Walking Shoes Worn Out in 7 Months: Is This Fair Wear and Tear?
A consumer from Queensland purchased a pair of walking shoes based on advice from a sales assistant, only to find the inside heel worn away on both shoes after just seven months. This caused blisters and rendered the shoes unwearable. When the consumer returned to the store, the sales assistant dismissed the issue as fair wear and tear. The company, after reviewing pictures and sales documentation, upheld this decision, despite the consumer citing Australian consumer law regarding acceptable quality and fitness for purpose.
The shoes cost $169, leading the consumer to question whether they should expect to pay over $340 annually for replacement. This case highlights a common frustration: the perceived decline in product durability. However, consumers retain rights under Australian consumer law, known as consumer guarantees. These guarantees mandate that goods must be of acceptable quality, including being safe, durable, and fit for their intended purpose.
Understanding Acceptable Quality and Durability
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission provides guidance on acceptable quality, emphasizing that goods should perform their intended functions for a reasonable time. Factors to consider include the nature of the goods, materials used, price, and any statements made at purchase. For expensive walking shoes used as intended, a lifespan of more than seven months might be reasonable. Price often correlates with expectations of higher quality and longevity, especially if reinforced by sales advice.
Exceptions exist under normal circumstances. If shoes are used in unexpected ways, such as wading through water without waterproof design, or if care instructions are ignored, consumer guarantees may not apply. Similarly, the frequency and intensity of use matter. Hiking on rocky terrain weekly could shorten lifespan, whereas casual urban walking might justify longer durability.
In short, if shoes are used for regular walking activities as intended, consumers likely have a strong case for repair, replacement, or refund. As policy professional Kat George notes, "If all you've been doing with the shoes is regular walking activities, you probably have a good case to make for a repair, replacement or refund."
Next Steps for Consumers
After contacting the business twice without satisfaction, the next step is to reach out to a local consumer protection agency. In Queensland, this is the Office of Fair Trading. To file a complaint, provide receipts, photos of the fault, correspondence with the retailer, and other relevant documents via an online form. The agency can offer advice and potentially mediate with the retailer.
If mediation fails, legal action is an option, but it may not be worthwhile for a $169 dispute due to cost, time, and stress. Regardless, consumers can leverage online reviews on retailer websites, Google, or social media to share experiences. Shopping elsewhere, particularly with brands offering lifetime guarantees or free repairs, can also promote better customer care and sustainability.
This case underscores the importance of knowing your rights as a consumer. While product quality may vary, legal protections ensure that goods meet basic standards of durability and performance. Always document purchases and communications, and don't hesitate to escalate issues when necessary.
