Short version, I've just purchased a new pair of skis, unmounted, plus bindings. I wanted to have them mounted to fit my old 1998 Solomon Perfoma boots, but have been denied. I was told by the local shop there are indemnified and can't touch them for liability reasons.
Long version - The need to actually earn a living meant moving from my beloved western state to the Midwest. I haven't done any skiing for about 8 years now. Over the holidays, I took my GF out for her first ski trip and some lessons at our local hill, which we loved. The rub is, my old skis, K2 Merlin MK-IV, got a little damp after carelessly wasting away in the garage, and the edges are completely rusted. With a tax return burning a hole in my pocket I picked up what seems to be decent pair of newish (still wrapped) '08 Elan skis+bindings. The plan was to have some new, and inexpensive, skis to go along with the season rentals we got for her.
Being the dork I am I told the shop to just send 'em my way, that I'll have someone local mount the bindings, all after they offered to mount them free of charge provided I gave them the BSL. However, the local yokals here have refused, telling me that boots this old are indemnified. Coincidentally, they are the only game in town. Coincidentally, they showed me the 'equivalent' boots on sale at about $500. Near as I could tell, the new generation of my exact boot are identical minus some cosmetic changes.
I've arranged to send the skis + boots to my brother so he can have them mounted, as spending $500 on boots that look and feel identical, to be used on $200 skis is just wrong in this former ski bum's opinion.
So, before I go ahead with my master plan and pack everything up for the UPS truck. Am I crazy? Is this unsafe, because I can't think of a reason why?