Sports Store Won't Provide Refund/Exchange for Defective Shoes - Help!

adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:06
Last edited 08/06/2021 - 16:08 by 1 other user

Essentially bought a pair of ASICS running shoes 6 months ago for $200 from Jim Kids in WA. The netting on the top of the shoe has start coming apart to the extend you can see my sock. I took them back to Jim Kidds who said they would send a report to ASICs who would determine if a credit would be provided. ASICs came back stating that it was "wear and tear" and no credit would be awarded.

Straight away all i can think is "shouldn't shoes which cost $200 last more than 6 months?". I tell this to the manager and he says "nothing we can do", it was determined by ASICs.

So my question is, does Jim Kidds have liability here for the shoes? yes, ASICs has said they would not provide a refund but does this absolve Jim Kidd's of their responsibility to provide an exchange for a defective product? From my position, it seems like Jim Kidd's is trying to push the problem off to ASIC's and giving me no further recourse other than to follow it up with them myself?

Any help would be appreciated!

EDIT: Just standard usage with these shoes…. the sole / glue is not coming apart, that aspect is fine (where you would usually attribute wear and tear)

EDIT 2: I should have added to all this, the same issue occurred within 2 months of an original pair of the same shoes… I returned them to the store and they were exchanged (again through the same ASICs approval process). It seems here it has to do more with the length of time that is is now under wear and tear. Do I have any more leverage considering it is a second pair of the same shoe with the same issue?

EDIT 3:
Image 1: https://imgur.com/f3uTwE8
Image 2: https://imgur.com/OewsJrZ
Image 3: https://imgur.com/OLZGLnD
Image 4: https://imgur.com/3gGauBm
Image 5: https://imgur.com/R8CwGNM

EDIT 4:
Contacted ASICs directly explaining my situation. They were sympathetic to my issues and offered an exchange in store with Jim Kidd's. They did recommend trying a different shoe.

Thanks for everyone's advice!

Fashion & Apparel

Comments

  • Melb69 on 05/06/2021 - 15:13
    +1

    Were you using it hard for the 6months? You can try testing for the fault being less than it should be for the price. There is a consumer law, but it's a battle you need to fight for. Say you didn't use it everyday for hard runnung I wouldn't expect it to wear that quick. What are the reviews. Are there similar cases to support your feeing that the wear is unacceptable. You need to do some research and pushing. Really at the end of the dat it's up to the store. You can just not go back to that store anymore.. I just don't get why stores aren't better at product issues given they need the sales now and in future. Good luck

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:38

      Just standard usage with these shoes…. the sole / glue is not coming apart, that aspect is fine (where you would usually attribute wear and tear). It is just the netting on top.

      I run maybe 5km a week? surely that isnt grounds for a brand new shoe falling apart.

      • coffeeinmyveins on 09/06/2021 - 13:43

        surely that isnt grounds for a brand new shoe falling apart.

        6 months old is not brand new. Were you wearing them every day? that's 1,500 hours. Far from brand new. but i understand your frustration.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 05/06/2021 - 15:15
    +2

    Running shoes, only have a life expectancy of about 6 months if used as intended. If you're using it as a casual shoe, you would expect them to last longer. Source for this was a podiatrist advising triathletes.

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:44
      +1

      I should have added to all this, the same issue occured within 2 months of an original pair of the same shoes… i returned them to the store and they were exchanged (again through the same ASICs approval process). It seems here it has to do more with the length of time that is is now under wear and tear. Do i have any more leverage considering it is a second pair of the same shoe with the same issue?

      • Melb69 on 05/06/2021 - 16:46
        +1

        I think if it is the same issue you could argue for a refund. Maybe this style brand not for you

  • Banj0 on 05/06/2021 - 15:19
    +1

    I believe your beef is directly with Jim Kidd, not ASIC's, as the retailer is responsible for the products they sell. Of course you can post about your experience with both brands on ProductReview and other channels, which is never good for them if they end up with an excessive number of bad reviews.

