 Poster: A snowHead
|
I bought a pair of atomic hawx 90 last season, then over Xmas, on the 10th day the boots had been used, both rivets on one of the boots sheared off simultaneously, essentially causing the boot to break in two. This happened as I was skiing off piste down the side of a black run (with an instructor) and caused a nasty fall, injuring my neck. Since returning home I've developed nerve problems in my arm secondary to the fall, which currently mean I can't work. Hoping that recovery will be quick, not least as I'm due to go skiing again in 3 weeks!
I've returned the boots to the store where I bought them and they've sent them back to atomic to be looked at. They're talking about repairing them (which on one hand would be good as it was a pain the the bum to get them fitted in the first place and I loved the fit, and the shop no longer stock that model) but I'm a bit concerned that the same thing could happen to the other side. They've said it could be a few weeks til a decision is made which I don't think is acceptable as I'd like some boots to ski with when I go away at the end of jan (if my arm has recovered function by then...)
The shop has said that I wouldn't be able to get a refund, just a credit note, so I can't get the same boot. They aren't sure that they have anything else suitable.
Would it be unreasonable to demand a cash refund at this point, in the hope I can get something sorted elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
lottie, This is the Sale of Goods Act 1979
F4048BRepair or replacement of the goods
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
(a)impossible, or
(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or
(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.
(4)One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—
(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,
(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and
(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.
(5)Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to—
(a)the nature of the goods, and
(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
In lay man's terms, the below from the Which website is useful
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act
Getting faulty goods replaced or repaired
You have the right to get faulty goods replaced or repaired if it's too late to reject them. You can ask the retailer to do either, but they can normally choose to do whatever would be cheapest.
Under the Sale of Goods Act, the retailer must either repair or replace faulty goods 'within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience'.
If the seller doesn't do this, you're entitled to claim either:
• a reduction on the purchase price, or
• your money back, minus an amount for the usage you've had of the goods (called recision)
If the retailer refuses to repair the goods, and they won't replace them either, you may have the right to arrange for someone else to repair your item, and then claim compensation from the retailer for the cost of doing this.
You have six years to take a claim to court for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland you have five years.
Looks like they should repair or replace them but without causing you significant inconvenience - with a ski trip 3 weeks away I suggest a repair is inconvenient. If you had ski insurance when you fell, try to see if you have legal cover because I suspect your claim would go somewhat beyond a new pair of boots....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I'd consider cusulting a solicitor, with a view to suing for losses from the injuries caused by the boot failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Really? I thought I'd be doing well getting new boots...people always seem to be able to wheedle their way out of things like this...no proof etc. Although as a surgeon, having a partially functioning hand is a major worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
lottie, Would your instructor be a witness? If I were in your position I'd be consulting a solicitor, especially if you have lost income?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly. Unfortunately all the others in the class were friends of mine so not independent witnesses. Have all the medical paperwork/scan reports etc to back it up, it's just proving liability. At the moment I just want the pain to go away and for a new pair of ski boots to appear before I go away again! And I'm not sure using a company because their product is faulty is possible is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really?! I'm in no way knowledgeable about legal matters (since when has that stopped anyone on the internet  ), and I dislike immensely the litigiousness of modern life, but if the rivets on your boots sheared spontaneously and caused a fall (rather than the fall causing the shear) then you should be going mental at Atomic. Even if not for any compensation, then to make them pay attention to the fact that one of their products just underwent a catastrophic failure in a potentially life-threatening situation. Skis, boots and bindings are all fundamental to people's safety when skiing...if that happened to someone when they were a long way off piste in an exposed position they could be in massive trouble.
