don't fit a particular person doesn't change that.
The reasonableness in regards to not being able to try them on as you suggested, is also not a strong argument because he selected the size and could have tried on the same pair of shoes locally (as most people would when buying clothes/shoes online).
I assume you have purchased this online and had it delivered?
Then if that is the case, then you might have a leg to stand on.
Many online sellers should factor size variation issues.
Normally, they give you store credit rather than refund.
Also read their Terms & Conditions on their website.
I would threaten them with ACL and see what happens.
Otherwise, the moral of the story is, buy in person rather than online. (Unless you are 100% aware of the product)
It is convenient, however issues like this can happen.
Cheers
I would threaten them with ACL and see what happens.
that is interesting. what would you threaten this particular retailer with?
Please do a Google on what ACL means and you "hopefully" you should get the gist of what I am talking about
many of us ozbarginaers knows what the acl is and how it works.
what section of the act applies to this dispute and how would you use it threaten this retailer?
If you still don't that I am happy to elaborate
please do. we can all learn new things. :)
Your comment suggest you dont understand ACL though. What other sellers do as good will for change of mind does not make it law.
Sorry, was this comment directed to me?
"What other sellers do as good will for change of mind does not make it law."
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Can you please rephrase it?
@vinni9284: vinni, I think everyone here knows what the ACL is. They are asking what part of it applies in this situation.
It is not just some magic wand you can save and have your problem remedied.
Well, according to another poster, they wanted me to elaborate. Unless they are playing games.
I am not stating that a magic wand is going to fix.
That is why i implied to "threaten" with ACL.
Many people don't want to be inconvenienced to take any matters further however implying that the OP is willing to pursue then the seller might come to an agreement for remedy.
What ACL might applied to this situation? Seller vs consumer. Soiled vs not soiled.
Does the seller have evidence? Does the OP have evidence (a photo of the shoe before returning) … these are further questions that I will ask
If one or the other have evidence, then it might come to a resolution, good or bad
A friend of mine had boots that they have purchased from a retailer … after a while it looked defective (not sure exactly what was the issue)
The seller denied a replacement when he approached them about the issue.
He went to ACL, took their advise and got a replacement with their assistance.
@vinni9284:
I think the other posters are asking what the OP could base their threat on.
Merely saying "I am taking you to ACL because I can, although you didn't technically break any rules" sounds like how kids fight in kindergarten.
I believe customers are not entitled of exchange or refund, unless there are defects in the products. Every other major stores does it out of good will.
I suppose OP could ask the seller for photo evidence. However, if OP didn't take any photos prior to sending the shoes back, it's your words vs theirs.
Please do a Google on what ACL means and you "hopefully" you should get the gist of what I am talking about.
I did, now I'm going to go threaten them with surgery.
:)
@vinni9284: I didn't want to grab a pitchfork, however.
Wrong size purchased is effectively change of mind. Most online retailers know that it's hard for people to judge this, so they offer replacements. If they didn't offer replacements, then it would be an even bigger risk buying online. Please note I mentioned MOST online retailers. ACL does not dictate change of mind must be replaced/refunded.
A friend of mine had boots that they have purchased from a retailer … after a while it looked defective
Key word here: defective. Not change of mind / wrong size. They threatened ACL because they received a DEFECTIVE item. ACL protects us from defective items.
Hopefully this helps with your understanding, and if I'm wrong, please care to elaborate.
If you still don't that I am happy to elaborate
OP said "Shoe size is small"
How can you insinuate that the OP changed their mind because the size is different?
Would you buy a shoe online if it doesn't fit and suck it up?
If it was an online purchase, they will offer an exchange. If the size is incorrect. Shoe size varies.
The OP should post the T&C on this site. That will clear most of this up.
I don't need your elaboration as it seems like i have a Politically Correct suck it up, Professors of ACL gang here
I understand the rationale behind the comments here.
"I am taking you to ACL because I can, although you didn't technically break any rules" sounds like how kids fight in kindergarten."