    Otherwise, follow this below. Short of going to court though, you really can't force them to do anything. I agree that a $200 pair of shoes should last longer than 6 months…but maybe that would depend on how many k's you did. If I drove a lot more than I do, then I could probably wear out a set of tyres in six months easily. As for shoes, one would hope that the sole would wear out before the upper though. My Gel Nimbus' usually last years before getting to that point, and eventually the upper is developing holes at the same time the sole is peeling away…but then I'm only walking in them.

    https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/making-co…

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:44

      I should have added to all this, the same issue occured within 2 months of an original pair of the same shoes… i returned them to the store and they were exchanged (again through the same ASICs approval process). It seems here it has to do more with the length of time that is is now under wear and tear. Do i have any more leverage considering it is a second pair of the same shoe with the same issue?

  • Seraphin7 on 05/06/2021 - 15:26
    +1

    How did you use them? Running shoes will last 500 - 1,000kms. How does this stack up against your use?

    For what it's worth, all my running shoes develop a hole in the toe after probably about 200kms of running … but they're running shoes so I just don't care.

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:39

      I wear them most days but in terms of running, maybe 5km a week? nothing too strenuous on the shoe id imagine.

      Like i said in other replies, its not the sole / glue coming apart, its just the netting on the upper of the shoe. the rest is still fine.

  • Drakesy on 05/06/2021 - 15:33

    In this case i believe Asics is well within their rights here and Jim Kidd really is at the mercy of Asic's rulings in regards to warranty.

    Unfortunately shoes aren't subject to timeframe warranties as such, but more use, i believe after 6 months of use shoes can and will wear out.
    I've worn through shoes in 3 months when training for a marathon, ~60k's a week for 12 weeks. Doesn't mean i'll go back to the retailer for a warranty on my $200+ Kayanos, if i could i'd be getting new shoes every 3 months. Or if they're treated particularly hard, running in rain, playing sports that require change of direction all dictate this.

    It sounds like if the toes going through the mesh the toe box may be a bit small for your feet or the shoe may be a bit small. In this case the consumer watchdog would find in favour of Asics.

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:42

      I guess that makes sense, but as in my other replies, i wear them daily and max runnnig 5km a week.

      I am no marathon runner thats for sure.

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 15:44

      I should have added to all this, the same issue occured within 2 months of an original pair of the same shoes… i returned them to the store and they were exchanged (again through the same ASICs approval process). It seems here it has to do more with the length of time that is is now under wear and tear. Do i have any more leverage considering it is a second pair of the same shoe with the same issue?

      • resubaehtgnolhcs on 05/06/2021 - 17:09
        +2

        If the same issue has happened twice, and you primarily just walk in your shoes (running only 5km per week), it sounds like the shoe is too small for you and your (big) toe is causing netting to come undone by repeatedly rubbing againt it. Now there could be other reasons and YMMV, but just soemthign to consider.

        • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 18:19

          Have uploaded photos into the description if you're interest in viewing!

          • resubaehtgnolhcs on 05/06/2021 - 18:29
            +2

            @adam456: That's alot of tearing up top on the netting. Can't explain all that wear and tear, and in different spots! Do you use an exercise bike or anything like that were you would insert your shoes into craddle/strap? If you're not doing anything to the shoes to cause the damage, than the only thing I can think of is that they are too small for your feet - hence the multiple holes/tearing.

  • iNeed2Pee on 05/06/2021 - 15:39

    Doesn't jim kidd sports post many deals on this site?

  • Banj0 on 05/06/2021 - 16:27
    +3

    Regardless of whether or not a refund/exchange is justified here, let's be clear, responsibility always rests with the retailer. You may seek redress from a manufacturer if you wish, but under Australian Consumer Law the buck stops with the business you purchased the item from.