Having said that, I'm really surprised that a boot would have a catastrophic failure like that unless something had happened to it to cause the shearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Well my Hawx 100 boots are 4 years old and have several times the use of yours and still going strong so certainly sounds like something was wrong with the manufacturing with yours. Might be worth speaking to your travel insurance company if you have legal cover (or any other legal cover you have through professional bodies, home insurance etc) and see what they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely no previous damage to the boots. Don't think I had even fallen whilst wearing them. Certainly checked for signs of damage when I arrived in resort as I'd had to put them in the hold rather than in hand luggage, but they were well padded with clothes. And yes it was the boot falling apart that caused the fall, not the other way round...but no way of proving that I guess...although not sure what type of fall would cause that sort of damage to a boot but leave my legs on one piece!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Lottie, it's not as if you're scamming a "stiff neck / alleged whiplash" injury - you may have a potentially career-threatening injury which, if caused by the sudden and unforeseen failure of the said boot, really ought to be compensated. I, like others, get pretty miffed by chancers trying to bilk insurers for fanciful "pain and suffering" claims (who then whine about how much their motor insurance costs) but if you're genuinely unable to work as a result of your accident then you ought to be compensated for any resultant financial loss. Hopefully it's going to be nothing worse than a short-lived nuisance type injury - that and getting back a properly functional boot!
The fact that your witnesses are, in the main, friends / acquaintances might make them perhaps seem less reliable in a legal sense but the instructor / guide's corroboration would resolve that balance of probabilities issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of trying to sue someone does not sit comfortably with me but I think contacting atomic directly is a good call. I hadn't thought of asking them to send a new pair of boots out for local fitting, that could work. I'm not after any sort of compensation, although this is the second time I've come back from a ski holiday unable to work (first time shattered my wrist after some idiot ploughed into me so again, not my fault) so I'm hoping I get back to normal quickly or my bosses will be trying to ban me from going again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
lottie, I know I suggested speaking to a solicitor but I agree that litigation is best avoided. I simply suggest it as an avenue better explored sooner rather than later in case there are lasting consequences. I would expect atomic to be more than adequately insured...to me it's a business transaction between your insurance and theirs. Anyway good luck whatever you decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
a) just speculating, but did you (or the shop) adjust the cuff angle of the boot? If this adjuster was (for example) overtightened and the thread stripped that might be a possible cause of the failure. Did you have all the bits of the boot after the accident or were there some parts of the bolts/rivets missing? Close examination of exactly what failed might tell an interesting story.
b) If you want to sue someone, sending them the evidence (the boot) seems a bad idea. Since they have been mandated to repair the boot who knows what will happen to the broken parts? Actually I think suing about this is probably a waste of time. It would be pretty hard to prove liability. Like you say, it's only your word that the boot broke before the crash, rather than the other way round. And without the technical evidence from the boot itself I can't see how a case will go anywhere.
c) If you are skiing black runs aggressively then you might consider upgrading from an intermediate boot. The shop might not have the Hawk 90....but maybe they have something better which, given the sorry story about your earlier boots, they might consider letting you have without extra charge.
d) Skiing gear does break sometimes. I recently had an almost new racing binding disintegrate resulting in a heavy crash and a whole load of bruises and I have been skiing with people who have broken all sorts of things - skis, bindings, boot buckles, poles...just about anything. If you ski hard and push the gear to the limit then things can happen. Contact with the dealer in this case resulted in a positive reply and a new set of bindings. But it still took some time, these kind of things can't be resolved in an instant. Since I own a minimum of 10 pairs of skis (!) it didn't stop me skiing but of course it was still an inconvenience.
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
lottie, I would have said those above are correct. If that boot failed and caused you injury after such a short time of ownership then I would think you would have a valid injury and compensation claim against Atomic and if I was Atomic I'd be looking closely at why it failed and considering a recall on other boots if the parts are found faulty in an entire batch. It sounds to me like you need a look at daytime TV and call one of those numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
lots of speculation but many things could cause a failure, really love the way that the first thing anyone on this site ever wants to do is sue someone
