Want to buy vintage tool. Site terms state that they are not liable if item is lost in transit

Ergates

born_again said:

What  they actually say is different from what you are saying. Could have been better worded.

 Once the item has left me, I can no longer be responsible for delay or loss, it is outside of my control. I will help recovering any insurance which has been taken out 

Still wrong though.  Seller *is* responsible for delay or loss.  If they're not happy being responsible for things lost by the couriers they employ they can choose not to do business in that manner.

The only way they can get around this is to say "I don't do delivery - however if you wish, you can arrange a courier to collect the item and deliver it to you".  That way the courier becomes the agent of the buyer, not the seller.

But it doesn't sound like that is what is happening here.

prowla

The courier's contract is with the seller, not the buyer and it is the seller's responsibility until the item is delivered.

Indeed, the courier will refuse to deal with the buyer, as they have no contract with and no responsibility to them.

The seller is simply making up rules which do not exist.

If the seller is trading as a business then they cannot override your legal rights.

RefluentBeans

GervisLooper said:

GervisLooper said:

This seems like a genuine and longstanding website so no reason to think they would do anything underhanded. It is just if anything went awry it seems they are trying to absolve responsibility for claiming a refund for any issues in transit.

Here are the terms: https://www.timelesstools.co.uk/salesinformation.htm

One thing that sticks out to me is they state that if an item gets lost in transit is it not their responsibility and that the buyer would have to claim for insurance. Doesn't make sense to me. The seller is responsible for that no? Not only that they should refund the buyer and make an insurance claim themselves not have the onus be on the buyer.

As I understand it the consumer rights act would make those claims on the website null and void? Regardless there is no guarantee an individual seller will honour the act as I had happen not long ago where a seller just decided to ignore me after I told them they were in breach. Most times though when citing the consumer rights act sellers have then done what is right but there seems tp be no consequences for failing to adhere to it except if you drug it to court I guess,

Issue is that I don't use paypal and they only suggest check as an alternative so if there were any issues the ball would be in their court wouldn't it?

Would be paying 60 quid or thereabouts so not a trifling amount I would really want to risk.

Hard to come by these items though. There is one other site but not sure of their terms yet as haven't looked closely but they seem to be selling for higher average prices.

Not keen on the wording though that the buyer has to make the insurance claim but they will help any way they can. They should refund the buyer and make the claim themselves as it is the seller's responsibility and item gets to the buyer safely isn't it? Just like when if a buyer wants to send an item back it is then their responsibility it gets back to seller safely.

I do not use paypal by choice. Just like how I don't use amazon or ebay!

Protest!

I also accept that limits my options in terms of buying rights. Just how I also accept being vegan is a protest and limits my food options!

Then out of protest of illegal terms, shop elsewhere!

Ultimately there’s a difference being legally right and having to drag someone through court to make them realise you’re right and they’re wrong. Other options like chargeback, S75, and PayPal buyer protection gives you some piece of mind but ultimately (with the exception of S75, which unless it’s over £100, and you paid on a credit card, you wouldn’t be covered) it is extrajudicial meaning it doesn’t change the contract, and will only be successful if the seller doesn’t respond or the good don’t exist. In most other times the card company/PayPal will want to keep the status quo of the contract. In these cases, you’d need to go through the courts, if the seller doesn’t recognise your rights.

It’s Down to how much you trust the seller, and how much you want the goods/trust the seller to have good quality. Because if they’re not wanting to recognise your rights on the returns through CCR, what chance have you got if the product becomes faulty? 

Up to you - but red flags are on show here 

born_again

I would also wonder how they take online payments, given the need to use a order form.

sheramber

born_again said:

I would also wonder how they take online payments, given the need to use a order form.

Presumably when you submit the order form you will be goven the appropriate information to amke patment

Preferred Payment method

BACS

Cheque

Credit/Debit card via Paypal

prowla

Incidentally, you have to wonder why the seller is attempting to make these stipulations regarding his responsibilities: have they had issues with items going missing when in the hands of their appointed agent (the courier)?

If things do go missing, how do you know they were really sent (and/or what the contents were)?

They might supply a proof of postage, but some time ago I had an issue with a scammer and it turned out he had sent the same proof of postage to several people.

Also, never pay by an unsecured means (bank transfer, PayPal Friends & Family, etc.); a seller who is asking for that is not worthy of your trust

GervisLooper

RefluentBeans said:

GervisLooper said:

GervisLooper said:

This seems like a genuine and longstanding website so no reason to think they would do anything underhanded. It is just if anything went awry it seems they are trying to absolve responsibility for claiming a refund for any issues in transit.

Here are the terms: https://www.timelesstools.co.uk/salesinformation.htm

One thing that sticks out to me is they state that if an item gets lost in transit is it not their responsibility and that the buyer would have to claim for insurance. Doesn't make sense to me. The seller is responsible for that no? Not only that they should refund the buyer and make an insurance claim themselves not have the onus be on the buyer.