    • Melb69 on 05/06/2021 - 16:49
      +2

      Sometimes it's good to just go straight to the manufacturer. We had an issue with a head phone mic. Computer store useless.. Just went direct to manu and put in a claim. Sent pic of fault and replacement sent.

      • holdenmg on 05/06/2021 - 17:31

        But:
        https://www.asics.com/au/en-au/warranty-form/
        says:
        "If you have purchased from an ASICS store please contact the store directly."

        • cheapaschips on 05/06/2021 - 18:36

          That states "ASICS store", not a sports retailer.

          • holdenmg on 05/06/2021 - 18:41
            +1

            @cheapaschips: Yes, but it means any authorised/licensed ASICS reseller.

            So, their form allows an online purchaser who has bought from ASICS Australia to negotiate direct. (Doesn't mean the result is any different).

    • Drakesy on 05/06/2021 - 18:56
      -1

      but if Asics says no then Jim Kidd says no,
      I'm not sure what else you want Jim Kidd to do in this situation

  • xuqi on 05/06/2021 - 16:55

    Provide some photo's showing the condition the shoe (top, sole, and sides) so we can provide an opinion.

    https://imgur.com/upload

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 18:19

      Thanks, Just uploaded them into the description! tell me what you think!

      • holdenmg on 05/06/2021 - 18:22

        Odd wear points/location.

        Were you wearing them while Cycling?

        When you purchased, did they measure your feet or just buy off the rack?

        • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 19:43

          Zero for cycling.

          Literally wearing most days + running 5km a week

          Also. The guy in store just said yep. Looks good. They fit. So no real measuring.

      • xuqi on 05/06/2021 - 22:34

        Thanks.

        Definitely looks like a failure of the shoe material to me, so I'd be pushing them for a refund.

        Personally, if the first pair failed in this was I would have asked for refund to buy another brand.

  • Ocker on 05/06/2021 - 18:03
    +3

    "contracts" are in play here - (a) you and the retailer and (b), the retailer and ASICS.
    You really have no course of action against ASICS.
    Given the apparent stalemate with the retailer I would refer the matter to your state's consumer affairs dept. and seek their guidance and/or intervention

  • iamherenow on 05/06/2021 - 19:07
    +1

    They look like lightweight running shoes. I'd think not designed for everyday wear.

  • SF3 on 05/06/2021 - 19:10
    +1

    As kids out grow their shoes rather quickly and don’t necessarily take good care of them.

    Could have gotten a Everlast $20 pair from Kmart, you could have bought for 10 pairs over a few years!

  • Eeples on 05/06/2021 - 19:21
    -1

    OP has been asked twice if they have been used for cycling.

    • adam456 on 05/06/2021 - 19:42

      Zero for cycling.

      Literally wearing most days + running 5km a week

  • miwahni on 05/06/2021 - 22:21

    Almost looks like insect damage - any silverfish in your house?

  • Melb69 on 06/06/2021 - 00:12

    To me I think you should look for runners with more side material as maybe your rolling more weight on the sides. I know Costco seem to get alot of returns for these web type runners. They are filmsey as.

    A family member is currently wearing some Adidas ones. Will see how they go.

    Your soles look hardly warn.

    Worth pushing for just a refund, but would definitely try ones with better side and toe leather

  • srhardy on 06/06/2021 - 07:57
    -1

    So, you bought a pair & they wore faster then you would like and got them replaced. So then, having learnt nothing, as I’m guessing the replacement pair wore just as quick, you bought another pair and thought, well they will just replace them, miss life and are all piggy about being knocked back.

    These super light, airy shoes are made for running and they don’t last. Period. But in return you have a style and feeling you obviously like, $200 worth, it seems!

    Buy better quality shoes or expect to buy 2 pair a year

    I feel sorry for the poor 12 year old that sowed them for 50c

    • adam456 on 06/06/2021 - 09:36

      I would have thought at $200 you would get a fairly decent shoes? But cheers for your useless, passive aggressive input.

