Sent the wrong item

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You can interpret the word "IF" as much as you like,

No interpretation needed.
But if you don't understand the meaning of the word, just say so.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

...the OFT's giudelines are what the judiciary use when deciding on such things.

I'm surprised to hear that.
But if that is the case we can rest assured that the judiciary will 'interpret' the law correctly.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The right to refund and the condition of the goods are separate issues.

Do you agree, Wealdroam?

Oh yes. Was there any doubt?

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

the OFT's giudelines are what the judiciary use when deciding on such things.

So our top judges sit there with an OFT guide to legislation in order to make their judgements? Hmmm....

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

So our top judges sit there with an OFT guide to legislation in order to make their judgements? Hmmm....

Whose guidance do they seek then? I would have thought the authors of the legislation were the best people to advise on its meaning. If the guidance is irrelevant, why is the guidance there in the first place?

tomwakefield

Strictly, the shop should refund, then try and claim the money back if they believe the OP has breached their duty of care (I would think they have by rendering the product unusable).

However, in practise I think the OP would need to make a claim against the shop to get a refund, followed by a counter-claim from the shop for the cost of the damaged goods, ultimately leaving the OP in the same position he is in now.

wealdroam

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Whose guidance do they seek then?

I have no idea. But then... I am not a lawyer.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I would have thought the authors of the legislation were the best people to advise on its meaning.

So did the Office of Fair Trading write the legislation then?

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If the guidance is irrelevant, why is the guidance there in the first place?

Did anyone say the guidance is irrelevent?
But the answer to your question can be found in the full title of what we have been conveniently calling The OFT's Guide.

On the title page of that document it says...

A guide for businesses on distance selling

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Whose guidance do they seek then? I would have thought the authors of the legislation were the best people to advise on its meaning. If the guidance is irrelevant, why is the guidance there in the first place?

'A dummies guide to your legal rights' perhaps, intended for the non-legal mind.

Surely a judge would refer to legislation itself (being an expert in the field) combined with case law.

unholyangel

And let us not forget this particular paragraph in OFT's guide:

1.4 Please note that this is only a general guide and you should not
regard it as a statement of how the law applies in every situation

jimzilla

George_Michael wrote: »

And personally I think that simply looking at the label and packaging of the DVD's would be a reasonable way of making sure that they are in "conformity with the contract", and not opening the packet and trying 3 of them on a computer.

Why did you "forget" to highlight the relevant sentence in post 37?

The DSRs allow consumers to examine goods they have ordered as they would
in a shop.

"as they would in a shop".
Do you know of any shops that would allow you to open a sealed pack of DVD's and try 3 on your computer?

You have very good points here but would you still be saying the same thing if the discs actually didn't work at all?

I don't think that's a fair like for like test, who would purposely take their computer to a shop for the sole purpose of testing a few discs?

jimzilla

It gives me great pleasure to announce that the company have decided to refund me in full for the discs. We both came to an amicable agreement.

Thank you everyone for your input.

wealdroam

jimzilla wrote: »

You have very good points here but would you still be saying the same thing if the discs actually didn't work at all?

I'm not too sure of the point you are making here, but if the disks didn't work at all, i.e. they are faulty, then the only way to find that out is to try them... maybe even three of them.

Then send them back and expect a full refund, including carriage costs both ways, under Sale of Goods Act for faulty goods.

Edited to add: glad to see you got what you wanted.