Q. is the cant adjustment on that boot a screw in one or a pressed rivet?
the reason i ask is that Atomic changed from a screw in cant adjust to a pressed rivet one on that model, is it was a screw in unit then chances are it has worked lose, either not been tightened properly or over tightened and thread stripped, there is a key supplied by Atomic with every boot and some periodic maintenance is required after all it is simply a nut and bolt which you are repetitively flexing through and it WILL work lose over time if not checked
if it is a pressed rivet then it is a different matter
we no longer handle any warranty inspections for Atomic but lottie has a PM with some details when she gets to her messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
As I said up thread, I'm not intending to sue anyone. I do however, think it is unreasonable for a boot to break after just 10 days use. All I want is a new pair of suitably well fitting (the last pair took a very long time to get perfect) boots in my possession at no cost and minimal inconvenience to me, prior to my trip!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
lottie, It may be worth you getting in contact with SH regular CEM (Colin @ Solutions4Feet.co.uk) who I believe has acted as an independant expert on failed kit before now, plus he knows Atomic boots like the back of his hand. He'd probably be able to apraise what happened to the boot and why. Might be worth sending him a PM or making a call.
*EDIT* Whoops, Hadn't realised CEM had posted on this, i'll shut up.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 7-01-14 10:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
CEM, I suggested the possibility of suing. glad you love it, since I think it is a perfectly reasonable thought. If smeone is possibly going to suffer long-term injury or loss of income because of defective equipment, surely they should see if they can make some recovery on their loss. I was not saying there was a clear cut case, which is why I suggested consulting a solicitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
CEM, Well wouldn't you be considering your legal options if some almost new equipment failed and caused you an injury which could stop you doing your job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lottie, while the idea of suing a corporation for the damage their faulty product has caused you may seem all too much trouble, actually I would suggest that you need to keep the option open, especially if as you say there is a chance that your earning capability might be affected.
You owe nothing to Atomic, from their side their business is selling thousands of pieces of ski equipment. There are always ways of improving the quality of manufacture such that incidents such as yours do not happen, but they have financial consequences to their bottom line. Clearly their processes are good enough maybe 99.999% of the time, but you are the .001 - which is where statistics start getting very personal. There will always be that 0.001% - that's why they have insurance, it is quite a different matter to pursue a claim for the pain and inconvenience that their product has caused being used for the purpose it was intended than it is trying to put in a false claim to litigate american style in the hope of making a fast buck.
Please do at least speak to a personal injury lawyer, there must be some ski specialists out there, you should be able to have an initial conversation without any commitment. Even if you don't want to do that now, please stop talking to people on the phone, put everything in writing and head up "Without Prejudice" The meaning of that phrase is so that whatever you say cannot be used in any future action against you, for example agreeing to settle for a replacement of the boots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, davkt, not until i knew 100% why it happened, all to easy to blame people/companies and equipment when it could be something as simple as a screw which had come lose or thread stripped by over tightening, all the facts need to be considered
100% honest answer i have never seen a boot fail in the way described unless it is a nut/bolt type cant system, there can always be a first time but it does seem unlikely
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
it is simply a nut and bolt which you are repetitively flexing through and it WILL work lose over time if not checked
|
Yep, happened to my Atomic Trackers because I hadn't checked them, a quick trip to CEM and I now have lots of spares even though I now check almost religiously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lottie,
I'd second (or third) the advice that you should speak to a lawyer. I know you don't want to sue (and you may not have a case) but IF you were unfortunate enough to have lasting damage to your shoulder, given your profession you need to retain the option to sue.
Beyond that, I would be inclined to write to the CEO at Atomic. This could be an addition to the route that the shop is pursuing. I'd bring the issue to his/her attention and stress that you expect him to take a personal interest in your complaint given the seriousness of the incident.
Good luck
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
It's very likely that they are the screw type and it is up to us to check our own equipment, even though most of us don't until we feel something is loose.
Both skis and boots go through and lot of flexing and vibrations, nuts, bolts and screws can and will work loose.
