Not as advertised -v- excessive handling

Sandtree

More of a theoretical question but one for consideration...

Online purchase of an expensive item that states it comes with an accessory pack. Lets assume the vendor does free returns and has ticked all the boxes required to charge for excess handling for change of mind returns.

Parcel arrives and it is immediately evident that the accessory pack is missing, speaking to the vendor they admit their website was out of date and they forgot to remove the accessory pack when it was withdrawn last year.

Is there any obligation on the customer to then return the item totally unused or as the return will be made under the CRA rather than CCR would they be entitled to remove seals etc or even use the product before vendor can arrange its uplift? Returning it unused would allow the vendor to simply change the listing and resell whereas using it certainly means having to sell as nearly new on return. Any duty to not cause the vendor further losses?

knightstyle

Act quickly, do not open it and as it was a distance selling purchase you can insist on the seller paying for return and providing you with a label to send it back.

Sandtree

knightstyle said:

Act quickly, do not open it and as it was a distance selling purchase you can insist on the seller paying for return and providing you with a label to send it back.

Vendor paying for return not an issue, CRA gives them no choice under the "not as described" but their standard policy is for free returns under the CCR anyway

Jenni_D

If you've inspected the goods on arrival and noticed the discrepancy without breaking seals, why would you then proceed to use the goods?

Your choices are to return* as-received (except for whatever you needed to do to determine that the goods did not conform to contract), or negotiate with the seller for a price reduction for you to retain the goods. Anything else wouldn't sit right with me (morally) and would be exploiting the seller's policies and goodwill.

* or make available for collection

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I guess if they can't repair (provide the missing bits) or replace then you have the right to a full refund or price reduction. 

If you was considering a price reduction I can't see why you don't have any right to inspect the goods, which would including opening or unsealing them. 

Whether you'd have the right to price reduction may depend on the selling price, if you paid the going rate for the product without the accessories there may not be an appropriate amount to claim as a price reduction, although that doesn't stop you rejecting the goods for a full refund or having a chat with them to see if they'll offer some kind of part refund.

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I guess if they can't repair (provide the missing bits) or replace then you have the right to a full refund or price reduction. 

If you was considering a price reduction I can't see why you don't have any right to inspect the goods, which would including opening or unsealing them. 

All three options are being considered, vendor is seeing if they can get it, they offered a 0.75% reduction initially to accept it without the accessory pack but are now speaking to the management given the offer was about 15% of the retail price of the pack and its been made clear the item will be returned as "not as described" if they can neither "repair" nor give a discount more proportional to the lost value.

TELLIT01

Jenni_D said:

If you've inspected the goods on arrival and noticed the discrepancy without breaking seals, why would you then proceed to use the goods?

From the way I read it, they would be doing it from pure spite and in the hope of costing the retailer money.  They have been inconvenienced by a wrong description and now want the retailer to suffer.

Sandtree

TELLIT01 said:

Jenni_D said:

If you've inspected the goods on arrival and noticed the discrepancy without breaking seals, why would you then proceed to use the goods?

From the way I read it, they would be doing it from pure spite and in the hope of costing the retailer money.  They have been inconvenienced by a wrong description and now want the retailer to suffer.

Not spite, a desire to see the item properly in the flesh having had some reservations on the previous model but read reviews that the new model improves on some of the areas of reservation.

It would seem counter productive to everyone to return this as miss-advertised, then buy another one and then send that one back if the improvements dont resolve the concerns.

sheramber

More of a theoretical question but one for consideration...

All three options are being considered, vendor is seeing if they can get it, 

So it is not theoretical at all.

Sandtree

sheramber said:

More of a theoretical question but one for consideration...

All three options are being considered, vendor is seeing if they can get it, 

So it is not theoretical at all.

It is theoretical because at the time of posting the matter had already been resolved and the vendor has agreed to supply the missing accessories however the person in question had taken the decision to open it up and have a proper look at it before knowing that... hence posting a theoretical question of what the potential out could have been had they done that and the vendor advised to return... its also theoretical that the vendor had done enough to charge excess handling; by the standards posted on here very few ever do.