Defective Adidas Superstar – Refund Refused in Violation of CPA

I am extremely frustrated and dissatisfied with Studio 88 (Caledon branch) and the unacceptable handling of a clearly defective product. I purchased a pair of Adidas Superstar sneakers on Friday and wore them only once on Saturday. This is a well-known, high-quality shoe, yet after just one day of use, the condition is completely unacceptable — the shoe already looks old, worn out, and the material is deteriorating to the point where it appears as if the surface is peeling off when pressed. This is clearly a manufacturing defect, not normal wear and tear. I returned to the store on Tuesday, where the manager inspected the shoes and took photos to send to head office. I even asked him, in his personal capacity, whether he would accept such poor quality in a new shoe, and he simply smiled — clearly acknowledging the defect. On Friday morning (around 10–11 AM), the manager contacted me to say he was still awaiting feedback. Later that same day (after 16:00), he called again and informed me that head office had responded, stating that Adidas declined the refund, claiming the shoe is “made to fit the foot shape.” This response is not only ridiculous but completely unacceptable. A shoe does not deteriorate and start peeling after one day of wear — especially not a reputable product like an Adidas Superstar. This explanation is simply an attempt to avoid responsibility. I am now being inconvenienced due to internal issues between Studio 88 and Adidas, which has nothing to do with me as the customer. Let it be clear: In terms of the Consumer Protection Act (Section 56), I am fully entitled to return defective goods within 6 months and choose a refund, replacement, or repair. This product failed after ONE DAY, which is a direct violation of the CPA requirement that goods must be of good quality, durable, and fit for purpose. I am therefore formally demanding an IMMEDIATE FULL REFUND. If this matter is not urgently resolved, I will escalate it further through:

The National Consumer Commission Consumer protection bodies And additional public platforms

Studio 88 cannot hide behind supplier excuses while ignoring consumer rights. This matter requires urgent attention and resolution.