Cancelling under Distant Selling Regulations

WTFH

unholyangel wrote: »

And how are they sending it direct from the website?

I'm not talking about how the file is sent, the coding of the website, or anything like that.
I'm trying to establish if one file containing all the pertinent information is sufficient to fulfil 4 & 5 if that file is sent prior to the conclusion of the contract.

If one file is not sufficient, then why not?

bod1467

One file MAY be sufficient. What matters is the MEANS of getting that info to the customer. If the retailer decides to email the same file as is available via download on their website, then that is fine (assuming the file contents are legal versus the CPUTR Act). This would mean article 4 is complied with.

The email provides a tracked means of sending the info (who sent it, who it was sent to, when - all available via logs from the email server), hence this is a durable medium. The fact the retailer will (should) have logs of emails they have sent means it doesn't matter if it went into a black hole at the customer's end - the retailer can prove they sent it (i.e. it was given) so article 5 is complied with.

halibut2209

An email address is unique. An IP address isn't

WTFH

halibut2209 wrote: »

An email address is unique. An IP address isn't

An email address is not unique. That's one if the joys of them. You can have group email addresses, where an email is automatically forwarded to others, or just group addresses where multiple people have access.

WTFH

bod1467 wrote: »

The email provides a tracked means of sending the info (who sent it, who it was sent to, when - all available via logs from the email server), hence this is a durable medium. The fact the retailer will (should) have logs of emails they have sent means it doesn't matter if it went into a black hole at the customer's end - the retailer can prove they sent it (i.e. it was given) so article 5 is complied with.

So, proof someone sent something is more important than proof someone received it. Kinda shows this was written by lawyers with no comprehension of good sense!

wealdroam

WTFH wrote: »

Kinda shows this was written by lawyers with no comprehension of good sense!

You may well be quite near the truth there.

The Distance Selling Regulations came into force in 2000, and no doubt the EU Directive was published before that.

The OFT explain durable medium quite succinctly on page 3 of their guide to the DSRs:

Durable medium is not defined in the DSRs. Our view is that it means a form in which information can be retained and reproduced but cannot be edited, such as an email that can be printed or a letter, fax or brochure that can be kept for future reference. We do not consider that information on a website is durable as it can be changed at any time after the consumer has accessed it. Technological advances may change what we regard as durable in the future.

Note the last sentence there.

That guide was published seven years ago so it is perfectly possible in this fast moving technology age that the OFT's opinion has also changed.

shaun_from_Africa

WTFH wrote: »

So, proof someone sent something is more important than proof someone received it. Kinda shows this was written by lawyers with no comprehension of good sense!

This is no different to "snail mail".
The law (interpretation act 1978) states that if a document is required to be sent by post, providing that it is sent correctly addressed with the proper postage paid, then it will be assumed to have been delivered within the timescale allowed for the particular postal service used.

WTFH

unholyangel wrote: »

And how are they sending it direct from the website?

OK, to get around this one, let's imagine that within part of the ordering process you are required to enter your email address, and beside that is a button which says "Next".
As a result of entering your email and clicking Next, you are sent the PDF.

Would that qualify as Passive Conduct, or not?

WTFH

WTFH wrote: »

So, proof someone sent something is more important than proof someone received it. Kinda shows this was written by lawyers with no comprehension of good sense!

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

This is no different to "snail mail".
The law (interpretation act 1978) states that if a document is required to be sent by post, providing that it is sent correctly addressed with the proper postage paid, then it will be assumed to have been delivered within the timescale allowed for the particular postal service used.

That may be the law, but it's a law based on post that takes several days and there is an allowance for flexibility - i.e. if the address is slightly mis-typed, or the postcode is out by a digit, there's still a good chance that the letter will get there (fuzzy logic). If an email address is incorrect, it will never arrive - there's no fuzzy logic to work out what should have been entered.

Now, it's possible with emails to have receipts - both to say if the email was received at the email address it was sent to and a second one to say it has been opened, but these are not foolproof, as they rely on the receiver to allow receipts to be sent. If that's switched off, then there's no way a sender can be sure an email has been received.

That's why I think it's better to have a way of confirming the file has been received, then you don't end up with a forum like this one being cluttered with questions by people who say they never received a document from the retailer.