Ready, steady… save!
You don’t need a chart to join in. Here are 2 ways to record your savings:
1. Cross it off
Pop a chart into your first post. Saved an amount? Cross it out! Read more »
£0.01 £0.02 £0.03
2. Write it down
Skip the chart and add updates to your first post. Read more »
“Another +£3 saved today. Go me!”
Use +£ before each new saving so it counts towards your total.
📨 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!
Question about DSR's
Comments
-
But that is a separate part of the law and the retailer can sue the customer for their breach of their statutory duties.
I understand that, but I was simply commenting on how I think that it's ridiculous that the regulations are so heavily biased towards a customer in that a seller must refund before getting their goods back.
Yes, a seller can sue a buyer for not returning their goods, but what if the buyer in question doesn't have the money to pay if the case goes against them, and they have disposed of or destroyed the items in question?0 -
shaun_from_Africa wrote: »I understand that, but I was simply commenting on how I think that it's ridiculous that the regulations are so heavily biased towards a customer in that a seller must refund before getting their goods back.
Then perhaps sellers should have acted in a more responsible manner before these laws were needed. However, if people want to sell at a distance and take advantage of the benefits thereof, they must also take account of the laws and regulations surrounding their choice of market. If they don't want to, they will need to spend money on premises and be limited to walk-in custom.Yes, a seller can sue a buyer for not returning their goods, but what if the buyer in question doesn't have the money to pay if the case goes against them, and they have disposed of or destroyed the items in question?
Then the laws that govern these issues will be put in place. Bailiffs and debt collectors etc. will be used and the monies recovered that way. I am sure that this won't happen in most instances.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
shaun_from_Africa wrote: »I understand that, but I was simply commenting on how I think that it's ridiculous that the regulations are so heavily biased towards a customer in that a seller must refund before getting their goods back.
No different than a seller getting payment form the buyer before sending the goods! Then on return having up to 30 days to refund! They take it quick enough! Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander!
.Don`t steal - the Government doesn`t like the competition0 -
did you get an answer from CD?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 255K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179.1K Life & Family
- 264K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards