I paid 250$ for a certain popular, Australia brand boot. that was in November. 3 weeks after I bought them I noticed a rip in the hide i DIDNT create myself/ would not have any logical reason to create myself. I took them back. “Sorry not our problem- we only cover manufacturing defects”. fine. I go back again. “sorry not our problem DM is in in 2-3 weeks come back then” meanwhile i was advised to leave my boots at the location. SO NOW i have a fucking 250$ pair of boots that ive worn all of FIVE FUCKING TIMES that are currently not even in my possession….. what tha fuck!? i feel so fucking ripped off by this store. by the time this issue gets resolved it will actually be spring !! I had another pair by the same brand that lasted for THREE winters and they were great so I bought another pair and THREE WEEKS i find a defect in the hide…. all I wanted was an exchange but this store has given me so much grief all I just want my money back at this point. This is ridiculous.. my feet are freezing.
no rational person would say I did this myself ESPECIALLY since i just wanted an exchange. Where is the customer service?????? this is sooooo a matter of “fuck you we got your money, bitch :D”
there are 2 arguments here: (1) no rational person would accuse me of making this rip myself (esp since i just wanted an exchange- remember !! they were only 3 weeks old when i brought them in!!)
(2) If it happened “naturally” then i didnt get a quality pair of boot AND I STILL WANT MY MONEY BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
— oh hai- never shopping at your store again 🙂
This article appears in Dec 31, 2009 – Jan 6, 2010.
I hope you have some sort of evidence that you left your boots there. You shouldn’t have done that unless they gave you a receipt of sorts. Otherwise, they’ve got your boots and your money. Go back and tell them you want your exchange. If they won’t give it, tell them you’re going to contact the department of Consumer Affairs. Then actually do it http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/consumer/resolv…
You should have channeled some of this rage when you went to the store – in retail it is always the squeakiest wheel that gets the grease … and these bastards are being pretty greasey about your boots! They should have exchanged them the first time. Start calling managers of managers and don’t give up!
Isn’t 3 weeks a fairly long time to own something without noticing a defect?
I thought the law does say that you have 30 days to change your mind about an item (not 100% sure about this) but in the case of shoes (and clothes), so many people try to return things that so obviously have been worn or damaged after purchase that I understand a retailer’s reluctance to believe that the goods weren’t damaged after you bought them.
Tort law says the item must be of merchantable quality and be fit for the purpose. Tort law does not say the business must exchange a new pair of boots for a used pair. If you didn’t wear them apart from trying them on in the store stick by your guns that the tear is a manufacturer’s defect (and buyer beware next time). If you wore them outside even once they’ll have legal grounds to deny an exchange or refund as this would be a “warranty” issue. I’ll bet the manufacturer made no such warranty. If they did your beef is with the manufacturer, not the retailer. Consider the retailer is going to demand their money back for the manufacturers defect so if you can’t prove it they can’t prove it. Buyer beware for them too!
Now you say its a defect, why do you say so. Is it a seam or where the upper attacheds to the sole? You could have snagged it on something and not realize it. We only have your word that its a defect. If it was ripped by accident then I can see someone trying to exchange it for a new pair. Peoplw try this all the time.
actually they have been worn… the tear is on the inside almost where my ankle bone is. the tear doesn’t go all the way to the outside (so unless I was wearing sharp pants/socks.. there is no way I could have put that tear there). They have been worn, as I stated, approximately 5 separate occasions during the first 3 weeks so they are basically brand new (the lining is completely fluffy- a little bit of wear on the soles is the ONLY way you can tell they’ve been worn at all- they are pristine). theres no doubt in my mind that tear was there when I bought them, I just didn’t notice ( thick sheep skin lining). It is practically impossible to make a rip/tear in the hide myself (i tried on my old pair). I’m not being unreasonable. This defect isn’t a result of my having worn them. I didn’t create this tear myself (impossible due to location and general thickness of the hide).
TDF thanks for the post/link.. I was told to leave them at the store so the district manager could look at them (although Im sure he/she will just give me the old “you wore them, too bad”) but like I said, there is no logical reason why I would have done this myself, its cant be an accident (tear is only on the inside lining) I just want the quality I paid for with this particular brand but im being stone walled by the particular sales people…. its not right.
Worn 5 times is NOT brand new. You’ll also notice having worn them 5 times that the tear or “defect” did not diminish the “fit for use” part of tort law. You’ll have to focus your efforts at exchange on the “merchantable quality” side of tort law. Good luck. You’ll need it.
