Tennis With Love Refused to exchange new tennis shoes Wilmington North Carolina
I tried this store for the first time to get my racket restrung. While there, they convinced me to buy some tennis shoes. I typically order all my shoes through Zappos, but for some reason, I let them talk me in to it. The next day, I wore the shoes for 15 minutes on the court, and they gave me a blister. Not a "I need to break these shoes in" minor hurt, but a "I can't walk with a shoe for 3 days" major hurt. I have never had a pair of shoes cause a blister like that. I had to quit playing since I had no other tennis shoes with me.
I brought the shoes back to exchange, but the service representative would have none of it. Said the "minute" a shoe hits the ground outside the store, its not refundable. I have attached a picture of the shoes, including the soles. The plastic on the soles is still shiny; there was no water, no dirt on the tennis court. I wore socks while wearing them, I have the original box, even the original packing. There is NO reason why they couldn't sell these as brand new shoes for someone else who has a different shaped foot. I didn't even ask for my money back; I had a second pair of shoes that I was on the fence about, and I was willing to exchange them and pay the higher cost of the second pair. They said no quite loudly, and would not consider it.
I called back a few days later to talk to the owner. The owner told me to try different socks (seriously?) but again had no intention of exchanging the shoes. They offered to let me buy a second pair of shoes "AT COST", which meant instead of paying $125 for a pair of shoes I can't wear, I would end up paying $200 for one pair of wearable shoes. I can't believe they said that with a straight face.
I contacted a lawyer to find out if the Nike/Adidas/Asics/Converse shoe giants had gotten some laws passed by Congress that legally stated that shoes, once worn, were not returnable. While there are laws around mattresses (due to public health issues), there are no laws related to shoes. Zappo's has taken back every pair of shoes I returned over the last 5 years, no questions asked. But apparently, the "love" in Tennis with Love is about their money, not about their customer. My lawyer was ready to help get my money back, but most legal disputes less than $1000 are not worth the time because it costs more money to pay the lawyer than you would get back from the defendant. In the meantime, I am trying to sell the shoes online.
Buy all your shoes as www.zappos.com and get treated better than this poorly run local business treats you.
3 Updates & Rebuttals
Robert
Irvine,California,
USA
Diversons don't work
#4Consumer Comment
Sat, October 07, 2017
As to the first few points you had on Cars, Clothes and Home Improvement. All of your points are just irrelevant diversions to try and justify your actions.
1) On cars any use is disclosed by the odometer, so the buyer is fully informed. But once the car is SOLD it is illegal to ever sell that car as new, even if the buyer only put 20 miles on it.
2) Your right a store doesn't really know how much it was used, a lot of time they really do rely on the integrity of the customer. But it doesn't make it right if a person tries to return something they wore. After all since you like stretching people's comments. I guess in your mind it is okay if a person buys a nice shirt/dress. They wear it for 30 minutes for a Family Event. Then return it in "new" condition so the store can resell it.
3) Actually No..I will pick out a package that hasn't been taped up. But again the tape is an indication to the consumer giving them a choice.
Tell me, if 20 people try on a pair of shoes before you at the store, but do NOT buy them, by your definition, those are "used" shoes.
- Again just a diversion. Those 20 people did not purchase them, they did not leave the store with them, they did not go to a tennis court and use them. It is the sale and external use that is the issue here.
It is much easier to win a claim in court than it is to win the court costs associated with it. I don't understand why
- Let me tell you. Because the court costs have to be REASONABLE. If you are suing them for $200 but then saying you have $1000 in court costs..yes the judge is going to balk at you. This is why there is the Small Claims route.
Financially, there is very little chance I would a) win, b) get court costs covered, and c) get my lost wages cost covered.
- Financially..what about on Principal? You are coming to a public web site accusing them of fraud, but then at the same time even though you post all of your "evidence" why they should be able to take them back, you don't think you can convince the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that you are right.
Anyone who goes to court over $125 has their priorities out of order.
- So what you are saying that companies can scam or rip you off you as long as it is under $125.. Got it..
Since both Asics and the store say the shoes are defect free, there is no DEFECT to post in an online ad.
- Again ignoring the entire point. This has nothing to do with if there was a defect or not. It has to do with if YOU would disclose to the potential buyer the history that YOU had with them.
I'm not sure I recall seeing a third party rebut against a RipOff Report
- Then you haven't been on this site. As notice the response "Consumer Comment". This is a PUBLIC web site and as such the PUBLIC can respond, and in many cases do. But it is also SOP that when someone doesn't like what is pointed out they go to the "Oh you must work for the company". Well sorry, but I do not now or have I ever worked for this company and all this does to your report is remove any further credibility.
But you know what....I am actually going to help you out here. First on the disclosure. Since you are now selling them and if you sell them as "NEW" if the buyer somehow discovers you actually wore them and received a blister..YOU could be liable for any claims. And they may not have any issue with suing you for $125(or what ever you sell them for). If the become concerned about the blister and if there are any medical concerns they need to have..you could become additionally liable. Would this happen...probably not. The point is it COULD happen and you better be aware of the risk of intentionally hiding information.
