DSR - unwanted item

halibut2209

This is an interesting one. Whose terms take priority?

(More than likely Amazon, so not that interesting really )

WTFH

Where the supplier's terms differ from Amazons, then it is the suppliers terms that take precedent.
If the supplier's terms do not mention something, that does not mean they disagree with Amazon, quite the opposite, they are effectively saying that "Our terms agree with Amazon on this point". So, it's an inclusive relationship, not exclusive.

halibut2209

I'll settle on "mildly interesting"

WTFH

Just thinking about it, the mildly interesting bit would be if Amazon's terms were stricter than the supplier's, but we end up in a hypothetical argument which could only be answered if William of Ockham started selling razors on Amazon Marketplace.

frugal_mike

WTFH wrote: »

mike - this is not a return because it's faulty, it's a return because it's not wanted.

Regulation 14 paragraph 5 is fairly clear on the matter.

Section 8.2.b ii) is also very clear that the supplier must inform the buyer by durable means (thus not terms and conditions on a website) whether or not the buyer is responsible for the cost of returning goods. This shows that buyers do not *have* to be responsible for the cost of returning the goods.

The OFT are also pretty clear that this means that if the seller fails to provide the information required by section 8 then the seller is responsible for return postage.

See this pdf, page 10 under Returned Goods.

Now I guess the oft could be wrong on that since I'm not aware of anyone challenging, but you'd like to think they know what they're talking about.

WTFH

Mike, given that the supplier did make it clear, then various interpretations of the rules are irrelevant .
The supplier informed him in the contract before he made the purchase. As you say, it's clearly explained on page 10

"Only if it is covered in the contract and the written information can you require the consumer to pay for the cost of returning the ordered goods."

frugal_mike

WTFH wrote: »

Mike, given that the supplier did make it clear, then various interpretations of the rules are irrelevant .
The supplier informed him in the contract before he made the purchase. As you say, it's clearly explained on page 10

"Only if it is covered in the contract and the written information can you require the consumer to pay for the cost of returning the ordered goods."

What's on the website is not enough, it has to be provided in durable means. I don't think we've been told yet whether the seller fulfilled their obligations under section 8 yet (providing the mentioned written information).

But anyway, my point was never that the OP doesn't have to pay return postage, but that at the point I first replied to you there wasn't enough information to say one way or another.

egyptiancotton

Hintza wrote: »

OP should know by now where they stand after their multiple balckberry post. Something smells fishy to me.

Could you elaborate on why my thread seems suspicious to you?