were do i stand

taxiphil

dmg24 wrote: »

I gave a link to a brief summary of the Act rather than the full content because reading statute can be rather complex. However, if you take the time to read the Act, you will find that you are wrong, and every other post on this thread is correct.

Where is this Act to which you refer? Why didn't you provide a link to it instead of the link you gave which makes absolutely no reference to the point you are trying to prove?

If the full Act is so complex, you read it remarkably quickly considering the speed at which you pounced on this thread.

dmg24

katiekittykat wrote: »

Didn't the OP's friend sign for it? if so then i don't think that classes as being unsolicited goods?

I would agree that they accepted the goods by allowing them into the property, and although it was not the OP herself, by being in the property the friend could be deemed to be an agent of the OP. I think the key here is that it was evident what the item was. It was not a sealed package that the OP did not know the contents of until after they opened it.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, the retailer is not demanding payment, and the items were not known to be unsolicited. The retailer made a genuine mistake, and therefore there was no intent on their part. Intent is required in order for the situation to fall under the Act.

dmg24

taxiphil wrote: »

Where is this Act to which you refer? Why didn't you provide a link to it instead of the link you gave which makes absolutely no reference to the point you are trying to prove?

If the full Act is so complex, you read it remarkably quickly considering the speed at which you pounced on this thread.

I have studied the Act, I did not just look it up for the purposes of replying to this thread.

I am sure you are able to Google the Act yourself, it really is not difficult.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.

katiekittykat

dmg24 wrote: »

I would agree that they accepted the goods by allowing them into the property, and although it was not the OP herself, by being in the property the friend could be deemed to be an agent of the OP. I think the key here is that it was evident what the item was. It was not a sealed package that the OP did not know the contents of until after they opened it.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, the retailer is not demanding payment, and the items were not known to be unsolicited. The retailer made a genuine mistake, and therefore there was no intent on their part. Intent is required in order for the situation to fall under the Act.

Thanks for the info and answering my q

xxxx

taxiphil

dmg24 wrote: »

I have studied the Act, I did not just look it up for the purposes of replying to this thread.

I am sure you are able to Google the Act yourself, it really is not difficult.

There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.

Hang on a minute... you've made an assertion, you've failed to back it up, and you're saying it's automatically correct unless I can prove otherwise.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I think the burden of proof actually falls upon you to back up what you're saying!

You really are very sarcastic and puffed-up, aren't you?

(btw, I have Googled it and can't find any mention of exemptions for "genuine mistakes")

katiekittykat

Also surely as the OP had previously ordered a sofa from the company it doesn't count as being Unsolicited Goods? It was human error the lead to the re delivery?

dmg24

taxiphil wrote: »

Hang on a minute... you've made an assertion, you've failed to back it up, and you're saying it's automatically correct unless I can prove otherwise.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I think the burden of proof actually falls upon you to back up what you're saying!

You really are very sarcastic and puffed-up, aren't you?

(btw, I have Googled it and can't find any mention of exemptions for "genuine mistakes")

I really don't see your problem here taxiphil. You need to step away and read your posts, as you are beginning to make yourself look very silly.

All I have said is that I have studied the Act, and therefore I am confident in my assertions. If you disagree with them, then by all means show me where they are incorrect.

katiekittykat

http://www.moneymatterstome.co.uk/8-Consumer-rights-responsibilities/Sub1/BuyingGoods-AdditionalRights.htm#UnsolicitedGoodsAct


Unsolicited Goods Act
It is illegal for a trader to threaten you for payment of goods that you have not ordered. It is this Act which protects you.
If you receive unsolicited goods, then you can:

Keep them for six months before disposing of them
Contact the seller and tell them about delivery. The retailer then has one month to recover the goods.
Always keep a note of all communication with the trader.


Just found this and the Op didn't contact the trader did they?

dmg24

katiekittykat wrote: »

Also surely as the OP had previously ordered a sofa from the company it doesn't count as being Unsolicited Goods? It was human error the lead to the re delivery?

Yep, that is correct. However, it would not mean that because a customer had dealt with a retailer once, they can continue to send goods, but in the situation described by the OP, they were actually just sending a replacement item in place of an earlier damaged item.

There is an equitable concept that the law will not allow an absurdity, which could be paraphased as common sense should prevail. This would apply to this situation.

The purpose of the Act was to stop unscrupulous companies sending out items to random people, and then demanding payment for them. There were several scams that resulted in the legislation, including one involving tights! The Act was not brought about to allow people to benefit where a genuine mistake has been made.

katiekittykat

dmg24 wrote: »

Yep, that is correct. However, it would not mean that because a customer had dealt with a retailer once, they can continue to send goods, but in the situation described by the OP, they were actually just sending a replacement item in place of an earlier damaged item.

There is an equitable concept that the law will not allow an absurdity, which could be paraphased as common sense should prevail. This would apply to this situation.

The purpose of the Act was to stop unscrupulous companies sending out items to random people, and then demanding payment for them. There were several scams that resulted in the legislation, including one involving tights! The Act was not brought about to allow people to benefit where a genuine mistake has been made.

Again thanks for the info and answering my q

xxxx