Mad at internet retailers who choose which laws apply!

neilmcl

I see what you're getting at now.

Apologies all for me being a complete knob.

neilmcl

I'd still argue that it isn't unfair though. It has to be seen as an expected overhead of running an internet business. You have to allow your customer to inspect the goods. There are certain overheads involved in running a physical shop and placing items on display for the customer to fully inspect, bearing in mind a lot of these "display items" end up being sold for less so the retailer loses out in that respect. The same can be said for factoring in the repayment of a delivery charge should a consumer cancel an online order.

negg

I'd still argue that it isn't unfair though

You buy a TV and email them within seven days saying you don't want it. You keep the TV but the company has to refund within 30 days? Now the company has to pay money to take you to court.

Someone buys a printer cartridge and opens it. It is the wrong one even though they would have known that by looking at the box. The company has to refund it even though the ink will dry up and the cartridge will be placed in the bin, costing the business and filling landfill sites even though it was never used?

I'd call that unfair on the business. I actually heard that one small company went under and several people lost their jobs because of the DSR laws.

I think the principle of the law is good, the execution needs refinement.

negg

... or on the other hand, a company sells you a part for your Ford Focus but when it arrives it only fits the Ford Fiesta. The DSR states that you have to return it but that you have to pay return postage? In this case, the business should be responsible for all costs of return but the law doesn't assist the customer here.

neilmcl

negg wrote: »

... or on the other hand, a company sells you a part for your Ford Focus but when it arrives it only fits the Ford Fiesta. The DSR states that you have to return it but that you have to pay return postage? In this case, the business should be responsible for all costs of return but the law doesn't assist the customer here.

Yes, it does. Its called the Sale of Goods Act, specifically in that case not as described.

neilmcl

negg wrote: »

You buy a TV and email them within seven days saying you don't want it. You keep the TV but the company has to refund within 30 days? Now the company has to pay money to take you to court.

Someone buys a printer cartridge and opens it. It is the wrong one even though they would have known that by looking at the box. The company has to refund it even though the ink will dry up and the cartridge will be placed in the bin, costing the business and filling landfill sites even though it was never used?

I'd call that unfair on the business. I actually heard that one small company went under and several people lost their jobs because of the DSR laws.

I think the principle of the law is good, the execution needs refinement.

On the first case, the consumer would have a judgment found against him and which he'd also pay costs so no real loss to the business.

On the second, if you're just talking about removing the cartridge from the box then that wouldn't dry it up, however if you're referring to opening its seal then items like that wouldn't be covered by the DSRs if the seals had been broken.

negg

Yes, it does. Its called the Sale of Goods Act, specifically in that case not as described.

Which doesn't mention who pays the return postage. So the customer will get a refund to the amount paid originally but still may end up having to pay the return postage. That's not fair on the customer.

On the second, if you're just talking about removing the cartridge from the box then that wouldn't dry it up, however if you're referring to opening its seal then items like that wouldn't be covered by the DSRs if the seals had been broken.

Wrong. The item does not have to be in a condition fit for resale. As long as everything supplied is returned. You are asked to take 'reasonable care'. Please define 'reasonable care'....? Very open to interpretation.

On the first case, the consumer would have a judgment found against him and which he'd also pay costs so no real loss to the business.

I've actually been there, taken someone to court and it does cost the business. Big time. A £1500 debt and the consumer was asked to pay £1 per month (Work that out!). After three months he stopped. Who pays to take him to court again? Take a guess...

neilmcl

negg wrote: »

Which doesn't mention who pays the return postage. So the customer will get a refund to the amount paid originally but still may end up having to pay the return postage. That's not fair on the customer.

Incorrect. The SOGA is very specific regarding refunding of return postage costs in the event of a faulty product.

negg wrote: »

Wrong. The item does not have to be in a condition fit for resale. As long as everything supplied is returned. You are asked to take 'reasonable care'. Please define 'reasonable care'....? Very open to interpretation

I never mentioned it had to be in a condition for resale which was why I said it was OK to open the cartridge packaging. However, certain items by their very nature would not be always be covered by the DSRs and a product such as a printer cartridge where if you pull away the seal thus allowing the ink to run and potentially dry out may be such an item. I'd also say that the definition of taking reasonable care isn't really that vague.

pendulum

Although the law is the law and I don't dispute that by law a consumer is entitled to a refund including original postage if they wish to return under DSR, it's still exceptionally unfair to the retailer and to be honest, if some retailers try and hang on to the cost of postage to see if they can get away with it then fair play to them. Seriously, if I buy some clothes and when they arrive I don't like them, so I send them back, why should the retailer have to pay for the original cost of sending them to me? They've done nothing wrong, why should they be out of pocket for my change of mind?

The DSRs also state that a retailer must refund the money, even if they have not yet received the item back! Wholly unfair to be honest.

negg

I never mentioned it had to be in a condition for resale which was why I said it was OK to open the cartridge packaging. However, certain items by their very nature would not be always be covered by the DSRs and a product such as a printer cartridge where if you pull away the seal thus allowing the ink to run and potentially dry out may be such an item. I'd also say that the definition of taking reasonable care isn't really that vague.

Then you don't agree with a person from Trading Standards who I spoke to about the very same issue.

But then another Trading Standards person I spoke to did agree with you.

See what I mean by very vague and open to interpretation - even the "experts" don't agree.

You say it is ok to open the cartridge packaging, but not the seal. It is clearly written on the box what it fits, so there is no need to open the outer box to inspect. You wouldn't be allowed to open the outer box in a shop. Therefore reasonable care hasn't been taken if you open the outer box, surely?

(PS I am not arguing, but trying to clarify what people think as I sell printer cartridges and am interested in people's thoughts on DSR's since me and several competitors don't have a clue what rights the law really gives since they are so vague when you start thinking about them!)