Just been sold a used item!

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

But you are making assumptions, you are assuming the goods have just been tried on. If you try something on you should not remove the labels. A lot of shops with good customer service are reluctant to refund customers if labels have been removed.

Feel free to quote any post of mine on this thread where I have stated that assumption.


I won't hold my breath though as I've already checked and I can't see anything in my posts saying anything along those lines. Merely questioning the assumptions you had made.

unholyangel

gollum007 wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet that most of that article is journalistic hot air.
No sources, just an anonymous 'Spokesman', and passing references to two cases without any of the legal background.

The thrust of the prosecutions mentioned is going to have been for failings under the data protection act, in other words the TV licence and non-wiped telephone numbers in the phone's memory, *not* the rather spurious quote from a DFT official mentioned above.
That quote sounds much more sensational though :eek:

As far as I'm aware, there is no definition in law of the word 'new'

-Gollum

I'd quite believe that a trader could be guilty of an offence if the practice was likely to mislead the average consumer - nothing to do with having to describe items as new by law.

Else charity shops would have a string of prosecutions against them as I genuinely have never ever seen any shop advertising anything as new. Sometimes items are sold as rejects, soiled etc....but I have never seen anything described as "new".

And I imagine that would be on a sticky wicket when you buy a "new" tv that has actually been sitting on the shelf for 17 months.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Feel free to quote any post of mine on this thread where I have stated that assumption.


I won't hold my breath though as I've already checked and I can't see anything in my posts saying anything along those lines. Merely questioning the assumptions you had made.

You do not have to actually say the words.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

but I have never seen anything described as "new".

You don't use eBay then.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Feel free to quote any post of mine on this thread where I have stated that assumption.


I won't hold my breath though as I've already checked and I can't see anything in my posts saying anything along those lines. Merely questioning the assumptions you had made.

Fairly early on Zandoni said:

"Why do you think it was a mistake? This happens all the time a company takes back something without checking it then they pass it on so they don't lose money."

If he was against all goods being taken back, and then being sold as new, why did he use the words "without checking it". I certainly understood his complaint was not with goods that had been returned in the condition they had been sent being sold as new, but with those that had evidence of being used.

Did you read his post differently?

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

You do not have to actually say the words.

:rotfl:

If you're about to tell me you're psychic, don't give up your day job because your mind reading abilities failed on this occasion

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

:rotfl:

If you're about to tell me you're psychic, don't give up your day job because your mind reading abilities failed on this occasion

That's rubbish you have argued against me all the way, why would you do that if you didn't disagree.

I'll never understand why so many people on here usually take the retailers side. In this case maybe even condoning an illegal practice.

BykerSands

Zandoni wrote: »

You don't use eBay then.

This thread isn't about an auction site.

Zandoni

BykerSands wrote: »

This thread isn't about an auction site.

You're darn right this thread is not about eBay, thanks for your input.

It's also not about Dixons but most of these threads evolve.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

That's rubbish you have argued against me all the way, why would you do that if you didn't disagree.

I'll never understand why so many people on here usually take the retailers side. In this case maybe even condoning an illegal practice.

I disagree with you assuming that the goods have been worn (and I've already explained this previously). Saying that we don't have enough information/knowledge to be saying with any certainty that one scenario is more likely than the other.

Disagreeing with you making an assumption is not the same as saying another assumption is more likely than yours.