Currys.co.uk not abiding by Distance Selling Regulations

bod1467

The ruling mentions "links" not "attachments". (A PDF file would be an attachment not a link. Although I accept that in EU non-technical terminology they may deem them to be the same thing).

frugal_mike

unholyangel wrote: »

I edited my post above. Its an ECJ ruling - which I believe is binding on courts of all member states.

Well I certainly agree that a link is neither durable nor is the information within it 'sent' to the consumer. But I don't agree that an email attachment is a link since it is fully contained within the MIME content of the email. It's not separate to it.

However a link to a downloadable PDF contained on the web server of the company would of course not meet the requirements.

unholyangel

frugal_mike wrote: »

Well I certainly agree that a link is neither durable nor is the information within it 'sent' to the consumer. But I don't agree that an email attachment is a link since it is fully contained within the MIME content of the email. It's not separate to it.

However a link to a downloadable PDF contained on the web server of the company would of course not meet the requirements.

They didn't say it didn't count due to it being a link though. They said it didn't count because the information was not received by the consumer as they had to act in order to acquaint themselves with the information.

Don't shoot the messenger Just pointing out there has been a ruling on very similar circumstances that suggests a pdf would also not fulfil the requirement to send/receive the information without requiring the consumer to act ( and possibly also in a manner that is available and accessible to him).

frugal_mike

unholyangel wrote: »

They didn't say it didn't count due to it being a link though. They said it didn't count because the information was not received by the consumer as they had to act in order to acquaint themselves with the information.

Don't shoot the messenger Just pointing out there has been a ruling on very similar circumstances that suggests a pdf would also not fulfil the requirement to send/receive the information without requiring the consumer to act ( and possibly also in a manner that is available and accessible to him).

Oh don't worry, I know it wasn't you that wrote it. I was just annoyed by an arbitrary decision that opening an email is not acting, but opening an attachment is.

It also brings up the question of what happens if the information is sent in an image? Some email clients will display images (in the same way they display text), and some won't. Would that make an image unsuitable?

unholyangel

frugal_mike wrote: »

Oh don't worry, I know it wasn't you that wrote it. I was just annoyed by an arbitrary decision that opening an email is not acting, but opening an attachment is.

It also brings up the question of what happens if the information is sent in an image? Some email clients will display images (in the same way they display text), and some won't. Would that make an image unsuitable?

Possibly they were focusing on what received means? For example when its typed out in an email, they may view you've received it as soon as you receive the email - regardless of whether you have accessed it or not.

However if downloading a file or clicking a website link, you haven't actually received the information until you have clicked to download/visit.

It seems the most logical reason why they'd consider email as acceptable but link (whether it be to website or download) as not. What do you think?

frugal_mike

unholyangel wrote: »

Possibly they were focusing on what received means? For example when its typed out in an email, they may view you've received it as soon as you receive the email - regardless of whether you have accessed it or not.

However if downloading a file or clicking a website link, you haven't actually received the information until you have clicked to download/visit.

It seems the most logical reason why they'd consider email as acceptable but link (whether it be to website or download) as not. What do you think?

Well that is kind of my point, the attachment will be received with the email (it's not separate). It's possible that some email clients will have an option to not download attachments immediately to save bandwidth. It's also possible that they will have an option to not download text content either and just get the email headers until the user requests the rest.

But in neither case will the email client go back to the seller to ask for the attachment, it will have been cached at the users email server. The seller will send it all as one unit and then never interact with the consumer again.

societys_child

Hintza wrote: »

This thread is about one thing, "buyers remorse" and fortunately for the OP they might manage to wangle the DSR in their favour even after they have played with the item for a number of days and had the opportunity to test it in store.

Actions like this just drive up prices.

agree with this . . and people are losing jobs as on-line retailers lay off staff in an attempt to counter-act the loses caused by the misuse of DSRs

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And this board is about one thing, "consumer rights". and if the OP is legally entitled to a full refund then they are not "wangling" anything, simply making use of their statutory rights.

Unfortunately "buyers remorse" and "simply making use of their statutory rights" is costing us all . . .

The world's gone mad . . .

frugal_mike

societys_child wrote: »

agree with this . . and people are losing jobs as on-line retailers lay off staff in an attempt to counter-act the loses caused by the misuse of DSRs

I don't see a misuse of the DSR's here. In fact this is exactly what the DSR's are for. OP bought a product online, tried it out, it wasn't right for them and they decided to return it.

Where is the misuse here?

Hintza

societys_child wrote: »

The world's gone mad . . .

Absolutely.

The problem is that that people take the law as set in stone, right and just, that is not always the case.

I still have a legal book from my days in South Africa which details when I can legally and under what circumstances shoot someone. Those were my statutory rights at that time but did that make it necessarily right?

This still remains a case of buyers remorse and milking the system. I could argue that the OP actions have gone beyond what the DSRs say but that normally falls on deaf ears on here, so no point going there.

shaun_from_Africa

I realise that it's only the 1st of Jan, but the award for the most inappropriate comparison of the year so far must go to a post that compares the legality of returning unwanted goods to the action of shooting a person.

Hintza wrote: »

I still have a legal book from my days in South Africa which details when I can legally and under what circumstances shoot someone. Those were my statutory rights at that time but did that make it necessarily right?

I could argue that the OP actions have gone beyond what the DSRs say but that normally falls on deaf ears on here, so no point going there.

Where exactly have the OP's actions gone beyond the wording of what the DSR's allow?