      • Melb69 on 06/06/2021 - 09:54
        +1

        In short srhardy is saying maybe next time if the shoe is already faulty after a short time, you're probably better off just getting a refund or different style of shoe as I have said as well. There are some good review sites on runners. By the way runners are overpriced and what you pay does not necessarily mean it's a good runner. Alot of good marketing involved by the manufacturer.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 09/06/2021 - 13:45

      I feel sorry for the poor 12 year old that sowed them for 50c

      What about the person who made the macbook air you have, or the other clothes you wear? The (profanity) does this provide to the converastion except to put yourself on a high horse? twat.

  • OzHunterNSW on 06/06/2021 - 10:47
    +1

    So, let me get this straight, you have been wearing a pair of shoes playing sport, for six months, and now expect a refund bc of wear and tear

    • adam456 on 06/06/2021 - 11:43

      If you have read my previous posts that's the issues. I hardly use them for sport. Only to wear walking and one 5km a week.

      The issue is that the shoe is not falling apart it's just the netting. So hardly wear and tear. That's my gripe.

      The soles are fine. The glue is not coming apart. The netting is the only part failing.

  • Webber000 on 06/06/2021 - 18:27

    From the photos it looks more like damage to me. Hard for you to prove you haven't used/ripped them on something unless you can see other parts wearing out that isn't clear in the photos. On balance I'm slightly more on your side that they should be replaced as the sole looks like it's had hardly any wear and thus how could the tops have worn out. Obviously don't buy that brand again as they're not made to a very high standard.

  • yolohobo on 06/06/2021 - 23:45
    +2

    Are you me?

    I had the exact same issue, with the same brand, at the same store - and was knocked back with the same justification.

    After hitting a dead-end with the retailer, I spoke to Consumer Protection, who advised me to do the following:

    • Get independent assessment of the issue from a shoe repairer.
    • Ask them if they feel the damage to the shoes is reasonable or unreasonable - taking into account how long you've owned them for, and the condition you've kept them in.
    • If they agree it's unreasonable, ask them to put this in writing and sign it.
    • Call Consumer Protection, explain the issue to them, and send them the letter from the shoe repairer.
    • They will then issue a demand to Jim Kidd requesting they comply with their warranty obligations.

    Best of luck.

    • adam456 on 07/06/2021 - 11:51

      Haha glad to see I'm not the only one!

      Cheers for this!

  • HeWhoKnows on 07/06/2021 - 15:14

    OPs issue is 100% with ASICs. Not with the retailer.

    Jim Kidd is only responsible if the supplier no longer exists.

    And 6 months of wear is a long time for any running shoe regardless of the cost!
    And who knows what conditions OP subjected the shoes to.
    As others have mentioned it certainly looks like damage rather than failure or a manufacturing fault.
    So I must agree with the conclusion drawn by ASICs.
    So herein lies the problem for OP
    Expecting miracles from a pair of shoes just because OP paid $200 for them
    Hohum. I dont think so

    And sorry yolohobo.
    Its not as simple as that.
    And how much are you going to pay the shoe repairer to closely inspect the shoes AND write a report
    That is if you can find one stupid enough to get involved with OP.
    And who will accept this poor shoe repairer's word over an EXPERT in the field such as ASICs.
    Seriously
    The shoe repairer is not an expert in ASICs running shoes nor a lawyer
    So dream on mate
    You live on Cloud 9

    BOTTOM LINE
    If it was a manufacturing fault the shoes would have failed within the first 2 or 3 months.
    And as others have said…it certainly looks like damage and/or wear and tear

  • peteru on 07/06/2021 - 22:40

    From the pictures, it looks like these shoes are not a great fit for you. They seem too narrow. That could contribute to premature failure of the materials. Your angle here may be that the retailer did not sell you a product fit for purpose, assuming they assisted with the fitting process.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join