28 day return policy

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

Am I correct in assuming that you are using the Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations as the basis for this comment?

If so, I doubt if it would apply for the simple reason that these regulations are in place in order to limit terms that can unfairly limit a consumers rights and as the OFT state that:


http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311.pdf
they might well think that if the term in question did not appear in the contract then the consumer would have zero right of return for a change of mind, hence the terms as it is currently written is extremely favourable for the customer.

However, that is quite clearly said in the context of suppliers disclaiming liability since the full paragraph reads:

The OFT's starting point in assessing the fairness of a term is, therefore,
normally to ask what would be the position for the consumer if it did not
appear in the contract. The principle of freedom of contract can no longer be
said to justify using standard terms to take away protection consumers
would otherwise enjoy.

The section which would possibly see this term as unfair would be the plain and intelligible language requirement. Which states:

19.1 Regulation 7 states:
(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is
expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation
which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail …

System

unholyangel wrote: »

19.1 Regulation 7 states:
(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is
expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation
which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail …

The section which would possibly see this term as unfair would be the plain and intelligible language requirement. Which states:

And no matter which way you look at it the OP would still be out of time

unholyangel

!!!!!! wrote: »

And no matter which way you look at it the OP would still be out of time

I think we're going on the basis the OP got the 2nd date wrong and indeed meant 7th May.

Of course maybe they made the mistake in writing wednesday twice.

Moral of the story? Either take it back in plenty of time or ask at the time of purchasing which date will be the last you can return it to save any arguments like this further down the line

LilElvis

unholyangel wrote: »

I think we're going on the basis the OP got the 2nd date wrong and indeed meant 7th May.

Of course maybe they made the mistake in writing wednesday twice.

Moral of the story? Either take it back in plenty of time or ask at the time of purchasing which date will be the last you can return it to save any arguments like this further down the line

Perhaps why M&S actually print on the receipt the last date on which you can take items back for a refund.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

I think we're going on the basis the OP got the 2nd date wrong and indeed meant 7th May.

Of course maybe they made the mistake in writing wednesday twice.

Moral of the story? Either take it back in plenty of time or ask at the time of purchasing which date will be the last you can return it to save any arguments like this further down the line

Or maybe just a troll looking for a reaction. Another one shot newbie that doesn't come back to their thread