20% restocking fee

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

How about places that have different prices for children and adults?

My daughter is 17 but looks far younger.
She could easily get into cinemas and onto buses and trains by paying the reduced child rate and not get asked for proof of her age.

Not very robust systems but does this mean that it's okay for my daughter to abuse these systems?

You are missing my point which is that a company may deliberately seek out consumers by making their services attractive to them but attempt to avoid having to provide consumer rights by having a get out clause, such as to provide a company name.

This is not to suggest the company named have done so.

I assume you know that businesses have little to no protection where as consumers are heavily protected.

That is not to suggest I agree with that position either.

RE a 17 year old failing to buy the right ticket on a bus/train would be handed a fine because the law allows, in some situations, a fine to be imposed.

However if a cinema lets an underage child in to a film or a shop sells age restricted products to an underage person that business could face prosecution as the law places the burden of responsibility upon them for accepting the transaction from someone who is underage, just the same as the law places the burden of consumer rights upon a company accepting a transaction from a consumer.

Supersonos

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

I don't buy it that if this went to small claims (our opinions aside this is what it comes down to) that having to put your name in box titled "company" would sign away your consumer rights.

But the OP doesn't have any consumer rights here. They didn't read the company's T&Cs and they lied about being a business/sole trader in order to complete the purchase.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Supersonos wrote: »

But the OP doesn't have any consumer rights here. They didn't read the company's T&Cs and they lied about being a business/sole trader in order to complete the purchase.

Yeap, I've read that point of view and have explained 3 times in great detail why I disagree with it.

ibruceuk

No one seems to have picked up on the T&C which also state " or professional end-user" - surely this is a consumer albeit a professional one or one who uses professional level gear.

Supersonos

ibruceuk wrote: »

No one seems to have picked up on the T&C which also state " or professional end-user" - surely this is a consumer albeit a professional one or one who uses professional level gear.

If a professional is buying their own equipment, they'd be self-emplyed. So they'd be buying the equipment as a sole trader/business.

When I was staff, there's no way I'd be buying kit out of my salary. That was up to my boss!

Takmon

ibruceuk wrote: »

No one seems to have picked up on the T&C which also state " or professional end-user" - surely this is a consumer albeit a professional one or one who uses professional level gear.

A "Professional" is someone who gets paid for what they do.

Supersonos

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Yeap, I've read that point of view and have explained 3 times in great detail why I disagree with it.

I'm a sole trader, so I would buy from Canford and just put my name in the box.

If the product is what I wanted, I'd claim back the VAT, but the cost through my books as a tax deductable expense.

But if the product wasn't what I wanted I could switch and say I was actually buying it as a consumer and get a full refund.

Win win!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Supersonos wrote: »

I'm a sole trader, so I would buy from Canford and just put my name in the box.

If the product is what I wanted, I'd claim back the VAT, but the cost through my books as a tax deductable expense.

But if the product wasn't what I wanted I could switch and say I was actually buying it as a consumer and get a full refund.

Win win!

If the company had vetted you there wouldn't be the opportunity to suddenly announce you are actually a consumer.

Once again businesses have little to no protection.

George_Michael

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

If the company had vetted you there wouldn't be the opportunity to suddenly announce you are actually a consumer.

Then again, they could rely on the integrity and honesty of their customers.

Realistically, how would they vet customers who are buying over the internet?
They could ask to see professional qualification or membership of a trade body but using Photoshop, I could easily knock these up and if I was willing to fill in a form incorrectly, I might not have any qualms about doing that.

I suppose that they could ask you to send in the original documents but who would have to pay for the sending and checking of these? and would a business buy from them if it was going to take an extra day to get verified?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

George_Michael wrote: »

I suppose that they could ask you to send in the original documents but who would have to pay for the sending and checking of these? and would a business buy from them if it was going to take an extra day to get verified?

Asking a business to post a letter is not a hardship, we're currently opening a sub account for a different range of products with an existing distributor.

I still have to fill in a form and post it to them despite having an account and been buying from them for the last 3 years.

If a buyer faked a doc they wouldn't get far in court with their claim for consumer rights.

I still maintain there is avenue for abuse with only a tiny hurdle like having to put a name in a field on a site when registering and a court may not agree with the view this being the only requirement permits a business to class all transactions B2B.

No point discussing terms and conditions as we all know terms can be anything anyone wants to write, that doesn't make them enforceable.

Honestly and integrity is one thing and I have my own thoughts on that but the topic is regarding consumer rights.

As to how could they vet you, again the law doesn't make this the consumers issue, it is for the business to account for.

There are plenty of examples where consumer rights and other laws place great hardship upon businesses, unfortunately that is part and parcel of running one.

Put a slight different spin on this and say you are blacklisted for returning too many orders, company closes account a says not welcome here.

But you open a new one, place an order and they fulfil it, do you lose your rights because they've previously refused service or is the view taken it's their job to prevent you reordering?