📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Buyers rights

Options
13»

Comments

  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,321 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 12 April 2020 at 7:58PM


    If the consumer takes the effort to see it through to small claims then the process may decide otherwise.
    Do you really think a Court (at some unspecified time in the future) will find in favour of a customer who failed to practice any due diligence before purchasing an item that could potentially have posed a health risk during a National Pandemic? 

    At the moment, the retailer won't accept it back at all so it's worth nothing in terms of a refund. Perhaps the retailer may accept a return after a suitable period, but I would still expect only a small partial refund to be offered given that it can no longer be sold as new. 

    These really are "interesting" times...
    The court is obligated to rule in accordance with the legislation. 

    Stating people shouldn't have consumer rights due to virus isn't the topic of the board, a point which was politely hinted at earlier. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    An equal concern could be applied to lampshades, pairs of shoes, rugs and carpets or curtains amongst other things. 
    There are equal problems returning any of those at the moment  too. 
  • the_lunatic_is_in_my_head
    the_lunatic_is_in_my_head Posts: 9,321 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 12 April 2020 at 8:33PM
    An equal concern could be applied to lampshades, pairs of shoes, rugs and carpets or curtains amongst other things. 
    There are equal problems returning any of those at the moment  too. 
    If items are able to be delivered, they are able to be returned, is the same process but in reverse. 

    It's either a two way street of retailers sell and accept they must make allowances for their obligations, or you close the road and don't trade. 

    IMHO it's improper to take the stance that it's acceptable to place risk on all those who work in the supply chain for a transaction to occur but then say the risk is too great for the item to go back the other way when it's permitted to. 

    If that stance was generally supported it wouldn't take long for it to be taken advantage of, which is why we have consumer rights. 
    In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.