Question about DSR's

halibut2209

"My opinion is that unless you return all the goods, then the retailer doesn't have to accept the cancellation of the contract, hence they don't have to take back the partial order."

My apologies, I didn't realise that this was your stance. I was debating the wrong thing.

But given that, then the situation is you can return everything, then re-order the items you want so it's tantamount to the same thing. You still pay the same delivery (assuming it's a flat rate of course).

But I still maintain that multiple items on the same "receipt" are regarded in law as separate contracts. I have never know a store's returns policy state that you must return everything you bought at that same time if you want to return or exchange something that isn't covered under SOGA. Just because you bought an item at the same time as another item, they are not linked. Under DSRs you are entitled to be in the same position as if you hadn't bought that item. The "contract" described in DSRs refers to the item in question alone.

halibut2209

vicmorrow wrote: »

Under DSR you don't need to return the goods to get a refund....you just have to inform the seller in writing you want to cancel and they should refund within 30 days.

Read the thread

vicmorrow

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Well, they are silly enough to state that a retailer must refund a consumer in full within 30 days of the consumer notifying them of their wish to cancel, and they must give this refund even if the consumer fails to return the goods or returns them smashed into little pieces.

I agree...total madness IMHO...a thieves charter.

vicmorrow

halibut2209 wrote: »

Read the thread

I have, you are wrong.

unholyangel

I think everyone can agree (?) that by returning one item the consumer is - at the very least - seeking to vary the terms of the contract. I think everyone can also agree that it would be madness for the retailer to cancel the whole order just because the consumer wanted to return part of the order. And any retailer that did such a thing would likely not be in business for long. At least allowing the consumer to keep the remainder of the order, they have made some profit and not a loss.

Saying "goods" implies plural isn't really true or relevant. If i order one item, it is still the "goods".

The retailer demanding the whole order be returned could be seen as a unbalanced contract (albeit consumer law is already unbalanced largely towards the consumer). He has agreed to sell (for example) item A at £20, he has agreed to sell item B at £10, he has agreed to sell item C at £40. He has agreed to delivery all items either at a flat cost or a cost per item.

If it is cost per item, it can undoubtedly be argued that a separate contract exists for each. If it is a flat fee, it is perhaps more debatable. Plus we should remember that they do generally tend to side with the consumer and if something can be interpreted in 2 ways, the will likely choose the way that is better for the consumer.

However, if (yes I know I know its not really the same, but it is comparable) you return 1 faulty item to a store out of a order of 2 or even 10.....the shop cannot demand you return ALL items. Even though by the logic stated on this thread it would be one contract. Nor would you be entitled to claim for the amount of all the goods purchased, only for the faulty goods themselves. Signifying that although it may perhaps have been part of one purchase/order/whatever.....that essentially a separate contract does exist for all.

halibut2209

I don't agree that returning one item is varying the terms of the contract.

I still refer to the supermarket example. You buy several things in one visit, your rights to each item is separate. The same goes with online purchases. The reasons for returning are irrelevant. The fact is that several purchases at once do not link those purchases together when it comes to your rights (unless one is a gift or discount dependant on another).

mo786uk

There is a difference between what the law says and what happens in practice.

Example - John buys a TV, DVD player, HDMI Cable and 1 Blu Ray DVD. He doesn't want the TV.

The DSRs clump all of that together as ONE single contract. Therefore theorectically by cancelling the consuemr is cancelling the whole contract. They should in theory send back all the items and effectivley rebuy the ones they want.

In reality it would be stupid to do the above, so the shop will allow John just to send the TV back and refund him that PART of the total cost of the goods/contract.

---

You could argue that if you go down the route of not cancelling the entire contract you are actually just making up your own (new) contract to return one item out of 4.

As I say though it is generally accepted that you can return single items and I don't really think anyone wnats to bother trying to change that definition or get it clarified in court.

halibut2209

"The DSRs clump all of that together as ONE single contract"

I realise that you're agreeing with me generally, but where is that stated? Where do you get that everything in one "order" is all linked together? That makes no sense. A use of the word "goods" in one sentence of the DSR doesn't mean that. It's quite clear that with regards to the DSR and returning an item, the DSR refers to that item, and the contract you have with the supplier for THAT item. Any other items that may have been bought at the same time are irrelevant.

If you want to return an item under DSR then you need to be in the same position as if you hadn't bought that item. So if it was a single item, you get your postage back. If there were other items bought at the same time, then you still need to have paid the postage for those. How is this so difficult?

mo786uk

When you buy 4 items and pay together that is one contract - not 4 seperate contracts - that just comes under general contract law as far as I know.

Perhaps they have cocked up and written the DSRs in the context of only one item per contract.

I certainly cannot see anything to the contrary - that is to say they have specifically said multiple items paid for together are seperate contracts.

halibut2209

How can that be one contract?

Say you buy four items at B&Q

If one item is faulty and needs replacing, how can they then have to replace all four items?

Are you seriously suggesting that if you want equal rights for all your products, you should have a separate receipt for each one?

The fact that you buy several things at the same time is IRRELEVANT. Each product is its own product. Its own purchase. Its own guarantee. Its own warranty. Its own rights. The fact that it was paid for at the same time as something else is IRRELEVANT