How do you know that the seller technically didn't break the rules?
"I believe customers are not entitled of exchange or refund, unless there are defects in the products. Every other major stores does it out of good will."
That is your opinion. However I don't agree. You have to read their T&C's.
Many retailers give the consumer a 14 day "exchange" period from the day of receipted purchase, regardless of change your mind, size etc … The OP has to post the T&C's of the retailer to get more clarity.
Going by the OP has stated.
1 - Shoes were purchased online.
2 - Shoes arrived at their address.
3 - The OP wore it on carpet.
4 - Size is too small and contacted the seller.
5 - The OP posted to back to the seller.
6 - The seller rejected the claim (exchange or refund) due to soiling of the shoe.
Q. What evidence that the seller has that it is soiled? How is it soiled? Carpet fluff?
Q. Does the OP has their decision in writing (email)?
Q. Does the OP have any pictures?
Q. How long after the purchase did the OP wanted to return it due to sizing? 5 days? … etc
If I was the OP, I would fight this and not "Suck it up" like many posters here say.
Threatening ACL to them is my opinion and that's what I will do, however I believe that many sellers do the right thing and act in good will to keep a customer happy. However you get some sharks.
But that's me.
So.. to the Professors of the ACL lawyers on this site, have you read all of the "Trade Practices Act 1974"?
The law has many Grey areas.
So if I was the OP, I would pursue this and go straight to ACL for advice as the seller and buyer are pointing fingers.
It is free and the OP can get clarity of what step to take next.
If op bought size 10 for example and he received a size 10 shoe and the shoe chart size is correct. Then it is a change of mind if op decides it's too small.
If op bought size 10 and received size 8 instead, or the shoe was 27cm instead of the advertised 28cm for example, then it's not change of mind.
Unless op wants to clarify, it sounds like op received the size he ordered, but it turns out his feet didn't fit.
If you were ever considering going into business selling shoes online and going by your Business model, you will be broke within 6 months.
Everyone has different type of feet, regardless of definitive measurements.
E.g Wider feet, longer toes, higher heels etc
Hence the seller has to factor variation .. and many are more than happy to exchange due to this
@Ughhh:
Mate… who buys your shoes for you..?
Go out to a few shoe stores and try on a few different makes and types of shoes and eventually you will see what I am trying to tell you.
Just like clothing… the size marker does not guarantee that it is exactly that size… THEY DO VARY.
I had to return a pair of shoes ordered online for exactly the same reason. They were marked my size but were far too narrow. The seller agreed without debate and has now subsequently reduced the price of that shoe to clear them out.
Shoes made exclusively for the asian market are narrower than those for the aust market… did you know that???
If you can find two pairs of different shoes that are the same size and they are milimeter perfect in every measurement then it will be a miracle.
I hope i have explained this in a simple enough manner.
That is called good customer service, not consumer law. You are getting confused. If the seller does not allow returns for change of mind, that is their legal right as a business, whether it's a smart thing to do is irrelevant.
If you were ever considering going into business selling shoes online and going by your Business model, you will be broke within 6 months.
Everyone has different type of feet, regardless of definitive measurements.
I am basing my answers on the ACL and what is classified as change of mind. Unlike you, I am not putting in my personal feelings/believes/method on how a business should be run. The answers should be based on facts, not how you feel.
As I've said to the op, you are getting good customer service mixed up with consumer law.
Add I've said before
If you bought a size 10 shoe, advertised to be 28cm and that is exactly what you got, then you got what was advertised to you. If you foot happened to not fit because you have wide feet, that is not the business' fault. The shoe was sold to you as advertised, you weren't given a size 8 / 20cm shoe. You weren't mislead.
If you bought a 5L box and you received a 5L box, it's not change of mind if you suddenly found out you actually need 5.3L.
If they want to make you happy, they'll exchange it for you, but they don't have to by ACL.
I don't know how to make it more simple to understand.
OK, here is a Case Scenario.
