We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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
Comments
-
The court is obligated to rule in accordance with the legislation.Moneyineptitude said:
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?
If the consumer takes the effort to see it through to small claims then the process may decide otherwise.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...
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 pieces0 -
There are equal problems returning any of those at the moment too.An equal concern could be applied to lampshades, pairs of shoes, rugs and carpets or curtains amongst other things.0 -
If items are able to be delivered, they are able to be returned, is the same process but in reverse.Moneyineptitude said:
There are equal problems returning any of those at the moment too.An equal concern could be applied to lampshades, pairs of shoes, rugs and carpets or curtains amongst other things.
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 pieces0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
