Right to Return Online Sale

George_Michael

JReacher1 wrote: »

As has already been posted by another poster its decided on a "case by case" basis and this will almost certainly be seen as bespoke.

Selective quoting to try and make your case appear stronger?
I'm surprised, especially after you posted the following comment in a different thread:

JReacher1 wrote: »

You're selectively quoting. It's what people on here do
Well done though.

Yes, I did say that it's decided on a case by case basis but that was only a small part of my post and you seem to have forgotten to include the other comment I made along with the a bit I posted from the OFT guide to the regulations.
Just for info, here's that post in full.

Originally Posted by
JReacher1
Sorry you couldn't be more wrong. The item is bespoke.
There is no consumer legislation that says bespoke items are only those items that have engraving on it.
I find it disappointing that you are trying to claim this

It's nowhere as black or white as you are making out.

13. Items made to a particular, often unique specification are exempt from cancellation rights on the basis that a trader might otherwise be left with a product so specific to a particular consumer’s needs that there is no other market for it once the consumer has cancelled the contract.
Judgements of what is truly bespoke will, therefore,
inevitably be on a case by case basis. In the above case, the customer should be able to cancel a shirt bearing a team player name on it. However, a shirt bearing their own name would be likely to constitute a personalised item to which cancellation rights do not apply.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...s-guidance.pdf

Unless the OP has a wrist size so uncommon that there is little or no chance of anyone else ever ordering a bracelet of the same size then the right of cancellation may well apply.

sheramber

The bracelets that do not have the disk as part of the purchase have three components that you have to select.

the size, the metal and the clasp so all three would have to apply another buyer.

JReacher1

George_Michael wrote: »

Selective quoting to try and make your case appear stronger?
I'm surprised, especially after you posted the following comment in a different thread:


Yes, I did say that it's decided on a case by case basis but that was only a small part of my post and you seem to have forgotten to include the other comment I made along with the a bit I posted from the OFT guide to the regulations.
Just for info, here's that post in full.

When posting a comment a poster has put on another thread it is only common decency to provide a link to what thread you are referring to so people can see the context it was posted in. I can't remember the thread well but I seem to remember the poster deliberately cut my comments to make it appear I said something that I didnt.

In my post here I was referring to you mentioning that the bespoke cases are determined on a case by case basis. I don't see how agreeing with your comment is at any way disrespectful. The rest of the post was there to be read by all users so there was no real need to post the whole thread.

JReacher1

OlliesDad wrote: »

Isn't this what you are claiming though? The website in question lists several sizes in the same way clothes retailers do?

I don't like engaging with you as you like to resort to personal insults.

This is however not what I am claiming.

If you read the website you will see that it doesn't list several sizes, it lists every size any person would ever have to buy in half cm gaps. The reason for this is that they obviously can't make the bracelet to less than half cm sizes, therefore they enforce a .5 cm rule on sizing.

If instead of providing this easy drop down list they instead just said please enter the size of your wrist in a box to a .5 cm specification then everyone on here would agree that the item was bespoke and the OP would not be allowed to return it.

However because to make the ordering process easier they have provided every theoretical size in a drop down list this makes it as one poster said "off the shelf" and isn't bespoke.

It's ridiculous!

George_Michael

JReacher1 wrote: »

When posting a comment a poster has put on another thread it is only common decency to provide a link to what thread you are referring to so people can see the context it was posted in.

Here you go. The post in which you thought that selective quoting was bad:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67051898&postcount=55

And here's the thread in question:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5119045
And in the post where you stated that

JReacher1 wrote: »

The rest of the post was there to be read by all users so there was no real need to post the whole thread.

the complete unedited post was also there to be read by all users but that didn't stop you commenting on the selective quoting did it?

JReacher1

George_Michael wrote: »

Here you go. The post in which you thought that selective quoting was bad:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67051898&postcount=55

And here's the thread in question:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5119045
And in the post where you stated that

the complete unedited post was also there to be read by all users but that didn't stop you commenting on the selective quoting did it?

It was done maliciously in that thread to try and misrepresent what I posted so I thought I better draw attention to it.

Here I am agreeing with you that cases are decided on a case by case basis. I am not altering this view so I don't really understand what you are complaining about.

Are you now saying that you don't agree that these sort of cases are decided on a case by case basis? If that is your position I apologise for supporting your original post.

Poppie68

Kids please it's Christmas.... be nice...

Op someone has already pointed out the retailer will adjust the bracelet size...at a cost of course as it was your mistake... Surely that's the best option.

George_Michael

JReacher1 wrote: »

Are you now saying that you don't agree that these sort of cases are decided on a case by case basis? If that is your position I apologise for supporting your original post.

I agree that cases can be decided on a case by case basis, what I don't agree with is the second sentence shown below:

As has already been posted by a different poster it varies on a case by case basis.

In this scenario the item is cleary exempt due to the bespoke
nature of the product.

and if you had included more of my post in your quote, it would have been obvious to others that although I agreed with the case by case bit, myself and the OFT seemed to agree that if the item could be resold fairly easily, it might not be exempt from returning.

JReacher1

George_Michael wrote: »

I agree that cases can be decided on a case by case basis, what I don't agree with is the second sentence shown below:


and if you had included more of my post in your quote, it would have been obvious to others that although I agreed with the case by case bit, myself and the OFT seemed to agree that if the item could be resold fairly easily, it might not be exempt from returning.

The two sentences are not linked.

It is perfectly clear that the first sentence of "it varies on a case by case basis" references what you had posted (and agree with) while the sentence below is my opinion of this case (not yours)

At no point do I say that you believe the item is clearly exempt.

Your post contains your reservations about the "case by case basis" so there is no need for me to reference these reservations as they are not relevant to the fundamental point which is their is no set rule for the exclusion of all these items.