Distance Selling Regulations Query

stugib

derrick wrote: »

As with most things it is open to interpretation, and in the OPs case it seems it was interpreted, (eventually), the way I read it, and not as clear cut as 4743hudsonj said.

I don't think it's clear cut either but am coming down on the side of not being returnable because it was not necessary to open it to make the same decisions you'd make in a shop pre-purchase. I'm not reading too much into CD's conflicting advice or the fact the company backed down.

Tozer

derrick wrote: »

From the regs; - 3.58 No. Consumers are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods while in their possession as discussed in paragraph 3.44. The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods then they have not breached their duty to take reasonablecare of the goods.So under the regs they ARE allowed to try the goods!

This is not from the Regulations at all but from the OFT's guidance.

Judges interpret legislation. Not the OFT. So you are basing your views on on an interpretation of an interpretation, neither of which is binding in the slightest.

bb999

stugib wrote: »

I don't think it's clear cut either but am coming down on the side of not being returnable because it was not necessary to open it to make the same decisions you'd make in a shop pre-purchase. I'm not reading too much into CD's conflicting advice or the fact the company backed down.

CD said all along that I was entitled to open & try products under DSR, but originally said the item was not returnable because they (mistakenly) classed it in with DVD's and software.

derrick

Tozer wrote: »

This is not from the Regulations at all but from the OFT's guidance.

Judges interpret legislation. Not the OFT. So you are basing your views on on an interpretation of an interpretation, neither of which is binding in the slightest.

Yes the OFTs Guidance to Businesses, I cannot see them giving out wrong information,(but then they may!), I am pretty sure if I took the time to go through the regs I would find it, but for this forum I think the quote from the OFT is enough, and if shown the OFTs Guidance I am pretty sure a judge would side with the consumer, which is a bit academic really as all cases will be decided individually, but at least there is some form of guideance for the consumer and business to rely on.

Tozer

derrick wrote: »

Yes the OFTs Guidance to Businesses, I cannot see them giving out wrong information,(but then they may!), I am pretty sure if I took the time to go through the regs I would find it, but for this forum I think the quote from the OFT is enough, and if shown the OFTs Guidance I am pretty sure a judge would side with the consumer, which is a bit academic really as all cases will be decided individually, but at least there is some form of guideance for the consumer and business to rely on.

It is not a case of the wrong information but their view of the Regs.

derrick

Tozer wrote: »

It is not a case of the wrong information but their view of the Regs.

Yes well, I think their view will carry some weight, and is easier for the consumer to digest!

4743hudsonj

derrick wrote: »

Yes well, I think their view will carry some weight, and is easier for the consumer to digest!

but even their view is up for interpretation and im sorry but in no circumstance would a shop let you open blister packaging just to try it out. thats where the "if " comes into play and why the store should claim against the op for not carrying out their statutory duty

derrick

4743hudsonj wrote: »

but even their view is up for interpretation and im sorry but in no circumstance would a shop let you open blister packaging just to try it out. thats where the "if " comes into play and why the store should claim against the op for not carrying out their statutory duty

Well post #17, from the OP, seems to contradict you, as they received a refund and CD admit they got it wrong! Even though you continue to disagree in post #18. the proof of the pudding is in the eating! After both saying no, (CD & the retailer), they both relented and admitted they where wrong!