Also as more assistance. IF you are saying that there was absolutely NO return/exchange policy posted. Then you may have legal rights depending on your State's laws. Where as regardless of your motives, they may be required to allow you to return them and return your money. In some cases they may even be subject to additional penalties that you can claim.
Good Luck..
Rebuttal from Third Parties?
#4Author of original report
Fri, October 06, 2017
As long as the store is following it's Return/Exchange policy there is no fraud or RipOff on their part. However, what you are asking them to do could be considered fraud. As you are basically saying that they should sell these shoes as "new" even though you have worn them and used them(length of time does not matter).
- length of time DOES matter. condition DOES matter. context DOES matter. All "new" cars are sold with miles on them; they didn't just get picked up by crane at the factory and dropped off at the dealership. Is that fraudulant to call them NEW just because they have a few hundred miles obtained during transport and testing? Do clothing stores take all clothing returns and donate them to goodwill, or do they resell them as "new"? Have you ever bought an item from Home Depot that was sealed with tape because someone else returned it, but they are still selling it as new? I have pictures of the soles of the shoe, and the "shiny" gloss on plastic that quickly wears off is STILL SHINY. I could show these shoes to 25 people, and 25 would say they are in "new" condition. An intelligent person can inspect the facts and make a reasonable assessment. Based on a reasonable definition of what "new" means, and based on the car, clothing, and Home Depot comparisions, these shoes are "new".
- this is a mom and pops store. No digital cash register; the receipt is manual written on paper, they have no website. They have no return policy in writing, or on a sign in the store. They didn't say what the return policy when I bought it.
Zappo's has taken back every pair of shoes I returned over the last 5 years, no questions asked.
- Well thanks for letting us know about that. Makes you wonder how many pairs of used shoes they are selling as "new".
- Zappo's has a condition policy. If you sent back a pair of shoes that is truly worn, has dirt, scuffs, etc, then they will reject them. If not, then they get resold AS NEW, which is exactly what should happen. That's what we call being rationale. Tell me, if 20 people try on a pair of shoes before you at the store, but do NOT buy them, by your definition, those are "used" shoes. Or is 20 ok, but not 25? See how silly that aregument of yours is? The shoes can be in "new" condition if they are worn a lot, or they can be in a "worn" condition after 5 minutes if a 11 year old boy puts them on and goes to town. The length of time is meaningless.
My lawyer was ready to help get my money back, but most legal disputes less than $1000 are not worth the time because it costs more money to pay the lawyer than you would get back from the defendant.
- Of course he is ready to help you...for a fee. If you prevail you can claim your legal and court costs as well. But I have a feeling that in your lawyers willingness to help you they also stated that it is not a gurantee.
There is also small claims court where you don't even need an attorney.
- It is much easier to win a claim in court than it is to win the court costs associated with it. I don't understand why, but nevertheless, that is the case. Additionally, the lost time involved at my hourly pay would be significant. Financially, there is very little chance I would a) win, b) get court costs covered, and c) get my lost wages cost covered. Its not worth the effort. That's why my only response has been to 1) communicate with the store twice, and get no resolution, 2) post the story so others can avoid the same problem. Anyone who goes to court over $125 has their priorities out of order.
In the meantime, I am trying to sell the shoes online.
- Where I am sure you are being totally truthful and letting them know you wore them for 15 minutes and got a severe blister...right?
- I sent them off to Asics to have them inspected for a defect. I knew, of course, that there was nearly zero chance they would find a defect, and that is what happenned, so they sent them back to me. Surprisingly, Asics paid for the costs of shipping. So no, there is not a defect. A rationale person would know that people's feet are different shapes, and what works for someone doesn't work for another. Since both Asics and the store say the shoes are defect free, there is no DEFECT to post in an online ad. Tell me, when you go on a dating site, do you mention why you broke up with your previous dates?
Let me guess you must work as a Used Car Salesman.
A rationale person with some personality training would understand the specificity of my comments makes t likely I am an accountant, engineer, programmer, or some other profession that is very detailed and clear.
I'm not sure I recall seeing a third party rebut against a RipOff Report ... only the two parties in dispute. Makes me wonder what you do for a living (or perhaps, are in between jobs perpetually) that you comment on random reports.
Robert
Irvine,California,
USA
There does appear to be fraud
#4Consumer Comment
Thu, October 05, 2017
As long as the store is following it's Return/Exchange policy there is no fraud or RipOff on their part. However, what you are asking them to do could be considered fraud. As you are basically saying that they should sell these shoes as "new" even though you have worn them and used them(length of time does not matter).
Zappo's has taken back every pair of shoes I returned over the last 5 years, no questions asked.
- Well thanks for letting us know about that. Makes you wonder how many pairs of used shoes they are selling as "new".
My lawyer was ready to help get my money back, but most legal disputes less than $1000 are not worth the time because it costs more money to pay the lawyer than you would get back from the defendant.
- Of course he is ready to help you...for a fee. If you prevail you can claim your legal and court costs as well. But I have a feeling that in your lawyers willingness to help you they also stated that it is not a gurantee.
There is also small claims court where you don't even need an attorney.
In the meantime, I am trying to sell the shoes online.
- Where I am sure you are being totally truthful and letting them know you wore them for 15 minutes and got a severe blister...right?
Let me guess you must work as a Used Car Salesman.