Archibald London Hand Welted Shoes - preorder issues, discussion,and resolution.

[TC11201]

Then no alternative maker as of yet.
Well, at least, those that wanted the refund are receiving it so that is a positive.

i’m not aware that anyone has been refunded to date.

 

[clee1982]

JFWR did, he order a green pair after the review on the free stuff, so he got refund on that green pair (which might be a easier case since it hasn't been shipped or might even have been made or in the process of making)

 

[BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes]

i’m not aware that anyone has been refunded to date.

I thought I recall reading someone received a refund. Maybe, 5 pages ago?

 

[BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes]

JFWR did, he order a green pair after the review on the free stuff, so he got refund on that green pair

Anyone else received a refund that requested a refund?

 

[TC11201]

The equity structure would matter in that the money isn't technically changing hands. Although, I do concur with you regarding responsibility. Name on the insole (or outsole) is responsible for providing a mutually beneficial resolution.

So again, easy peasy.

[/QUOTE]
I’m not an Italian law expert, but in the US, unless the AOL-supplier relationship was explicitly a brokerage relationship (AOL brokering supplier’s wares) and stated as such in the TOS, then AOL is responsible - they were the seller of record, they took payment, they entered the contractual arrangement. Having some joint equity arrangement with the supplier would only make them even more culpable, but they’re responsible for making good either way.

 

[TC11201]

Anyone else received a refund that requested a refund?

Sorry, my mistake.

 

[clee1982]

I really don't believe AOL is here to scam, they're just not knowledgeable enough to know (so some maker took advantage of that). I have checked their thread from the start and to me it's pretty clear they were learn as they go.

 

[BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes]

Having some joint equity arrangement with the supplier would only make them even more culpable, but their responsible for making good either way.
[/QUOTE]

That's my contention, or was, when I inquired earlier. I just don't want to assume so I was thinking it had been stated.

As you mentioned and it is my belief, the name of the person who issued the invoice should bear responsiblity. That seems straightforward, although considering there are 60+ pages, not as clear cut as it seems. ??‍♂️

 

[TC11201]

I really don't believe AOL is here to scam, they're just not knowledgeable enough to know (so some maker took advantage of that). I have checked their thread from the start and to me it's pretty clear they were learn as they go.

Agreed. The few items I’ve actually purchased from them (sweater, eyeglasses) have actually been excellent quality. I suppose that’s why this is disappointing.

 

[BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes]

I really don't believe AOL is here to scam, they're just not knowledgeable enough to know (so some maker took advantage of that). I have checked their thread from the start and to me it's pretty clear they were learn as they go.

Would it be fair to say the maker is the expert of their operation? Well in theory anyways.

 

[TC11201]

Having some joint equity arrangement with the supplier would only make them even more culpable, but their responsible for making good either way.

That's my contention, or was, when I inquired earlier. I just don't want to assume so I was thinking it had been stated.

As you mentioned and it is my belief, the name of the person who issued the invoice should bear responsiblity. That seems straightforward, although considering there are 60+ pages, not as clear cut as it seems. ??‍♂️
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s fair to say that this thread has consisted of people stating pretty much that, AOL defending themselves over and over, but not really doing anything to actually address the issue. Which has made people more distrustful. And there have been sporadic detours into DTC business models, luxury cars, etc.

 

[clee1982]

pretty sure the maker is the expert, I think at certain point they were saying they want to make it as a general DTC platform? i.e. the long game would be an easier way to connect to consumer from maker (thinking in the sense of they take care of logistic/presentation/website/ordering etc., i.e. salesforce model?)

 

[usctrojans31]

Can anyone confirm the actual relationship between the maker and AoL? Because naively, I'd assume this should be relatively easy to address and find a resolution if the relationship is one of two independent parties.

If it is the same party (more or less), it kind of complicates matters.

I’m not an Italian law expert, but in the US, unless the AOL-supplier relationship was explicitly a brokerage relationship (AOL brokering supplier’s wares) and stated as such in the TOS, then AOL is responsible - they were the seller of record, they took payment, they entered the contractual arrangement. Having some joint equity arrangement with the supplier would only make them even more culpable, but they’re responsible for making good either way.
[/QUOTE]

The Italian legal system is notoriously slow and frivolous, which I can attest to from personal and secondary experiences.

 

[dieworkwear]

slow and frivolous

Coincidentally, this is my OK Cupid profile.

 

[BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes]

That's my contention, or was, when I inquired earlier. I just don't want to assume so I was thinking it had been stated.

As you mentioned and it is my belief, the name of the person who issued the invoice should bear responsiblity. That seems straightforward, although considering there are 60+ pages, not as clear cut as it seems. ??‍♂️

I think it’s fair to say that this thread has consisted of people stating pretty much that, AOL defending themselves over and over, but not really doing anything to actually address the issue. Which has made people more distrustful. And there have been sporadic detours into DTC business models, luxury cars, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Ah okay so more voices overcomplicating things. An open forum will do that I suppose.

I guess it is a waiting game at this point. Which then begs the question, how long have individuals been waiting for a resolution?