Orange Cooling Off Period

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

I missed the first part of your post.Well, 'used' is yet another ambiguous term. If I switch a camera on and check the zoom, screen and menus without taking photos - am I using it?

Yes you are, would they know, possibly not but you using it you'll most likely have broken seals on the unit.

Used is not ambigious, have you performed any function with the camera.

grumbler wrote: »

However what does this have to do with the term 'software' in the DSR that we were talking about?

The camera uses software to drive it, and you are using the software.

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

IMO, law is not the place for ambiguity. All ambiguous laws result from incompetence and illiteracy of their authors.
No. The less courts have to 'interpret' the better.
It is ridiculous to get courts involved for returning every small programmable appliance with some sort of processor.
Luckily common sense prevails everywhere except, probably 'three'.

It's ambigious for a.reason, Lets say they said any software that was delivered on a Floppy or CD when the law was written. We now get software as a download, on flash stick, on blu-ray. Although it would help to be narrower in some cases the law would need to be constantly revised.

Look at copyright, the law was written before mp3 players really became common, as it stands you have no right in law to make a copy of a CD to any other media, not a tape for the car(for the few cars that still have tape players) not move it to your iPod as a MP3. You hae no legal right to record a tv program for later watching but that doesn't work either By making it clear an unambigious as they did (no copies full stop) it's made it unworkable and broken more often than followed

Common sense has no place in law, but any electronic device has software, so any device by using it falls outside the DSR. As I sais many retailers may go beyond the DSR, but thats their choice.

As has been mentioned the DSR exists so you can INSPECT and item in your home, that means look at it, it is NOT a trial period. Again using Argos as an example you would not generally see the item just a photo, and maybe one in a case. The DSR exists to give you similar right to that experience not give you a trial.

Robt actually put it best, Three follow the law the best, even if you don't like the policy.

grumbler

gjchester wrote: »

The camera uses software to drive it, and you are using the software.

But this doesn't prove that this is the reason why I cannot return.

gjchester wrote: »

It's ambigious for a.reason, Lets say they said any software that was delivered on a Floppy or CD when the law was written. We now get software as a download, on flash stick, on blu-ray. Although it would help to be narrower in some cases the law would need to be constantly revised.

Absolutely not. There are two types of software that could have been clearly distinguished in the law by competent and intelligent lawmakers thus leaving much less ambiguity and much less work for courts in the future:

• preinstalled software
• software saleable for installation.

Also, what the DSR actually say is almost as above:

audio or video recordings or computer software that the customer has unsealed

This is not what 'three' use as excuse because I cannot have a look at a phone without taking it out of box. Even if I don't turn it on, I have to unseal it if it is sealed (not all phones are).

Robt actually put it best, Three follow the law the best, even if you don't like the policy.

They don't follow the law, they just use it as an excuse. By saying it this way you imply that other companies, like Orange, don't follow the law, i.e. break the law that obviously is not the case.

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

They don't follow the law, they just use it as an excuse. By saying it this way you imply that other companies, like Orange, don't follow the law, i.e. break the law that obviously is not the case.

No. They are exceeding the law not breaking it, once again I'll refer back to the earlier comment

Just because a vendor exceeds the legal requirements doesn't not mean it becomes a legal right.


Orange COULD follow the law that says once any item containing software is used then DSR is void, they choose to offer a level of service above and beyond it. That is their choice as a company, it's a a bit like M&S accepting returns without a reciept, they don't have to but do so for customer goodwill.


Three also consider the DSR voided by use as by turning on and using the device then the user has customised the software, that too is a reason to void the DSR

"for the supply of goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised or which by reason of their nature cannot be returned or are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly;"

As I've said before it's a very narrow reading of the DSR rules but I'm sure Three's laywers have been through this. If it was illegal then no-one has challeneged it sucessfully in court yet.

grumbler

gjchester wrote: »

... it's a very narrow reading of the DSR rules...

IMHO it's far too narrow to make any further discussion worthwhile. I am out (of this discussion).