Hush Puppies Retail (supplier) and Perocili shoes (retailer)

Disappointing Quality and handling of a returned item by Hush Puppies and Perocili Shoes

I purchased Karen boots from a retail store on the 7th of February 2026 and only started wearing them when winter began. They have been worn a maximum of approximately 14 times, yet the uppers are already cracking at the front and one heel is coming off. The boots have very little wear and tear and are essentially falling apart after minimal use. I was told by the store that they cannot assist because of their six-month return policy and boots were on sale. Hush Puppies also advised that they have a six-month policy and that returns are at the discretion of the supplier/store. I find this response extremely disappointing. Under Sections 55 and 56 of South Africa's Consumer Protection Act, consumers are entitled to goods that are of good quality, free from defects and durable for a reasonable period, with an imp**** warranty of quality. Section 56 specifically provides protection for defective goods within six months of delivery. A six-month policy and sale item should not simply be used to dismiss a legitimate product-quality complaint. These boots have been worn approximately 14 times over three months and have already developed significant defects. This cannot reasonably be considered normal wear and tear. I have boots that have lasted me more than five years. Good-quality boots are an investment and, particularly when they are seasonal footwear worn for only a few months each year, I expect them to last considerably longer than this. I expected much better quality from Hush Puppies and would like the boots to be properly assessed as a potential defective or poor-quality product under the Consumer Protection Act, rather than having my complaint dismissed solely by referring to a six-month return policy and because it was on sale.