1 - You have gone to a website and saw a pair of shoes that you like.
2 - You look at the chart and see size 10, alongside with measurements 28cms
3 - You measure your feet and they are perfect.
4 - Shoes get delivered and it is too small.
5 - You contact the seller immediately about the issue and they say:
Seller = "If you bought a size 10 shoe, advertised to be 28cm and that is exactly what you got, then you got what was advertised to you. If you foot happened to not fit because you have wide feet, that is not the business' fault. The shoe was sold to you as advertised, you weren't given a size 8 / 20cm shoe. You weren't mislead."
What will you do? (Please circle the correct answer)
1 - Suck it up - As you point out many of times.
2 - Complain like the OP.
3 - Bikies.
4 - Demand an exchange
5 - Never buy from them again.
6 - ACL
7 - Or go Ughhh like your username
Business Acumen vs Legal Right.
What is right?
Based on facts according to ACL, I got what I purchased.
Based on feelings, I would want to exchange.
So, is op looking for answers based on feelings or based on ACL? Should we invite Dr Phil or Judge Judy to the discussion?
All that being said, doesnt mean that is how I would conduct business, nor what I would want as a customer.
In case you're still confused, what you feel is right doesn't always means that's what you are legalally entitled to. Keeps feelings seperate to facts/law. I'm pretty sure Judge would LOL too, but not with you.
But you can't get an exchange! The shoe is correct, right?
I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to differentiate between feelings and facts…
If you want to talk about your feelings on how the world should be, go see a professional. The discussion is about law.
Bad luck! No exchange for you!
Just to repeat your previous post:
Add I've said before
If you bought a size 10 shoe, advertised to be 28cm and that is exactly what you got, then you got what was advertised to you. If you foot happened to not fit because you have wide feet, that is not the business' fault. The shoe was sold to you as advertised, you weren't given a size 8 / 20cm shoe. You weren't mislead.
Suck it up Princess!
Suck it up Princess
Yes.. I'm the one who keeps involving my precious feelings into the discussion about legal rights.
As I've said before, but I'll put in bold for you this time so you don't miss it
All that being said, doesnt mean that is how I would conduct business, nor what I would want as a customer.
This was getting interesting please continue while i grab the popcorn :)
100% with you a exchange should at least been here if the business wants to survive
100% with you a exchange should at least been here if the business wants to survive
this is part of the problem. consumers have over the years been conditioned to expect change of mind exchanges as a "right" even then retailers aren't legally required to. big mnc like amazon can easily accommodate this while the local b&m can't.
Change of mind shouldn't
A different size yes but shoe
Has to be as good as given
By the sounds of it wasn't up to scratch for it to get rejected
@vinni9284: Not even going to the rest of your dribble in this thread, but
So.. to the Professors of the ACL lawyers on this site, have you read all of the "Trade Practices Act 1974
I would have thought an ACL expert like yourself would know that the ACL replaced the TPA, so seems largely irrelevant as to whether people have read it.
All good. It's your choice whether to read it or not Professor.
"Last night a DJ saved my life"
Of course some brands have slightly different smaller/larger for standard size numbers. Its not our friends fault but the sellers for misrepresenting that the shoes are labelled as if they were standard sizes when they may v ery well be off the expected size.
@vinni9284: I prefer to read current legislation, but suit yourself.
I would suggest you might like to read the Competition and Consumer Act.
Don't threaten, just use ACL.
Agree.
I guess an initial warning might save time :-)
Cheers
If the shoes were returned in a soiled state calling in the bikies will achieve nothing.
How do you guys know that the OP is not entitled to a refund?
They may have purchased from a store which allows refunds for unwanted shoes in their T&C.
I had read their policies and they accept refund in my case however they saw worn signs like mentioned above.
So they sent the item back to me instead of refund or replace
Why don't you post a link of the T&C's of this retailer?
Well the problem is the seller may be selling shoes marked as of standard sizes but they are in fact slightly off. In that case i believe Australian law and FT has them saved, for mispresenting the sizes of said shoes.