As I understand it the consumer rights act would make those claims on the website null and void? Regardless there is no guarantee an individual seller will honour the act as I had happen not long ago where a seller just decided to ignore me after I told them they were in breach. Most times though when citing the consumer rights act sellers have then done what is right but there seems tp be no consequences for failing to adhere to it except if you drug it to court I guess,

Issue is that I don't use paypal and they only suggest check as an alternative so if there were any issues the ball would be in their court wouldn't it?

Would be paying 60 quid or thereabouts so not a trifling amount I would really want to risk.

Hard to come by these items though. There is one other site but not sure of their terms yet as haven't looked closely but they seem to be selling for higher average prices.

Not keen on the wording though that the buyer has to make the insurance claim but they will help any way they can. They should refund the buyer and make the claim themselves as it is the seller's responsibility and item gets to the buyer safely isn't it? Just like when if a buyer wants to send an item back it is then their responsibility it gets back to seller safely.

I do not use paypal by choice. Just like how I don't use amazon or ebay!

Protest!

I also accept that limits my options in terms of buying rights. Just how I also accept being vegan is a protest and limits my food options!

Then out of protest of illegal terms, shop elsewhere!

Ultimately there’s a difference being legally right and having to drag someone through court to make them realise you’re right and they’re wrong. Other options like chargeback, S75, and PayPal buyer protection gives you some piece of mind but ultimately (with the exception of S75, which unless it’s over £100, and you paid on a credit card, you wouldn’t be covered) it is extrajudicial meaning it doesn’t change the contract, and will only be successful if the seller doesn’t respond or the good don’t exist. In most other times the card company/PayPal will want to keep the status quo of the contract. In these cases, you’d need to go through the courts, if the seller doesn’t recognise your rights.

It’s Down to how much you trust the seller, and how much you want the goods/trust the seller to have good quality. Because if they’re not wanting to recognise your rights on the returns through CCR, what chance have you got if the product becomes faulty? 

Up to you - but red flags are on show here 

Well it is a case of conflicting values here.

I avoid the big monopolies precisely because they become dehumanizing and as such want to support small businesses like this. I think it is unlikely this seller intentionally worded it to 'get out' of being responsible for items lost. They may have, but probably more likely, as someone else, there has been no cause to make the wording legally airtight due to low traffic and the issue not arising.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a deal breaker but rather want to enquire further if it was intentional or not. If it seems they did that deliberately then walk away. There is one other seller who did not have such clauses in their terms that I saw but as I said average price is about 30-50% higher. So swings and roundabouts given the sparse options for these niche tools.

I am thinking pointing it out in an email and if they are standoffish about it then that is when I would throw in the towel.

It is like a relationship - someone might have some good traits and some red flags, you try and negotiate first before walking away .

GervisLooper

prowla said:

Incidentally, you have to wonder why the seller is attempting to make these stipulations regarding his responsibilities: have they had issues with items going missing when in the hands of their appointed agent (the courier)?

If things do go missing, how do you know they were really sent (and/or what the contents were)?

They might supply a proof of postage, but some time ago I had an issue with a scammer and it turned out he had sent the same proof of postage to several people.

Also, never pay by an unsecured means (bank transfer, PayPal Friends & Family, etc.); a seller who is asking for that is not worthy of your trust

Hmm that is a good point actually and perhaps I will go back on my previous post about saying they wrote it innocently.

If there had been no issues then there would be no mention at all yet this is quite specific.

Indeed if the seller asks for those means it would certainly be a red flag however I was recently looking for, and found, another hard to get item, this time on gumtree, and I suggested transfer and all went well. The seller in that case hadn't even suggested distance selling, I was the one who initiated that.

That was for less than 30 quid though and about the limit of what I would be happy taking a chance like that.

Ergates

prowla said:

Incidentally, you have to wonder why the seller is attempting to make these stipulations regarding his responsibilities: have they had issues with items going missing when in the hands of their appointed agent (the courier)?

If you're a very small trader (just one person selling a few items and posting them yourself) then it's very difficult to eat the cost of items lost in transit.  You can claim from the couriers, but they (seemingly intentionally) make it very hard to do for individuals.   If you're a large retailer, then they probably make it a lot easier as they want to keep your business.

If the courier companies (including Royal Mail) actually cared about providing a decent and reliable service it would be a different matter.   But they very obviously don't - they're all about maximising profit.

Bradden

Ergates said:

prowla said:

Incidentally, you have to wonder why the seller is attempting to make these stipulations regarding his responsibilities: have they had issues with items going missing when in the hands of their appointed agent (the courier)?

If the courier companies (including Royal Mail) actually cared about providing a decent and reliable service it would be a different matter.   But they very obviously don't - they're all about maximising profit.

I don't think it's that simple.. people tend to pick a service based on price.. and then complain afterwards when the service isn't great.