We're also supposed to check wheel nuts on our cars, again, very few of us do and yet we're still happy to do 80MPH up the M1
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I have the same boots and I checked mine last night after spotting this thread. Mine seem to have a pressed rivet rather than a screw adjustment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've seen almost every boot on the market from all the manufacturers have similar problems, non excluded. Get it fixed and accept the dangers of the sport, no product will ever be 100% infailable, albiet QC is set up to reduce this to a maximum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| I have the same boots and I checked mine last night after spotting this thread. Mine seem to have a pressed rivet rather than a screw adjustment. |
it does depend on the year/ production run, Atomic have used both types of fitment on the Hawx series of boots at various levels over the years
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| We've seen almost every boot on the market from all the manufacturers have similar problems, non excluded. Get it fixed and accept the dangers of the sport, no product will ever be 100% infailable, albiet QC is set up to reduce this to a maximum. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| I'd consider cusulting a solicitor, with a view to suing for losses from the injuries caused by the boot failure. |
Jesus wept, I struggle to read this without swearing.
It's a dangerous sport and sometimes bad stuff happens when you are having fun, just accept that and be reasonable with the shop, I am sure they don't want the hassle so if you keep at it I would hope they see sense.
Consult a solicitor........is this what we have been reduced to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Aaaargh....I'm not suing anyone! Have heard from atomic and allegedly the shop I bought the boots from are going to contact me with a solution...not holding my breath but prepared to be reasonable if they come up with a suitable offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| lottie wrote: |
| Aaaargh....I'm not suing anyone! Have heard from atomic and allegedly the shop I bought the boots from are going to contact me with a solution...not holding my breath but prepared to be reasonable if they come up with a suitable offer. |
Hiya Lottie
That comment was not directed at you and I apologise for not making that clear. You seem a very reasonable person so I am sure you will sort this out and I am genuinely sorry to see you hurt your wrist, I hope it is healing well.
My comment was directed towards the constablamers who's first reaction it to sue first, think later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
davidhammy, if I know achilles llike I think I do, I don't think this was meant to be a serious comment at all, but more as an irony. Hard to get across on a forum though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Hells Bells,
I am not so sure - his second comment - " I suggested the possibility of suing. glad you love it, since I think it is a perfectly reasonable thought. If smeone is possibly going to suffer long-term injury or loss of income because of defective equipment, surely they should see if they can make some recovery on their loss. I was not saying there was a clear cut case, which is why I suggested consulting a solicitor"
Sorry, my technical knowledge means I am sure there is a way to quote properly but I am jiggered if I know how but anyway, it looks pretty clear the comment was serious but if not, I apologise to him for my lack of sense of humour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
davidhammy, I didn't suggest that she should but simply consult a solicitor. If it does turn out badly and if...only if...the boot was the cause then an early consultation would be invaluable. Any decent solicitor would give proper advice on whether litigation would have merit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidhammy, then I am surprised at this. I hadn't read the second comment but took the first to be an ironic post in anticipation of someone else stating that he/she should sue the manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| davidhammy, I didn't suggest that she should but simply consult a solicitor. If it does turn out badly and if...only if...the boot was the cause then an early consultation would be invaluable. Any decent solicitor would give proper advice on whether litigation would have merit |
I find solicitors to have a very clear conflict of interest issue when consulted (by merit I find they mean 'is it winnable and will I make my costs back' which isn't what I call merit) but even setting that aside I'm not sure why consulting one early is a benefit.
p.s. Don't worry lottie btw, it's just like this on here sometimes  Ignore the thread within a thread (it's gonna run for a while) and just let us know if you get some shiny new boots before your next trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
a.j., I meant early to get advice on how to proceed with atomic. ..before the boots had been handled by them.. but it's a moot point now. And yes I do mean winnable. And yes...don't worry lottie this is what happens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm not sure why consulting one early is a benefit.
|
Because recall of events can dim and evidence can get lost. To me this is clearly a case where there might be a cause, so get the events down on paper early on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I see no reason atomic can't send your shop a new pair and the shop fit them? I don't see anything online about known failures and this is a common boot from a respected manufacturer, so I don't think there is any concern in taking a second pair. Make some noise and see what happens? Good luck! And get well soon 
