dotty001
Challenge Tour Pro
Been using mine since the course firmed up , havnt noticed any marks , saying that I'm only 5,7 11stone so might just be fatties issue :ears:
Course ban on Adidas Adizero shoes....
- Thread starter road2ruin
- Start date
drawboy
Tour Winner
They all laughed at me but........vindicated
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Vindicated about what ?
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
I don't like these cleat type shoes and to be honest I've put a couple of sets of spike into winter shoes I have been using in the wet. Found the grip better, even more so than conventional soft spikes but happy to go back to these now we've dried out again. I wonder whether adidas and others will look at the bans in place and the publicity there has been and refine the design for the next incarnation. I doubt it personally and they will just bring out the next model in different colours but with the same aggressive cleat system
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
In the grand scheme of things a couple of course banning them isnt going to bother adidas in the slightest.
I haven't managed to read 49 pages on whether or not a pair of shoes have been banned...
Have they?
Have they?
SAPCOR1
Journeyman Pro
Only at clubs with really super soft greens
V
vkurup
Guest
Can you 'sue' Adidas for selling an unsuitable product? Or get a refund? PPI ambulance chasers anyone...
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Is the shoe banned from your golf course ?
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
My club has the Lancashire Amateur this year .==I have just had an email to ask us not to wear tours ==,They wont ban them in case they get sued by Adidas yet the pro shop is still selling them .== So you can buy a pair of shoes of the pro and he will ask you NOT to wear them.==The greens have firmed up lately and the tours don't leave big dents like a couple of weeks ago so why ask now.?=== Don't forget we have had the wettest spell on record recently and I think this was a factor.=== What needs to happen is all clubs ban them or none so something can be done about it with the manufacturer.
MadAdey
Money List Winner
Scrindle
Head Pro
One argument would be to claim that the product was not fit for purpose under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. There is a term implied into any contract for sale, by s14(2), that goods are of satisfactory quality where they are sold in the course of a business (i.e. it operates to provide the consumer a certain level of protection when purchasing from commercial entities because it is assumed for the purposes of contract law that they are purchasing a satisfactory product). Section 14(2A) puts the question of whether goods are satisfactory in the legislative sense into the realm of the 'reasonable person', taking into account description, price and relevant circumstances, etc...
Addidas would likely argue that not all courses have banned the shoe, and to do so is unreasonable given that the same model is worn (or used to be last season) by a number of Tour pros! Unless they were keen to avoid a PR scandle (though I think the wider view on this particular issue is that Addidas' response is generally 'nothing to see here, bugger off') they would likely fob you off if you went to them directly, knowing that the shoes are not worth very much currently and it's likely you purchased them for less than the minimum threshold for starting a claim in this country (£50), if you were to take things that far at all. Arguably you don't have a contractual relationship with Addidas anyway, but that's a debate for another time.
However. I reckon that if you bought the shoes from your club's pro shop originally, rather than, say, an American Golf outlet, and they have now banned them, you may have cause to go direct to the pro shop under Section 14(2C)(a) which would term the shoes as unfit for the specific purpose for which you did buy them, if your pro was aware that you were purchasing them for use on the club course specifically at the point of purchase (highly likely, though you would probably have to demonstrate that you brought this to his specific attention; I am unaware of any case law that might imply this by virtue of proximity (i.e. an argument that he must have been aware of your specific intention to use shoes on your course because you were a member and he was the shop pro), but could be wrong).
I'm not giving you advice.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Do not most products for which there may be an issue or risk with in there use not state so on the packaging. As with a packet of salted peanuts 'this product contains nuts'.
So if there is an issue with these shoes on soft greens then these shoes just need to come with a warning to that effect. Then caveat emptor.
So if there is an issue with these shoes on soft greens then these shoes just need to come with a warning to that effect. Then caveat emptor.
Scrindle
Head Pro
Most warnings of the nature you've described are there in an attempt to disclaim liability for negligence (i.e. failing to inform a potential consumer that your product contains a known allergen) or just by statutory requirement, rather than in relation to the quality of the goods themselves. For example, it wouldn't be good enough to say on the side of your television packaging 'screen may be cracked, purchase made at own risk' or 'paint may be unfinished'. This is because of the assumption that Section 14 puts in place generally as far as satisfactory quality goes.
