refund with 'restocking' 25% deduction

hairy_g

diggerman123 wrote: »

you enter a legally binding contract when you buy as well as sell

:T

you enter a legally binding contract when you sell as well as buy:rolleyes:

diggerman123 wrote: »

dont buy if you dont want springs to mind . op never has said they were faulty ................

Under the DSR's the customer can change his mind.

diggerman123 wrote: »

factor in ? why should they ? penalise good customers to account for the bad ?
you mean to finance people who dont know what they are doing ? what has the world come to ?

they could be faulty, wrong colour, size etc...
And as far as the DSR's, the world has come to it's senses.

diggerman123

anyway i have my opinion and will only charge 5 % restocking charge on my opinion if receipts are provided within 7 working days and in writing
and signed by both grandparents and their parents and the dog
seriously some people take it too far

4743hudsonj

diggerman123 wrote: »

anyway i have my opinion and will only charge 5 % restocking charge on my opinion if receipts are provided within 7 working days and in writing
and signed by both grandparents and their parents and the dog
seriously some people take it too far

The only one taking it too far is you to be fair, the DSR goes both way, this case could be constructed as unfair to retailers but what about when they incorrectly list items and people "buy" them and in their words "form a binding contract? in your view, shops would have to honour this even if it was a telly at 20 pence! Of course, this would be insane and DSR allows for these situations which is usually seen as unfair to consumers. It works both ways and at the end of the day, consumers get good cheap deals and retailers make enough money to keep them in business.

You seem to be the only person who has a proble with this, maybe sour from a lawsuit against you for your stubbourn ways;)

diggerman123

if u dont want it , dont buy it ! if its wrong then complain. if its not then dont cry .............................

diggerman123

no sour grapes at all . op had no problem (he bought what he asked for ) and at no point has said that they were not fit for purpose or not what ordered or wrong colour / shape /size etc. he was provided what he asked for (not by me ) . why should a retailer stand this loss without recompense ?

diggerman123

4743hudsonj wrote: »

The only one taking it too far is you to be fair, the DSR goes both way, this case could be constructed as unfair to retailers but what about when they incorrectly list items and people "buy" them and in their words "form a binding contract? in your view, shops would have to honour this even if it was a telly at 20 pence! Of course, this would be insane and DSR allows for these situations which is usually seen as unfair to consumers. It works both ways and at the end of the day, consumers get good cheap deals and retailers make enough money to keep them in business.

You seem to be the only person who has a proble with this, maybe sour from a lawsuit against you for your stubbourn ways;)

when at any time did he say they were not what he wanted ?

hairy_g

I smell a TROLL

diggerman123

and the "what about when" is not applicable as this hasnt happened . rest my case ..............

diggerman123

hairy i dont troll , i look at things in perspective and give an opinion. i work on a farm and dont really buy or sell. but i have an opinion and i will share that as i wish

Kite2010

diggerman123 wrote: »

factor in ? why should they ? penalise good customers to account for the bad ?
you mean to finance people who dont know what they are doing ? what has the world come to ?

If you go into any supermarket, they would have marked up their products to cover for shoplifters, so the good customers are getting penalise by the bad ones.