My girlfriend was experiencing foot pain after being on her feet all day at school. A friend recommended Happy Feet Plus, as she used to work there. After about 45 minutes of trying on shoes, and taking suggestions from the associate, she settled on a pair of Birkenstocks. After expressing some concern for the price ($192.00) she was told that she could wear them for up to 30 days, and if they were not working out, that she could return them. This was reiterated several times during the time we were there. We purchased, thinking that it was a hopeful win for her feet. After about two weeks, it became apparent the shoes were not going to work out for her, so I headed back to the store. After presenting the shoes, box and reciept, the associate took the shoes out back and returned several minutes later to show me the soles of the shoes. She pointed out what looked like a piece of gum that had been smushed into the sole and told me that she could only accept the shoes if they were in "unworn" condition, and could be resold.
I expressed surprise at such a clause ( and that they would sell used shoes) and she proceeded to read the paragraph from the bottom of the 13" long receipt. I asked her how someone could wear the shoes for 30 days, and have them in unworn condition? She told me that they could be worn carefully indoors. She indicated that the shoes had obviously been worn outdoors because of the stuff in the tread of the sole. I indicated that anything could happen, if you had kids, and she told me that she had 4 children, and she would never have something in the soles of her shoes (really?) I was, and am incredulous.....yes, my bad for not reading the paragraph at the bottom of the reciept after the purchase (does anyone?) but as my girlfriend had repeatedly told the associate exactly what she needed the shoes for, and the associate had never mentioned, after repeating the 30 day return offer 5-6 times, that they needed to be essentially unworn, this is a ridiculous policy. I appreciate buyer beware, but having a policy like this is misleading at best. read more