However, Section 14(2C)(a) is special in that, as I understand it, even if a product were to contain some form of disclaimer on the side, if it is sold for a specific purpose rather than a general purpose, the retailer can't rely on it.
As I alluded to above you don't technically have any contractual relationship with the manufacturer in any event other than a general duty of care owed to you. The general duty of care was created by a case known as Donoghue v Stevenson, rather than any legislation. A woman purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a cafe and discovered, only after drinking half of it, that it contained a decomposing slug. She contracted some form of gastric poisoning and attempted to sue the manufacturer whose stock defence was that it was there was no contractual relationship, since the beer had not been purchased from them directly, and therefore no claim. The Courts held that a 'general duty of care' was owed to the consumer by all manufactuers and the woman won. Your contractual recourse would be against the shop traditionally by requesting a refund, following which they would return the goods to the manufacturer.
For example if I were to go into a shop like Blacks and say 'I need a waterproof tent', follow the suggestion of the sales assistant and then attempt to camp in it on a platform I'd built under Niagra Falls, I wouldn't be able to go back to the shop and say that it was not fit for purpose when it inevitably broke. It was fit for the general purpose for which it was sold (a waterproof tent), not the specific purpose that I purchased it for (camping under NF).
If, however, I had said to the sales assistant, 'I need a waterproof tent since I'll be camping under Niagra Falls in a week' and he said 'Certainly sir, try out the new Water XS Tent' or something similar, then I attempted to camp and the tent was destroyed, I would have recourse to go back to the retailer for a full refund because under S14(2C)(a) the product was not fit for the specific purpose for which it was sold. This would be the case even if the packaging said 'unsuitable for extreme weather' on the side of it or something similar.
Taking our current example of a pro shop selling you shoes and then banning them, I imagine you would have a pretty strong grounding to point out S14(2C)(a) as your legal reasoning for obtaining a refund, if they were aware that you bought the shoes for use on that course. It may be a roundabout way of achieving it, but I see no reason for it to fail. Ultimately if they refuse to see reasoning and 'call your bluff', you don't really have a practical recourse unless you're willing to sue them which might be overkill for a discounted pair of golf shoes!
If the above situation were reality and it were me, I would be saying something like 'look chaps, this product isn't fit for purpose but I appreciate the need to not let the pro shop lose funds from a sale completely. Why don't you give me a credit note or simply exchange them for a different pair of shoes and send these back to the manufacturer'. Keeps everyone happy and there's no hard feelings at a club that you're potentially obliged to stay at for another 12 months! Practical solutions.
Last edited:
Ontherange
Newbie
Just happened to notice that my home club (Saffron Walden) has banned the Adizero as well now. Looks like those pods are really going to cause Adidas some problems. Strange design really, when you think that playing with ice/frost round your cleats (painful!!
) has the same effect. Surely Adidas' R&D team would have done a basic test to see if this may have been an issue?
) has the same effect. Surely Adidas' R&D team would have done a basic test to see if this may have been an issue?
SAPCOR1
Journeyman Pro
In the grand scale of things it won't bother adidas. A few clubs with greens that are very soft compared with the rest with "normal" greens
GB72
Money List Winner
Not sure that the whole uk matters in the grand scheme of things. The shoes are designed for warmer, drier climates and that is where the target markets are. Could be wrong but i am sure that i read that the market for golf balls in florida was bigger than the whole european golf market.
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
From the quality of some of the golfers I saw out in Florida the other week that does not surprise me as half of the balls sold will be in lakes or lost
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
From the quality of some of the golfers I saw out in Florida the other week that does not surprise me as half of the balls sold will be in lakes or lost
Ain't that the truth :thup:
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Saffron host a Pro Am for the PGA East
Some of those pro are TM/Adidas sponsored - wonder what will happen then
Played Saffron and their greens where very soft in November
Some of those pro are TM/Adidas sponsored - wonder what will happen then
Played Saffron and their greens where very soft in November
