A.O. - do returns conditions reduce your rights?

shaun_from_Africa

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Not many though, I can only think of Currys, Richer Sounds and a few in Argos. Many supermarkets and other shops don't.

I take it that you've never visited a John Lewis department store, a Tesco Extra superstore, Sainsbury superstore, Sony store, Costco store, or a Debenhams store because they all generally have many TV's on display and powered up. (I didn't mention Asda as I've not been into one of these for many years).


Personally I don't think that there would generally be any need to test the characteristics of a lawnmower. After all, it's not as if it would have many variables. It either works or it doesn't unlike a TV which is something far more complex.

powerful_Rogue

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I take it that you've never visited a John Lewis department store, a Tesco Extra superstore, Sainsbury superstore, Sony store, Costco store, or a Debenhams store because they all generally have many TV's on display and powered up. (I didn't mention Asda as I've not been into one of these for many years).


Personally I don't think that there would generally be any need to test the characteristics of a lawnmower. After all, it's not as if it would have many variables. It either works or it doesn't unlike a TV which is something far more complex.

Most certainly have. Got 3 Tesco Extras near me that sell electronics including TV's, however nothing on display. Same goes for the 2 Sainsburys near me.

Well a TV either displays a picture and has sound or it doesn't. Hardly many variables.


However "the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods" - So I could cut the grass to make sure its functioning correctly and then return it for a full refund if it didn't cut the grass short enough?

wealdroam

Regulation 34 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states (amongst other things):

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

It goes on to say:

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

Not much opportunity to test a lawnmower's cutting ability in most shops.

powerful_Rogue

wealdroam wrote: »

Regulation 34 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states (amongst other things):

It goes on to say:

Not much opportunity to test a lawnmower's cutting ability in most shops.

Exactly my point and why I believe AO are in the right. I think the potential unpacking of a TVand setting up in a shop would not be reasonable.

neilmcl

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Exactly my point and why I believe AO are in the right. I think the potential unpacking of a TVand setting up in a shop would not be reasonable.

But being able to view and demo a TV in a shop that generally sells TV is perfectly reasonable, and given than the majority of stores that do sell TVs as part of their business do have them on display setting up one at home is perfectly reasonable.

powerful_Rogue

neilmcl wrote: »

But being able to view and demo a TV in a shop that generally sells TV is perfectly reasonable, and given than the majority of stores that do sell TVs as part of their business do have them on display setting up one at home is perfectly reasonable.

Would you be happy paying full price for a TV that has been purchased by someone else, removed from the packaging, setup and then returned back to the retailer?

George_Michael

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Would you be happy paying full price for a TV that has been purchased by someone else, removed from the packaging, setup and then returned back to the retailer?

I wouldn't but what I or anyone else would be happy or not happy about is irrelevant as this forum is for discussing consumer rights and not consumer wants.

I'm also of the opinion that unpacking and turning on something such as a TV set to check out the picture and sound quality is something that generally doesn't go beyond what someone buying from an online seller is entitled to do to see if the set is suitable.
Many people think a consumer currently has too many rights and even if that is the case, those rights still exist irrespective of people's opinions of them.

powerful_Rogue

George_Michael wrote: »

I wouldn't but what I or anyone else would be happy or not happy about is irrelevant as this forum is for discussing consumer rights and not consumer wants.

I'm also of the opinion that unpacking and turning on something such as a TV set to check out the picture and sound quality is something that generally doesn't go beyond what someone buying from an online seller is entitled to do to see if the set is suitable.
Many people think a consumer currently has too many rights and even if that is the case, those rights still exist irrespective of people's opinions of them.

Only way to get a definitive answer will be for this to be tested in court.

neilmcl

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Would you be happy paying full price for a TV that has been purchased by someone else, removed from the packaging, setup and then returned back to the retailer?

How I feel about it is totally irrelevant, besides if that were to happen I would be perfectly within my rights to reject it.

unholyangel

The courts can only interpret legislation as it is written. The act doesn't hinge on the traders ability to resell - its legislation designed to protect the consumer, not the trader.

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

(11) Paragraph (9) does not apply if the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

That means that in order for a retailer to make a deduction for diminished value:
1) The consumers handling must go beyond what is necessary
2) That handling must actually diminish the value of the goods
3) The trader needs to have informed the consumer of their rights set out in regulations 27 to 38 (including that unreasonable handling that diminishes the value will lead to a deduction).

If it fails on any one of those points, they can't make a deduction.


However, it seems possible that the goods may not conform to contract. Which, if true, would render all that moot. Of course the test is whether it would be regarded as unsatisfactory quality by the average person. Whether it is or not, I don't know. But I'd definitely make it my sticking point when talking to AO. Breath-taking to me means far superior to the ordinary, but imo it would be better if this could be backed up with specifications rather than objectivity.