A Melbourne real estate agent who spent nearly $30,000 on sneakers he claims are fake has been denied a refund because he knowingly bought them off a 17-year-old boy.
The man took the teen and his dad to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in October, gunning for a refund on his hefty purchase.
But last month, VCAT determined he wasn’t entitled to one and had to cop the loss on what he says was an elaborate luxury sneaker scam.
Teen reseller ‘a fraudster and a scam artist’
Just a handful — 8500 low-tops and 4700 high-tops, each individually numbered — of Dior x Air Jordan 1 sneakers were released in a collab between the two brands in 2020.
The shoes were sold via a raffle system that allowed one pair per customer.
But the teen reseller, who was an adult by the time the matter went to VCAT, claimed to have a “system with some international associates” who entered raffles on his behalf and sent the sneakers to him.
His real estate agent buyer was seemingly convinced by this claim and paid the boy $3800 for a pair of the limited-edition sneakers.
He went on to buy three more pairs for $4800, $6700 and $10,000, before coughing up another $2690 each for three pairs of Air Jordan 1 in the Bred, Chicago and Royal colour schemes.
But when the estate agent’s staggeringly expensive sneakers arrived, he noticed “defects” and came to believe they were “unauthentic”, VCAT heard.
He couldn’t get in touch with the teen and so contacted his father, whom he claimed agreed to accompany him to get them authenticated.
The pair took the shoes to a Melbourne sneaker store, whose authenticator reported that all of them were counterfeit.
According to the real estate agent, the authenticator’s “face completely dropped” upon hearing the name of the student and said he “was a fraudster and a scam artist who had been black-listed”, VCAT heard.
He claimed the father offered $10,000 in compensation, which he rejected before taking the matter to the tribunal.
The dad, for his part, claimed the sneaker store was not an “authorised authenticator” and denied ever making an offer of compensation.
Estate agent denied refund due to boy’s age
In December, VCAT member Katherine Metcalf found the real estate agent was not entitled to a refund because his agreement was made with a 17-year-old who, due to his age, “not have full capacity to enter into contracts”.
She said the buyer was aware of the student’s age “at all times” and even sent him a text in May 2021 “wishing him a belated happy 18th birthday”.
“The contract was fully performed while [the seller] was a minor,” Ms Metcalf wrote in her reasons on December 22.
“Had the agreement been entered into when [the seller] was 18 years old the result might have been different.
“While the law generally protects minors from the consequences of their own actions, it could be argued that in the present circumstances it is not the minor who needs protection, but rather the people with whom he chose to do business.”
Teen reseller ‘chased through shops’ by aggravated buyers
The boy’s father told VCAT his son’s business dealings began while he was researching sneakers as part of a business management studies course.
He said the boy helped his classmates to secure limited-edition and rare sneakers, making a commission from the transactions which he used to buy his own sneakers.
But the father said he had “no idea of the extent of his son’s dealings” and only became aware of them when the family started receiving threats and the boy was chased down in public.
“[The father’s] evidence was that he only became involved after [his son] stopped all forms of communication with the applicant, and the situation had deteriorated to the point where [the son] was being chased through a shopping centre (allegedly by other disgruntled customers) and threats were being made to [the son’s] mother at her place of work,” Ms Metcalf wrote.
Ms Metcalf dismissed the buyer’s claim against the boy’s father, saying he was not a party of the sneaker agreement.
The real estate agent still has the sneakers.