I am pretty certain that the retailer has a sizing chart for any customers to check, although they maybe a standard size you cant say that the retailer intentionally or unintentionally practice in conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive the customer. The consumer law looks very closely at what is considered a reasonable person/consumer.
Again we cannot see a picture of the shoes so cannot assess whether the shoes are actually soiled or not (I sell shoes at Myer) it is possible that the shoes that OP ordered although they may have tried them on the carpet the lacquered finish on the bottom has worn off a bit hence why the retailer stated that it was soiled.
Usually what I'd do is if I can still sell it then that's fine Il swap it over.
I am pretty certain that the retailer has a sizing chart for any customers to check
THey probably do have ONE sizing chart, but not all sizes aRe the same across different models and makes.
although they maybe a standard size you cant say that the retailer intentionally or unintentionally practice in conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive the customer.
You are forgetting that the shop has to stand by the fact the manuf made the mistake of unstandard shoe sizes.
The consumer law looks very closely at what is considered a reasonable person/consumer.
Thats right, and its reasonable to expect the shoes you buy are sized using standard sizes.
Im not an idiot i know the shop didnt make the shoes themselves, all im saying is if some models are not standard, then its their fault.
@ninetyNineCents: except there is no such thing as standard sizing if by standard you mean US/EU or UK then yes but that's still the conversion. Most major retailers or brands do tell you what the shoe follows it isn't the responsibility of the store to tell them.
except there is no such thing as standard sizing if by standard you mean US/EU or UK then yes but that's still the conversion
The public expect a US 10 to be a certain size, thats perfectly reasonable. In this case there may not be an ISO standard or government body, but these sizes are defined and often shown on charts and you can also find them in th epublic domain like wikipedia.
Most major retailers or brands do tell you what the shoe follows it isn't the responsibility of the store to tell them.
It is because they are selling it, they are responsible if they give you a faulty item that doesnt work so what makes this any different ?
Even better yet, who is responsible ? The manuf made the shoe, they mention its a certain size, how can they and their sellers not be responsible ?
Have you received the shoes back yet? Post a pic for us of the soiled inside of the shoe that they claim.
Not worth beating your head over… just clean them up and sell on Gumtree. Put it down as a lesson.
Even though a shoe is a marked size it can vary to another shoe marked the same size. A point that many here refuse to acknowlege. Clothing is the same..
So the insole is soiled? Was it like that when you bought them? Did you try them on with dirty feet or socks? Post a pic. Without seeing them its hard to provide any advice. But if there are signs of wear you won't get your money back or an exchange.
Isn't refuse another word for rubbish? So you got rubbish, and a refund on a pair of shoes? Throw the rubbish out, problem solved.
Your argument does not compute.
It does.
Burnertoasty reads the subject as this:
Got Refuse and a Refund on a Pair of Shoes
What the OP meant was this:
Refused refund on a pair of shoes after wrong size purchased
or this:
Refused refund on a pair of shoes after my stinky feet soiled the shoes:
or this:
Refused refund on a pair of shoes. Seller has broken T&C's, scapegoating.
I believe what happened is:
OP doesn't realise shoes come in sizes, so orders 'a pair of shoes'
Shoes arrive and OP finds they did not fit.
OP shits in shoes (soiled insoles) in protest, this theory aligns with OPs inability to order shoes or construct a coherent sentence.
OP sends shoes back. Seller sends back refund and a bag of refuse, potentially OP's shit (in a bag).
OP posts on Ozbargain, as incapable of finding a way to dispose of refuse bag.
THe problem of a refund for said shoes isnt solved. Strange way to do maths.
When you receive them back, ask for a refund because they were soiled when you received them.
I work for consumer affairs. Unless the store has made a sizing error, purchasing the wrong item still counts as 'change of mind' under ACL.
Agree, what you said is a fact.
OP is not transparent on the issue.
