Do not on any account buy an iphone from argos, until you have read this message

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

You've not read the post properly

The OP is warning that if you buy an iPhone from Argos you don't get the same return rights than i f you had bought the phone from Sainsburys (who own argos) or apple.

I realise that certain people on this forum like to nit pick and try and make out that people are idiots but for me this seems like something that seems like a good warning to be posted.

I accept that nobody else on this thread thinks the OP's post is useful but I do sort of think this reflects badly on them as opposed to me

I actually do find the OP's post useful about the difference in returns policy between companies - although personally I would have checked the policy of the actual store I was buying from instead of assuming it was the same as the parent company's policy - but I also find Agrinnall's point about the rights of the purchaser rather than the recipient useful too.

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

I actually do find the OP's post useful about the difference in returns policy between companies - although personally I would have checked the policy of the actual store I was buying from instead of assuming it was the same as the parent company's policy - but I also find Agrinnall's point about the rights of the purchaser rather than the recipient useful too.

You may have found the point useful but do you honestly like the way it was made by them?

It didn't really explain the point that was being made and it was quite unpleasant.

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

You may have found the point useful but do you honestly like the way it was made by them?

It didn't really explain the point that was being made and it was quite unpleasant.

TBH, I read agrinnall's post and thought 'yep, that's right'.

He/she highlighted the part in the OP's post that said the item had been bought by his wife and then said the OP would have no right of return with the 2 other companies mentioned.

I understood the point.

I didn't find it unpleasant and it's not really up to me to say whether I like the way any point is made by any poster as long as I don't find it rude or incorrect.

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

TBH, I read agrinnall's post and thought 'yep, that's right'.

He/she highlighted the part in the OP's post that said the item had been bought by his wife and then said the OP would have no right of return with the 2 other companies mentioned.

I understood the point.

I didn't find it unpleasant and it's not really up to me to say whether I like the way any point is made by any poster as long as I don't find it rude or incorrect.

You understood because you knew about this consumer right already.

If you had no idea about this it wouldnt be clear what point was being made.

It was a post aimed at belittling a new poster to more long standing members of the community.

I do not like that sort of behaviour.

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

You understood because you knew about this consumer right already.

If you had no idea about this it wouldnt be clear what point was being made.

That's impossible for either of us to say is true or not.
The highlighted part about the wife being the purchaser would certainly have set my mind working.

Maybe agrinnall saw it that way and wasn't intending to be (your quote) 'unpleasant'.

JReacher1 wrote: »

It was a post aimed at belittling a new poster to more long standing members of the community.

I do not like that sort of behaviour.

But that's just your opinion.

I really think you are making too much of this one post that - imho - was intended to be helpful - and will leave you to your vicarious indignation.

The-Truth

JReacher1 wrote: »

You've not read the post properly

The OP is warning that if you buy an iPhone from Argos you don't get the same return rights than i f you had bought the phone from Sainsburys (who own argos) or apple

Yeah but the op's account isn't gospel and guaranteed to be then reciprocated by everyone else who goes to those particular retailers. It may have been the op's attitude that got that particular result. He started a tread on a forum complaining about something he isn't entitled to anyway so maybe the op is just hot headed and didn't win over the person he was dealing with.