Consumer Contracts Regulations

System

bod1467 wrote: »

And the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop is to test the sound quality of a home cinema system - which is a core function of the product.

Selective understanding doesn't help ....

I offered no opinion or interpretation of the legislation at all Only the answer to the original question.

We do not know, because the OP hasn't said, what he's actually done with the system he purchased beyond "inspecting the product". Nobody can really offer an opinion at this point. But it would seem that if it's pristine, he shouldn't have a problem, if it's damaged, he will.

neilmcl

mutzi wrote: »

Selective quoting doesn't help...


Emphasis mine.

I don't see your point contradicts anything I posted.

System

neilmcl wrote: »

Personally, for this item I'd be expecting nothing less than a 100% refund.

Why? You don't know what has been done to it.

The original question was "are they with their rights to do this?", not, "how much can I get away with?". You took what is a specific provision designed to protect the trader and carved it into something else i.e the right of the buyer to play around with a new toy. This clearly isn't the intent of these provisions.

This might seem a bit academic, but almost every other provision is designed to protect the buyer or enhance their rights, the trader had to be thrown a bone somewhere.

Trading standards (they seem to have about three sites now) provide the following guidance on these provisions for businesses:

Finally you have a right to deduct an amount from the reimbursement (or charge a consumer) if he has diminished the value of the goods by handling them beyond what is necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and function. The Regulations establish a test as to whether consumers have handled the goods in a way beyond what might reasonably be allowed in a shop. This is likely to be a controversial area of the Regulations for both consumers and traders and will ultimately be a matter for a court to decide. However, the following examples will attempt to illustrate this concept:

1. consumer returns a shirt that comes in a presentation box, which he had opened and removed all the pins and packaging to try it on. It is reasonable to expect a consumer to remove packaging to try on or examine an item, so you should make no deduction for this
2. consumer returns a shirt, which you can see has clearly been worn. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value
3. consumer returns flat pack furniture, which he has clearly attempted to assemble by opening packs of screws and trying to put parts together. The consumer has not acted reasonably and you can make a deduction for diminishing the value

You are not be able to make any deduction for diminishing the value of the goods if you have not provided consumers with the information about their right to cancel - information item 'l' above.

Emphasis again mine, my point being you can't say if they are justified in reducing the refund or not.

The third bullet point is the most interesting view, you could reasonably expect to be able to see an assembled piece of furniture in a shop, as you might reasonably expect to be able to listen to some speakers, but they suggest attempting to assemble a flat pack is a no-no for customers?

http://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/distance-sales/consumer-contracts-distance-sales#Righttocancel

bod1467

You are not be able to make any deduction for diminishing the value of the goods if you have not provided consumers with the information about their right to cancel - information item 'l' above.

That is also an important point. Do AO provide this information pre-contract?

neilmcl

mutzi wrote: »

Why? You don't know what has been done to it.

Because I'm taking the OP at his word when he states that here merely "inspected it", ie, demo'd it, as they would reasonably be allowed to do in a shop, and if I'd done the same and found it unsuitable then yes I'd be expecting a full refund.

Again your quotes/links do no contradict this position. Try harder