ON DEC 7, I went to Charles & Keith in Citylink Mall to exchange a pair of shoes bought on Dec 4. The shop assistant said its policy did not allow shoes to be exchanged. Asked about the shoes’ anti-slip capabilities, the assistant advised me to have a cobbler cut anti-slip slits in the soles to improve friction. Even though I said I had slipped twice on the same day wearing the shoes and had bruised my hands and buttocks, the assistant refused to exchange them and said the shoes would be checked for defects. The assistant said someone would call me within seven days.

Full Story

Nothing else better to share?

you worn the shoes and expect to change a new pair, and blamed that the shoes doesn't have anti-skid capabilities? even cars skidded if not handled properly. got my point?

the_ultimate,
why not? It really depends on whether one can treat a shoe that skids easily to be a 'defective' product. if so, I don't see any problem exchanging it even if it was worn before.

Yes, even cars skidded if not handled properly. So, you seemed to have concluded that the letter writer has not 'handled' her shoes properly... how did you arrive at this conclusion, when the conditions when she slipped was not mentioned in the letter?

lobo, yes ,that's my conclusion. a complainant would not bring up facts that are unfavourable to them.

you can choose not to agree with me.

the_ultimate,

I agree with you!

Why is ST publishing such letters? Just to fill the space?

the_ultimate,

a complainant would not bring up facts that are unfavourable to them.

maybe because:
1. the ST editor cut off that part of the letter
2. letter writer feels it's not worth going into details of "I walked, I slipped"

I do not agree simply I don't want to be too hasty. It's feels like a 'guilty until proven innocent' kind of judgment.

--------------------------

To letter writer,
If you truly feel aggrieved, and believe you have a case, go to small claims. There was a successful case against Nokia before by an individual, so I think it is worth a try.

It's not that the writer did not handle her shoes properly, it's more like she wasnt careful when she's walking in that shoes.

Eventho shoes may have the anti-slip sole on it, it does not guarantee anyone against slipping, falling or tripping etc.

In most cases, retailers would not exchange for a product which has already been used! It's a little presumptious to think she can change it just cos it didnt work for her, unlike of cos if we bought a washing machine or something that comes with a warranty.

However if Charles & Keith promoted the shoes to be anti-skid, and yet writer slipped and fell, then Joyce should sue the daylight out of them !