- We're not sure if the OP ordered the wrong size. Or if they ordered the right size, however, the (online) seller refused to state which scale (US/UK/AUS/EU) the sizing was from. Or if the correct size was ordered and sent, but it was a manufacturer's problem.
- And we're not sure if the OP ordered Brand New shoes, and if said shoes did have some "wear" when received by the (online) seller. And if there was a slight evidence of wear, we are not sure if they were caused by the buyer, or transit, or seller, or the manufacturer.
So its pointless to try and help the OP, who is withholding information.
I did not check properly initially.
It is brand new shoes. Was scaled in US size eventhough retailer is based on Australia.
When I received it, box was pretty broken but shoes looked fine and I tried and decided to send it back.
I usually wear that size converted in AUS but that shoes didnt fit
Then, did you bring this point up?
You could've told the company the box came in a broken/opened state… that any "soilment" of the shoes were caused before you took ownership of it.
www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/refunds-repair…
You are not entitled to a refund if you purchased the wrong product (which you did). However if you came to an agreement with the seller that you could return the item and now they are rejecting it on unreasonable grounds, then you can appeal.
Thx thats what I wanted to hear.
Ahh yes, the old "sorry, the shoes are scuffed/soiled/marked" trick. Apparently this is a fairly common trick to get out of voluntary change of mind policies.
Years ago I bought a pair of shoes from a store that offered change of mind. I did. So, I returned them and the woman took the shoes into the back for some reason and returned to tell me they had grass stains on them and couldn't be returned. Of course, I'd never worn them outside so when I said it was impossible and asked to be shown she pointed out a smudge mark on the side which looked like it had been made with the green ink from one of those Bic 4 pens.
I asked why she disappeared into the back of the store to check the shoes and her response was "that is where we check them". "Why?" I asked. "Don't you think that looks a little suspicious?" "No. Why would it?" "Because that mark wasn't there when I boxed them up this morning and now it has appeared".
This pointless back and forth went on for like 5 minutes, all the while with her trying to desperately conceal a smug smirk that was trying its hardest to appear across her face. Eventually, I just gave up and said something along the lines of "Fine, you've worn me down. You're more committed to your bullshitting than I am to getting a refund or store credit" and just took the shoes and ended up giving them away.
Oh man that really sucked…name and shame that retailer!
Yeah wanna know too
Am I missing something?
Why did you want a refund? Why didn't you just ask for a bigger size? I reckon they would have been happy to do so.
I mean, you wanted the shores originally.
I am sort of moody person. Soon after It didnt fit me I wanted to get my money back. Cuz I had to pay way bigger on other.
Also due to "soiled insole" they wouldnt let me exchange either
I am confused that shoe sizes come in small, medium and large. Don't they usually come in size numbers or centimetres?
Comon Ozbargain, stop dissing the OP on poor grammar/English… It's so sad to see that the community is turning into grammar Nazi's.
On topic, I'd probably name and shame the retailer and post onto their social media and review websites
Agreed. I think the OP got their point across in a pretty clear and succinct manner.
Also agree with the naming and shaming. It's entirely possible that the customer experience team (or whatever they're called) will then reach out to the OP to rectify the situation (and salvage their own reputation).
Seems like most of OzB can't read properly, the OP returned the shoes because the fit is on the smaller side BUT the retailer rejected the refund due soiled insole.
TL;dr version for those that can't read: retailer rejected refund due to soiled insole.
Thats why I didnt comment on others.
Yes the shoes that I did not even wear for over a min in my room.
There should be no any trace of soil but they refused due to it
How dirty are your feet that they refused a refund coz the inside of the shoes are now dirtied up?
Sorry changed jt
You're a mug if yo buy shoes online. Try them on in the store and you wouldn't have any issues.
Yeah I will not buy any like this from the internet anymore…
Sorry guys They mentioned soiled sole not insole. I tho meaning of insole and sole the other way around.
So this makes more obvious
josh676 on 22/09/2017 - 01:09 Comment score below threshold.