Thats what you get for buying shitty quality merchandise. Nobody’s going to feel bad for you, your dilemma or your bad taste. Maybe you should save them for summer when you can wear them with booty shorts and a tank top instead of winter when there’s crap on the ground.
No offense but I really don’t think you are going to get anything from the retailer or the merchandiser. You wore the boots five times outside, and had them for three weeks. That’s along time to notice an manufacturers defect. People scam retailers with returns all the time, so they have a right to be wary of you.
The retailer doesn’t want to pay for your wrecked pair of $250.00 boots anymore than you do. You even admit to trying to puncture the material on an old pair. What the retailer probably thinks happened, is that you ripped your boots and want a new pair. For returns on clothing and shoes, the retailer has to be either able to prove the its the manufacturers fault or be able to resell them.
If you can’t prove that its a defect, the retailer can’t either. The retailer also would not be able to resell boots that have had your stinky feet in them and have some (however small amount of) wear. Would you pay $250 for pre-worn ripped boots? Why should the retailer have to eat the cost? When you spend that kind of money on a pair of boots, be careful, and make sure that they are in pristine condition when you buy them.
I worked in retail for years and having someone yell at me over something like this made me less inclined to help them. Sure the retailer could do something but if your rude why should they? Furthermore, you have every reason in the world to claim the rip was a “defect”. Fact is rips, tears, and stains all happen, not the retailers fault. If you don’t look at something closely enough when you buy it that’s your problem. Besides, what after three weeks and five outings made you notice the rip in the first place?
I guess they’re probably thinking ‘how could she own something for 3 weeks and has obviously worn the damn things more than a few times and not notice this damage’.
Yeh, yell at them, that’s usually a big motivator in retailer/purchaser scenerios…
Your first mistake was buying a pair of uggs in the first place.
Isn’t the idea of a winter boot to keep the snow and wetness out and keep your feet warm? They might make your feet warm, but uggs are certainly not waterproof.
Uggs were originally designed as a fucking slipper for cripes sakes.
So were Inuit mukluks but that didn’t stop corporate, white globalists from ripping it off.
PK, you beat me to the punch. Or, it’s like expecting a pair of Buffalo jeans to wear better than a pair of Helly Hansen work pants. You want a boot? Buy a pair of Sorels. It’s Canada, not New York.
On a final note, kay, Tort law says you should fuck off. Just read the fine print, it’s in there somewhere.
tort law tort law wtf do they have laws about snooty french cakes now; socre le bleu
“On a final note, kay, Tort law says you should fuck off. Just read the fine print, it’s in there somewhere.”
Gotta love how kay thinks and acts like she’s a lawyer when she’s merely one-half of a make-up business with her best friend mary.
the um, “grammar” and over the top use of question marks and exclamations marks ( i.e. DRAMA! ) are what i would expect from a chick who buys Ugg boots.
way to fit the stereo type. I bet the OP is cute and doesn’t know how to react when the world doesn’t fall at her feet like she is used to. She must me cute, she sounds like a total pain in the ass.
Martym, you were so close to making a good joke there. But it’s Sacre Bleu. And Tortes are German in origin.
Yeah, the french invented mayonnaise. I like mayonnaise.
But…do you like Baconnaise?
i know i got on a roll than stage fright; i’m just not ready for the big time!
I like the idea of Baconnaise more than my heart would actually like it, methinks.
Worn 5 times is NOT brand new. You’ll also notice having worn them 5 times that the tear or “defect” did not diminish the “fit for use” part of tort law. You’ll have to focus your efforts at exchange on the “merchantable quality” side of tort law. Good luck. You’ll need it.
Now that makes no sense . Likely ” fit for use ” would mean after spending 250 on product like that – 5 times wear is not ” fit use” or merchantile quality if it breaks or ceases to be of “fit use”.
The OP wore them 5 times before noticing. This would imply “fit for use”. But somebody here asked if it was a tear (OP’s or retailer’s fault) or a seam coming apart (manufacture’s fault). Each address “merchantable quality” I guess. Either way the OP could use some luck.
“On a final note, kay, Tort law says you should fuck off. ” ~Fever
If we could add little default signatures to the end of our posts I’d TOTALLY quote you on that, Fever. I actually half choked on the water I’m drinking when I read that.
I love my Sorels. Good to -40*. Yippee! My poor frost-bitten toes stay nice and toasty now. Damned frostbite has a way of staying with you for life, the slightest chill is excrutiating to the bitten bits. Musta been the day it was
-116* back in the seventies! Brrrrrrrr….