returned items have gone missing in the post

stevieboy308

deanos wrote: »

Do you have proof of posting ?

Yes


Stevie

stevieboy308

arcon5 wrote: »

And failing to restore the goods to the supplier for a refund is taking reasonable care is it? The fact op posted them is irrelevant, especially considering DSRs specifically use the word "receive"

It doesn't say must ensure, it says reasonable care

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

"And failing to restore the goods to the supplier for a refund is taking reasonable care is it? The fact op posted them is irrelevant, especially considering DSRs specifically use the word "receive"

You are still missing all the points above whilst simply touting the word 'received' without considering the rest of the sentence/paragraph. Bottom line is a judge would decide what is reasonable and if the consumer went armed with all the points above which favoured their agenda and lost it would be a great shame.

OP have you called Amazon to see what they say?

arcon5

ludovico wrote: »

You are still missing all the points above whilst simply touting the word 'received' without considering the rest of the sentence/paragraph. Bottom line is a judge would decide what is reasonable and if the consumer went armed with all the points above which favoured their agenda and lost it would be a great shame.

OP have you called Amazon to see what they say?

I'm not missing your point at all, I just don't agree with it -- especially since the consumer has the contract with the sender and is in the prime position for submitting a claim

.

If your theory is correct, here's how it goes

RM = winner
consumer = winner
supplier = looser

The other way round

RM = looser (rightfully so)
supplier = winner
consumer = winner

Since RM are the cause of the issue, why should they not be forced to restore the situation with the contractee

.

vicmorrow

Can the intended receiver file a claim with RM? Is it looser or loser?

vicmorrow

Hint:- Not No and not looser? 'Really BIG smiley' inserted!

vicmorrow

Infact who should persue they're rites?

arcon5

vicmorrow wrote: »

Infact who should persue they're rites?

Do you care to explain exactly what your problem is and why exactly you persist with your childish antics?

arcon5

vicmorrow wrote: »

Infact who should persue they're rites?

arcon5 wrote: »

Do you care to explain exactly what your problem is and why exactly you persist with your childish antics?

Scrap that, found your facebook page and it explains everything

vicmorrow

arcon5 wrote: »

Scrap that, found your facebook page and it explains everything

Is that the best you can come up with? Oh dear! And you had to edit it!