UKC

Two years ago I went on a self guided walking holiday on La Gomera. On the last day the heel became detached from one of my boots. I was able to effect a temporary repair with tape, string and First Aid plaster, but it was only temporary, and there is no way it would have stood up to further walking. The ground is volcanic rock and very sharp making boots essential.

Fortunately it was the last day of a 7 day circular hike, so I was not inconvenienced too much. The boots were from a well known manufacturer and less than a year old. On my return to the UK I sent them back to the manufacturer who honoured their guarantee and gave me the choice of replacement or total refund without quibble.

I have wondered since what my rights would have been had this occurred early on during the walk or even at the beginning? I was on an island with no outdoor shops or boot shops, so repair/replacement on the spot would have been impossible. Accommodation at B&Bs along the route had been booked and paid for, I had paid for a return flight from the UK and a return ferry from Tenerife, the nearest airport. Would I have been entitled to a full refund of the trip cost from the boot manufacturers on the basis that it was a walking holiday, which was my sole reason for going there, and this had been frustrated as a direct consequence of failure of their equipment which was essential for the trip?

Hopefully nothing like this will happen again but I am interested in the legal situation concerning consequential loss here.

That would make a splendid undergraduate contract law problem

I think the legal test is whether the specific loss was foreseeable (by both parties) at the time the deal was made.  In either case, it would have been the retailer who was liable.  If your arrangement had been that they would equip you for a specific trip then you could argue that the consequential loss was foreseeable. Otherwise almost certainly not.

This, for me, is the deciding reason.

If the boot is under guarantee, and they have admitted fault, replaced or refunded the boots. Then you are well within your right to believe that these boots are suitable, and within their limits, on your walk.

They have admitted fault, and as such are responsible for any losses? 

Unless they have worded the replacement/repair under ‘good will’. In which case no fault has been apportioned.

Losses which flow directly from their breech and also losses that you have taken all reasonable measures to mitigate against....like borrowing an alternative pair etc etc

Not the strongest consequential loss argument I've come across!!

It’s a good point.... but is it considered reasonable to carry a spare pair of boots on a 7 day circular. Considering the boots have a guarantee against such failure?

Making inflated claims on that basis is going to do nothing to help the next person whoo returns a pair of damaged boots ;(

Where a single item is of such importance for the success of a trip then I tend to carry a repair kit to cover such problems.

In the case of footwear this includes good glue, gaffer tape and zip ties. 

I’m more playing devils advocate, than actually saying people should do this.

I tend to agree with Timjones above, a good repair kit it a must. 

But, just looking at potential arguments that could be made.

Must have been a really bad pair of boots to fall to bits after 7 days. Legally I would have thought it would end up being a civil case brought by you vs the manufacturer. Depends what description is on the model.

Some interesting opinions, thanks. 

For the record they were alleged to be good quality boots with a good name. I had had a similar pair previously for about 5 years which had worn well, hence choosing the same make when it came to replacing them.

To Martinturner: Interestingly the boots were actually returned to the manufacturer after I had taken them back to the retailer. On the ticket the manufacturer returned to the retailer I saw they had written "manufacturing fault".

Fortunately the "consequential loss"  was a hypothetical because in the event the boots failed at the end of the holiday rather than at the beginning, but my own feeling is that it seems unreasonable for the retailer/manufacturer to expect a customer to have to carry a repair kit or spare boots for a 7 day hike when they are so new. Even with glue, repair in these circumstances would have been nigh on impossible without a last and clamps as the heel completely parted company with the rest of the boot. 

Had my holiday been buggered up by this I would have sought legal advice.

I'd expect that if you check the terms and conditions of the guarantee it will exclude consequential losses. In fact I'd be amazed if it didn't.

I don't perceive the basic precaution of carrying a repair kit as an expectation by the manufacturer.

It is a basic common sense to be prepared to look after yourself and your kit.  It 8s hardly an inconvenience weighing no more than a few hundred grammes.

So would I. Imagine if boot makers were liable for deaths due to their products failing on a climb, for example. A holiday would be cheap by comparison.

Having spent a small fortune getting good lightweight gear, why would I carry a repair kit weighing more than my tent  just in case my brand new boots fell to pieces?

Presumably, in this case, because the consequences of failure would be greater than the disadvantages of carrying a repair kit.

Similarly, the likelihood of premature failure causing material consequential loss is considered sufficiently remote and the cost of indemnity so great, that goods are sold without liability for consequential loss.  I think you would struggle greatly to present a manufacturing fault as negligence, which might present an opportunity if you were prepared to go to court.

'Had my holiday been buggered up by this I would have sought legal advice.'

I think that's a bit sad; I wouldn't. Bad enough dealing with lawyers at work but over a holiday? No way. Sh*t happens.

And isn't part of the essence of climbing and travelling coping with the unexpected? Where in the world could you be that you couldn't see that your boots were starting to fail - for whatever reason - and start making contingency plans to deal with it? 

A 200g tent sounds like an impressive piece of kit

If the fabric is that lightweight a simple repair kit sounds like a wise investment.

I bought a brand new pair of mountain boots from George Fisher some years ago.  Later the same day the sole came completely off one of the boots on the summit of Great Gable.    Forunately I had a couple of spare laces in my rucsack and laced the sole back on for the rather rocky descent and got back to Seathwaite and then Keswick where I went back into the shop (still on the same day).  Having rather lost faith in the boots I asked for my money back but the nice lady refused, saying it was not possible since I'd worn the boots outside.  They would only have them repaired and posted to me!

Well the Laser with its see through fabric is often described as a large condom.

Presumably by someone who is hung like a horse and needs to use extra thick to increase their staying power

Sorry, thought you said a few hundred grammes - my tent is 440g.

Presumably I should also carry spare stove (and gas) in case they don't work? And spare torch in case that breaks. An extra walking pole or two. At least two cameras. Extra gaffer tape of course in case tent, waterproofs, clothes, etc, all fail at the same time...

I often wish I had two spare legs with me

In my experinece goods that fail from fault in manufactuer, usuallly do so very early in the products life. So any kit being taken on a big trip should be given a good using in advance.

I am no lawyer, but if someone is negligent, and you suffer a loss, you can sue for the losses. You would however have to prove the negligence. So even a a trip worth 2 or 3K would not be worth going to court over.

Curiousity got the better of me and I've just got the scales out to see if my claims were correct

it turns out that I've been overly pessimistic, my repair kit to cover most foreseeable problems weighs in at 121g but if I was really chasing weight savings then I could probably get it too half that by halving the quantities.  That includes a lighter so that I can light a fire if a stove fails.

As materials get lighter and more prone to damage it seems foolish not to carry the means to patch things up.