We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Do I have to refund?
Comments
-
phlogeston wrote: »And your legal qualifications would be...
Without getting into a slanging match, I would guess none, as you don't seem able to interpret these Acts.
Yes, I have read and studied both Acts and neither apply in this case.
The contract is between the OP and the purchaser.
The OP has included in the contract the term that refunds are available. He does this when he offers any item for sale on Amazon. He cannot then try and claim that his own terms are unfair to himself!
There is no right in contract law to say all sales are final, the seller is still bound to fulfil any terms of the contract.
so your argument is that the private seller has no rights and so can be bound to whatever contractual term Amazon or anyone else wish to bind him to.
but i think you are getting too hung up on the term "right" all the unfair terms in consumer contracts act says is not observing legal provisions, see my post (number 62) on the matter which links to the act in full.
The exemption from the distance selling regs is a provision within the law to relieve private sellers of the burdeon, financially, of accepting returns because lets say you sold a second hand asset you had that was worth £1,000 because you were in serious financial trouble, you got the money the buyer got the goods and you spent the money right away to pay off some debts etc, what would happen if the buyer came back a week later asking for a refund? the private seller can not afford to refund and it would be unfair at this stage if the law forced them to have to find the money.
That is why the exemption exists, it's not a lack of a law as you suggest, it is a provision within the law that exempts private sellers of goods......."A wise man once told me don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who"........0 -
I think you misunderstand, Amazon don't ask before they take the refund, they do not ask the seller to refund, they just pull the funds and leave the seller to argue it is unfair.
.
Here is the bit of my post which you deleted from your quote which relates to the fact Amazon may try to grab the funds and so it would depend on the op's ability to cancel all payment arrangementsSo, If you don't care about using Amazon again in the future you could cancel your payment arrangement with them so that they can not debit your bank account and refuse to pay, it's unlikely you'll ever have to pay but you'll probably get debt collection letters and phone calls at some point.
.
Selective editing on your part soolin. Not very clever. Seems i do understand after all.
Also saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying something catagorically will not happen, so thats misquoting to add to selective editing. If you don't have a valid point don't try and invent one by misquoting me deliberately......."A wise man once told me don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who"........0 -
Here is the bit of my post which you deleted from your quote which relates to the fact Amazon may try to grab the funds and so it would depend on the op's ability to cancel all payment arrangements
Selective editing on your part soolin. Not very clever. Seems i do understand after all.
Also saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying something catagorically will not happen, so thats misquoting to add to selective editing. If you don't have a valid point don't try and invent one by misquoting me deliberately.
A credit card is much more dangerous for grabbing money than a bank account. As per my post though sellers have posted on the community boards that they have been unable to delete their credit card and bank account from Amazon anyway.
As I think we have now frightened off the OP I will bow out of this now as there seems very little point in arguing the same position.I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the eBay, Auctions, Car Boot & Jumble Sales, Boost Your Income, Praise, Vents & Warnings, Overseas Holidays & Travel Planning , UK Holidays, Days Out & Entertainments boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know.. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.0 -
phlogeston wrote: »And your legal qualifications would be...
Without getting into a slanging match, I would guess none, as you don't seem able to interpret these Acts.
Yes, I have read and studied both Acts and neither apply in this case.
The contract is between the OP and the purchaser.
The OP has included in the contract the term that refunds are available. He does this when he offers any item for sale on Amazon. He cannot then try and claim that his own terms are unfair to himself!
There is no right in contract law to say all sales are final, the seller is still bound to fulfil any terms of the contract.
THANKYOU! somebody making sense, toffe has this delusion that because there is an exclusion in DSR, it become a right, we know this is completly wrong, he jsut refuses to back down and back up his arguments with any legal knowledge, im no lawyer, i havnt even got a degree, i am however apt enough to understand basic interpretation.Back by no demand whatsoever.0 -
If you are exempt from a piece of legislation you do not have to observe it, therefore in the case of the DRS the seller does not have to offer refunds, that is is his legal right because it can not be argued that by doing so he is acting illegally. Anything that we do that complies with and does not contradict any specific legislation is our legal right.
i can walk backwards down the street singing i'm a little tea pot if i like, not because there is a specific piece of legislation called "the walking backwards down the street singing i'm a little teapot act" specifically stating that i have this right but because it does not contravine any other law.
but lets say my local council got complaints about this strange man walking backwards down the street singing i'm a little tea pot they could not do anything to enforce any action to prevent me doing this as it breaks no law and it is, whether there is any legislation specific to it or not, my legal right to do so as it does not contravine any other laws.
therefore, should anyone attempt to interfere me with me going about my business, albeit in a very strange way, it would be they and not i who were breaking the law by harrassing/assualting me should they attempt to interfere with me going about what is my legal right.
Much in the same vain, what the unfair contractual terms act does is prevents companies from interfearing with consumers legal rights,as the quote from the unfair terms in conumer contracts act states, requiring a consumer to go directly to arbitration which does not observe the legal position of the consumer is usually an unfair contractual term.
so should the private seller argue, "i should not be bound to this term because it does not observe my legal position under UK legislation relating to distance selling" it is likely that a court would deem the position of the law to take priority over the private contract term between amazon and the seller because a contract term which appears to not fully observe the legal provisions relating to the conumer in relation to that term is not binding under unfair contract legislation.
toffe, you seem to have trouble reading...
SHOW ME THE LAW THAT STATES SELLERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSDER SALES FINAL.
dont waffle on about the same old rubbish, show me the law,
You can't...
