Discussion
ok, so i wouldn't say i'm Premier League standard but got a pair of football boots as a gift about 8 months ago
High end Nike mercurials ( over £120) and they are still in excellent condition
Although they have ripped quite badly after less than 10 matches played in them
As they were a gift I haven't got a clue were they were bought and have no idea how to contact the person who bought them.
I emailed Nike and sent them photographs and they agreed they had ripped, but they've told me to contact the retailer
Since I haven't got a clue who the retailer was
What are my options?
High end Nike mercurials ( over £120) and they are still in excellent condition
Although they have ripped quite badly after less than 10 matches played in them
As they were a gift I haven't got a clue were they were bought and have no idea how to contact the person who bought them.
I emailed Nike and sent them photographs and they agreed they had ripped, but they've told me to contact the retailer
Since I haven't got a clue who the retailer was
What are my options?
Are you sure they are genuine Nike boots and not counterfeit copies of lower quality which might be prone to rip ?
Some of these copies can look very much like the real thing ; it would be most embarrassing to send them back , only to be told they were fakes .
Just a thought - yours may just as easily be genuine .
Some of these copies can look very much like the real thing ; it would be most embarrassing to send them back , only to be told they were fakes .
Just a thought - yours may just as easily be genuine .
My experience is that a lot of the modern, lightweight boots are barely fit for purpose- they are simply too flimsy and not built to last. So I'm not surprised in the least. I've had a number of expensive pairs of boot for playing rugby- the fancy ones fall to pieces; the good quality "old school" boots, such as the Adidas World Cups lasted a few seasons.
I would expect you'd get a replacement pair if you complain loudly/long enough.
I would expect you'd get a replacement pair if you complain loudly/long enough.
Whitean3 said:
the good quality "old school" boots, such as the Adidas World Cups lasted a few seasons.
^ I had two pairs - studded and astro turf soles, respectively. Mine lasted through about seven or eight years of rugby union and rugby league, and are still good enough to wear now.
Nike is correct in referring you to the retailer that sold the boots as the purchaser had a contract with the retailer, not with Nike. Nike has no responsibility to the purchaser or to you. It could, it it wanted, make a goodwill gesture and offer a repair or replacement, but this is not a situation in which you have any enforceable rights against Nike. This is a public relations issue for Nike, not a legal issue. I don't say customer relations as you aren't a customer.
The assumption that there must always be someone to "sort out" a problem is mistaken. Sometimes stuff just happens and you have no come back for it. Unless Nike agrees to make a goodwill offer, this is one of those situations.
The assumption that there must always be someone to "sort out" a problem is mistaken. Sometimes stuff just happens and you have no come back for it. Unless Nike agrees to make a goodwill offer, this is one of those situations.
Citizen09 said:
Whitean3 said:
the good quality "old school" boots, such as the Adidas World Cups lasted a few seasons.
^ I had two pairs - studded and astro turf soles, respectively. Mine lasted through about seven or eight years of rugby union and rugby league, and are still good enough to wear now.Breadvan72 said:
Nike is correct in referring you to the retailer that sold the boots as the purchaser had a contract with the retailer, not with Nike. Nike has no responsibility to the purchaser or to you. It could, it it wanted, make a goodwill gesture and offer a repair or replacement, but this is not a situation in which you have any enforceable rights against Nike. This is a public relations issue for Nike, not a legal issue. I don't say customer relations as you aren't a customer.
Genuine question - why would Donoghue v Stevenson not be relevant here (with regards to the original purchaser)?Donoghue v Stevenson established the modern tort of negligence. It concerned the duty of care that party A owes to party B to prevent B suffering injury. It does not supplant the law of contract. Where the complaint, as here, is that a product is not fit for its purpose of of suitable quality, that is a matter that falls under the common law of contract, supplemented by legislation on consumer protection, but in this case the OP has had no contract or other relevant dealings with Nike that would bring him within the scope of contract law or consumer law. Nike owe him a duty of care not to make football boots that will have turn his feet permanently green, but not a duty to provide generally serviceable football boots. That duty would be owed to someone who contracted for the boots.
The original purchaser has suffered no loss, in contract or in tort.
The original purchaser has suffered no loss, in contract or in tort.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th June 08:18
Breadvan72 said:
Nike is correct in referring you to the retailer that sold the boots as the purchaser had a contract with the retailer, not with Nike.
Purely a contract question here - i understand the purchaser has a contract, and therefore certain rights with the retailer.How does the OP inherit those rights, since they don't, and never did have a contract with the supplier?
Breadvan72 said:
Donoghue v Stevenson established the modern tort of negligence. It concerned the duty of care that party A owes to party B to prevent B suffering injury. It does not supplant the law of contract. Where the complaint, as here, is that a product is not fit for its purpose of of suitable quality, that is a matter that falls under the common law of contract, supplemented by legislation on consumer protection, but in this case the OP has had no contract or other relevant dealings with Nike that would bring him within the scope of contract law or consumer law. Nike owe him a duty of care not to make football boots that will have turn his feet permanently green, but not a duty to provide generally serviceable football boots. That duty would be owed to someone who contracted for the boots.
The original purchaser has suffered no loss, in contract or in tort.
Clear and consise as ever. Thank you breadvan.The original purchaser has suffered no loss, in contract or in tort.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 27th June 08:18
The real world answer is that the purchaser could have a moan at the retailer about the boots falling to bits. The retailer would be unlikely to say "someone else has been wearing them, you have no beef with me".
PS: "gifted", arrrrgh! The verb "to give" is serviceable enough, so I reckon that we don't need to re-verbify the noun "gift".
PS: "gifted", arrrrgh! The verb "to give" is serviceable enough, so I reckon that we don't need to re-verbify the noun "gift".
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th June 22:43
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff