Excessive handling charge for returning unwanted goods

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

See Regulation 4 of The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002:

This, shall we call it interest, in consumer rights doesn't go that far back for me, acceptance was one that very occasionally comes up here in advice and I (incorrectly) thought passing of risk was also loose but wasn't aware of the 2002 regs you mention.

A_Geordie said:The SOGA used different language to the CRA preferring to say that these terms are implied into any applicable consumer contract which is another way of saying you can't contract out of them when you deal with consumers.

Not to nit pick but the CRA has the same wording regarding implied terms but is coupled with the liability that can't be excluded, perhaps from the tie in with unfair terms also covered by the Act, I really don't know.

A_Geordie said:What if the trades person didn't have any valid documentation on them in store? The seller would not deal with them and potentially that trades person could go elsewhere, causing the business to lose out on a sale. The same could equally apply to online orders, time spent vetting trades persons may end up with lost business especially if the trades person is in a rush to purchase something.

I guess if it were an industry standard that customer wouldn't have the option and would have to ensure they have something to show they are trade.

The requirement for trade references was always an interesting one as obviously if you were a new company you wouldn't have any... 

A_Geordie said: if a shop states that they only sell to trades people

the consumer would be using consumer rights law as a sword to achieve something that was not intended

I think these two points are the main focus really in that, sure maybe some consumers do take advantage with a sneaky order but equally there is the same opportunity for the trader accept a sneaky order, or as said earlier, be happy to take anyone's money knowing full well some of their customers will be consumers. 

The consumer has the opportunity to save some money, the trader has the opportunity to make some money, neither consumers nor traders are really regarded as having high integrity, just the balance tends to be tipped into the consumer's favour in most cases. 

A_Geordie

Not to nit pick  but the CRA has the same wording regarding implied terms but is coupled with the liability that can't be excluded, perhaps from the tie in with unfair terms also covered by the Act, I really don't know.

Your right, it appears in 2 places in the main text of the CRA  What I was alluding to is that SOGA explicitly stated that there shall be an implied term of ... whereas the CRA does not. Having said that, I did go back and look at the version of SOGA prior to the CRA coming into effect and there was in fact a section prohibiting the contracting out in Schedule 1, Section 55, which appears to have been inserted to counter the right to contract out under the original section 55 language.

Section 55: exclusion of implied terms

…

(4) In the case of a contract of sale of goods, any term of that or any other contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of section 13, 14 or 15 above is void in the case of a consumer sale and is, in any other case, not enforceable to the extent that it is shown that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on the term.

...

(7) In this section “consumer sale” means a sale of goods (other than a sale by auction or by competitive tender) by a seller in the course of a business where the goods—

(a) are of a type ordinarily bought for private use or consumption; and

(b) are sold to a person who does not buy or hold himself out as buying them in the course of a business.

I think these two points are the main focus really in that, sure maybe some consumers do take advantage with a sneaky order but equally there is the same opportunity for the trader accept a sneaky order, or as said earlier, be happy to take anyone's money knowing full well some of their customers will be consumers. 

The consumer has the opportunity to save some money, the trader has the opportunity to make some money, neither consumers nor traders are really regarded as having high integrity, just the balance tends to be tipped into the consumer's favour in most cases. 

Sure, both sides have the opportunity to make some money but from a trader's perspective, selling to a consumer comes with the additional consumer rights and obligations which they may not be willing to accept, hence wanting to deal with trade only. I vaguely remember a German case probably around the same year (give or take) as the Gruber case that discussed this very point. Essentially the seller was a car dealer but didn't want to sell to a consumer because they would have to give a guarantee/warranty under German law. The consumer gave the impression they were a dealer and sued the seller when the car stopped working, relying on their consumer rights. The court decided the consumer didn't act in good faith by misrepresenting their position and therefore there was a justification to limit the consumer rights due to the bad faith on the consumer's part. 

Anyway, I think I've exhausted everything I can on this one now, and I still stand by what I said before that consumers have to take some responsibility if they willingly contract with sellers who explicitly state trade only.