Know why?
because your incorrectly interpretating the law, The exemption in DSR is not a right! Its an exemption for that one bit of legislation, thats it, that means sellers do not have to abode by DSR yes, i never denied that, but you dont seem to comprehend that a businesses terms then saying sales are not final are not breaching legislation, because there is no legislation! there is no law stating all sales are final
Please please please learn to interpretate acts correctly, and if you still think your right, simply post the legislation ive been asking for.Back by no demand whatsoever.0 -
4743hudsonj wrote: »toffe, you seem to have trouble reading...
SHOW ME THE LAW THAT STATES SELLERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSDER SALES FINAL.
dont waffle on about the same old rubbish, show me the law,.
Why are you getting all hot under the collar and trying to make this a personal argument?
in my first post i merely stated i beleived there to be a contractual prohibition within the amzon agreement, and that in any case it is unlikely that amazon would pursue legal chanels, but if they did maybe this could be argued.
Further more i have outlined in great detail exactly which two pices of legislation i feel are conflicting and why, i have provided links to both pices of legislation for you to read and interpret for yourself.
I have picked out a definition within the unfair terms in consumer contracts act which i feel applies to this situation.
you have provided only your own opinion.
Your demand for "proof" is ridicoulous, there can be no solid proof that i am correct in my view without judgement being passed in a court of law. That is why i have never once said, "this is a cast iron fact" instead all i have ever said is things like, "i believe", "in my view" and "may possibly"
Yet you forcefully object to my view and have on several occasion told me that i am completly wrong, Care to back that up with more than your own opinion? do you have any "proof" ?
I doubt it.4743hudsonj wrote: »You can't...
Know why?
because your incorrectly interpretating the law, The exemption in DSR is not a right! Its an exemption for that one bit of legislation, thats it, that means sellers do not have to abode by DSR yes, i never denied that, but you dont seem to comprehend that a businesses terms then saying sales are not final are not breaching legislation, because there is no legislation! there is no law stating all sales are final.
I have answered this point already when phlogeston tried to argue that the private seller has no rights and so can be bound to any term because the DSR exemption is not a law or a right it's a lack of law blah blah blah,
The exemption to the DSR's is a provision written into the law, it is there to protect private sellers from being held accountable to the same degree as businesses and protect them financially from exposure to loss. I attempt to explain it here, you should have already read this.so your argument is that the private seller has no rights and so can be bound to whatever contractual term Amazon or anyone else wish to bind him to.
but i think you are getting too hung up on the term "right" all the unfair terms in consumer contracts act says is not observing legal provisions, see my post (number 62) on the matter which links to the act in full.
The exemption from the distance selling regs is a provision within the law to relieve private sellers of the burdeon, financially, of accepting returns because lets say you sold a second hand asset you had that was worth £1,000 because you were in serious financial trouble, you got the money the buyer got the goods and you spent the money right away to pay off some debts etc, what would happen if the buyer came back a week later asking for a refund? the private seller can not afford to refund and it would be unfair at this stage if the law forced them to have to find the money.
That is why the exemption exists, it's not a lack of a law as you suggest, it is a provision within the law that exempts private sellers of goods. .
And in response to the comment below:4743hudsonj wrote: »Please please please learn to interpretate acts correctly, and if you still think your right, simply post the legislation ive been asking for..
please re-read all of my posts, you find links to all act of legislation to which i refer, you'll also find detailed explanation of how and why my interpretation leads me to the conclusion that i have expressed in this thread. note the comparable lack of any such links and'or supporting text in support of your own claims that i am wrong.
Then if you still think i'm wrong thats fine, i'm not saying and never have said that my opion and interpretation is 100% cast iron correct but i have supported my opinions and provided links to relavent legislation for you and othr to make up their own mind.
You have provided nothing but your own opinion and made claims that your opinion is fact without ever supplying anything to back it up.
Why don't you prove to me that your acusation that i have misinterpreted the law is correct rather than keep trying to force forward your opinions as though they were facts?......"A wise man once told me don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who"........0 -
A credit card is much more dangerous for grabbing money than a bank account. As per my post though sellers have posted on the community boards that they have been unable to delete their credit card and bank account from Amazon anyway.
As I think we have now frightened off the OP I will bow out of this now as there seems very little point in arguing the same position.
You have not scared me. If I have to refund then I will when I get the phone back. I came on here for advice and all I got what was waffle so I could not be bothered to post anymore.0 -
4743hudsonj wrote: »THANKYOU! somebody making sense, toffe has this delusion that because there is an exclusion in DSR, it become a right, we know this is completly wrong, he jsut refuses to back down and back up his arguments with any legal knowledge, im no lawyer, i havnt even got a degree, i am however apt enough to understand basic interpretation.
I assumed you did have a law degree 4743hudsonj, you put across arguments in a way that a good law student would.
You have not scared me. If I have to refund then I will when I get the phone back. I came on here for advice and all I got what was waffle so I could not be bothered to post anymore.
Whilst I agree the thread has gone off at a tangent, you may have missed the point that the choice to refund may be taken out of your hands.Gone ... or have I?0 -
I assumed you did have a law degree 4743hudsonj, you put across arguments in a way that a good law student would.
Whilst I agree the thread has gone off at a tangent, you may have missed the point that the choice to refund may be taken out of your hands.
And if you re read my post I said If i have to pay it back then I will. But I have heard nothing from Amazon or buyer yet0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards