Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No returns
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Theo
Jan 15, 2022, 5:20:47 PM1/15/22
to
I've seen this kind of thing on ebay listings. Seller is listed as a
business seller accepting returns on ebay:
RETURNS POLICY
Please contact us before returning any items (this is to help us process any
refunds more efficiently). Returns must be made within 30 days as per Ebay
policy.
If you are not happy with your purchase please return the item in its
original packaging within 30 days of delivery. The entire amount paid will
be refunded via PayPal. Any and all costs for postage returns will not be
refunded. Any damage caused to the manufacturer's packaging will result in
rejection of the return; this includes the manufacturer's seal being broken.
Note: When you return faulty parts customer pays return postage. Please
ensure whilst buying, that the part you are buying is the correct one
required, as we charge a 20% restocking fee.
WRONGLY PURCHASED ITEMS
Items that we have charged postage for & that are not required or wrongly
purchased must be returned in their original packaging and will be subject
to a 20% restocking fee (this is to cover Ebay fees). Items that we have
sent free postage & that are not required or wrongly purchased must be
returned in their original packaging and will be subject to a 20% restocking
fee (this is to cover Ebay fees). We will also deduct the original amount of
postage from the refund amount.
All Returns must be unused & returned with their original packaging.
We do not accept any not required / wrongly purchased electrical items back
(including printed circuit boards).
Apart from the packaging being damaged, which might be arguable, surely this
stuff is against the Consumer Rights Act? This is a B2C transaction and yet
there's things about restocking fees and no returns for electrical items.
Would m'learned friend (or indeed ebay) throw this out as unenforceable?
Would these T&C stick if it was a B2B transaction (eg sole trader plumber
buying parts)?
Theo
business seller accepting returns on ebay:
RETURNS POLICY
Please contact us before returning any items (this is to help us process any
refunds more efficiently). Returns must be made within 30 days as per Ebay
policy.
If you are not happy with your purchase please return the item in its
original packaging within 30 days of delivery. The entire amount paid will
be refunded via PayPal. Any and all costs for postage returns will not be
refunded. Any damage caused to the manufacturer's packaging will result in
rejection of the return; this includes the manufacturer's seal being broken.
Note: When you return faulty parts customer pays return postage. Please
ensure whilst buying, that the part you are buying is the correct one
required, as we charge a 20% restocking fee.
WRONGLY PURCHASED ITEMS
Items that we have charged postage for & that are not required or wrongly
purchased must be returned in their original packaging and will be subject
to a 20% restocking fee (this is to cover Ebay fees). Items that we have
sent free postage & that are not required or wrongly purchased must be
returned in their original packaging and will be subject to a 20% restocking
fee (this is to cover Ebay fees). We will also deduct the original amount of
postage from the refund amount.
All Returns must be unused & returned with their original packaging.
We do not accept any not required / wrongly purchased electrical items back
(including printed circuit boards).
Apart from the packaging being damaged, which might be arguable, surely this
stuff is against the Consumer Rights Act? This is a B2C transaction and yet
there's things about restocking fees and no returns for electrical items.
Would m'learned friend (or indeed ebay) throw this out as unenforceable?
Would these T&C stick if it was a B2B transaction (eg sole trader plumber
buying parts)?
Theo
Roland Perry
Jan 16, 2022, 1:51:07 AM1/16/22
to
In message <ABe*Si...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 22:20:34 on Sat,
15 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
(formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
consumers.
The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
really distinguish between them.
So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>This is a B2C transaction and yet
>there's things about restocking fees and no returns for electrical items.
>
>Would m'learned friend (or indeed ebay) throw this out as unenforceable?
>
>Would these T&C stick if it was a B2B transaction (eg sole trader plumber
>buying parts)?
In that instance the buyer has no statutory rights to return things at
all, so it's what's "generously" offered, or nothing.
--
Roland Perry
15 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
(formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
consumers.
The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
really distinguish between them.
So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>This is a B2C transaction and yet
>there's things about restocking fees and no returns for electrical items.
>
>Would m'learned friend (or indeed ebay) throw this out as unenforceable?
>
>Would these T&C stick if it was a B2B transaction (eg sole trader plumber
>buying parts)?
all, so it's what's "generously" offered, or nothing.
--
Roland Perry
Theo
Jan 16, 2022, 6:34:47 AM1/16/22
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
> consumers.
>
> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
> really distinguish between them.
>
> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
The parts I'm querying:
> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
> consumers.
>
> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
> really distinguish between them.
>
> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
- The distinction about the reason for return (when the item isn't faulty,
incorrectly sent/described, etc). I understood there was no distinction
about this: 'I changed my mind' is a fine reason, irrespective of *why* I
might have changed my mind.
- The charging of a restocking fee. I thought the deal was that the buyer
pays return postage, the seller has to refund the whole payment the buyer
paid, including the postage element (unless the buyer paid extra for express
or other postage services on top of the baseline). Therefore how can this
20% restocking fee fit with this?
- How this interacts with ebay policies - ie when the seller says 'accepts
returns', what additional conditions does ebay impose on that?
- Whether ebay's policy provides more rights to a business buyer than would
ordinarily be the case?
Theo
Roger Hayter
Jan 16, 2022, 7:07:29 AM1/16/22
to
On 16 Jan 2022 at 11:34:20 GMT, "Theo" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
>> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
>> consumers.
>>
>> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
>> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
>> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
>> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
>> really distinguish between them.
>>
>> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
>> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>
> The parts I'm querying:
>
> - The distinction about the reason for return (when the item isn't faulty,
> incorrectly sent/described, etc). I understood there was no distinction
> about this: 'I changed my mind' is a fine reason, irrespective of *why* I
> might have changed my mind.
No. The law is different in the two cases, for consumers anyway. If it is
faulty you should get all your money back, and it is the seller's
responsibility to get the goods back if they want them, although you have to
cooperate with reasonable collection arrangements. Packaging doesn't have to
be intact. If you just change your mind *and they have properly advised you
about this before the sale* you have to pay the return posttage and are
responsible for sending the goods back. You also have to pay for any
extra-quick delivery you may have originally requested, but not for basic
delivery. The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the goods as you
would normally be able to in a shop. Restocking fees are not allowed in
consumer transactions. There may be, or used to be, a rule that the seller had
to pay your return postage if they had not correctly explained the rules
before the transaction.
>
> - The charging of a restocking fee. I thought the deal was that the buyer
> pays return postage, the seller has to refund the whole payment the buyer
> paid, including the postage element (unless the buyer paid extra for express
> or other postage services on top of the baseline). Therefore how can this
> 20% restocking fee fit with this?
>
> - How this interacts with ebay policies - ie when the seller says 'accepts
> returns', what additional conditions does ebay impose on that?
>
> - Whether ebay's policy provides more rights to a business buyer than would
> ordinarily be the case?
>
> Theo
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
>> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
>> consumers.
>>
>> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
>> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
>> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
>> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
>> really distinguish between them.
>>
>> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
>> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>
> The parts I'm querying:
>
> - The distinction about the reason for return (when the item isn't faulty,
> incorrectly sent/described, etc). I understood there was no distinction
> about this: 'I changed my mind' is a fine reason, irrespective of *why* I
> might have changed my mind.
faulty you should get all your money back, and it is the seller's
responsibility to get the goods back if they want them, although you have to
cooperate with reasonable collection arrangements. Packaging doesn't have to
be intact. If you just change your mind *and they have properly advised you
about this before the sale* you have to pay the return posttage and are
responsible for sending the goods back. You also have to pay for any
extra-quick delivery you may have originally requested, but not for basic
delivery. The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the goods as you
would normally be able to in a shop. Restocking fees are not allowed in
consumer transactions. There may be, or used to be, a rule that the seller had
to pay your return postage if they had not correctly explained the rules
before the transaction.
>
> - The charging of a restocking fee. I thought the deal was that the buyer
> pays return postage, the seller has to refund the whole payment the buyer
> paid, including the postage element (unless the buyer paid extra for express
> or other postage services on top of the baseline). Therefore how can this
> 20% restocking fee fit with this?
>
> - How this interacts with ebay policies - ie when the seller says 'accepts
> returns', what additional conditions does ebay impose on that?
>
> - Whether ebay's policy provides more rights to a business buyer than would
> ordinarily be the case?
>
> Theo
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Jan 16, 2022, 8:31:45 AM1/16/22
to
In message <yBe*Vc...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:34:20 on Sun,
16 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
deliberate confusion, or because they are amateurs doing cut'n'paste of
stuff they saw someone else using, is an open question).
>- The charging of a restocking fee. I thought the deal was that the buyer
>pays return postage, the seller has to refund the whole payment the buyer
>paid, including the postage element (unless the buyer paid extra for express
>or other postage services on top of the baseline). Therefore how can this
>20% restocking fee fit with this?
If it's a return which is outwith Whatever the DSRs are Called This
Week, they can impose whatever conditions they like.
>- How this interacts with ebay policies - ie when the seller says 'accepts
>returns', what additional conditions does ebay impose on that?
The main people I see on eBay saying "No returns" are private sellers.
And does WtDSRaCTW applicable to them?
>- Whether ebay's policy provides more rights to a business buyer than would
>ordinarily be the case?
Usually the eBay policies (which they have inherited/mimiced from Paypal
after their divorce) are more favourable to buyers than the statutory
minimum. Like M&S and Amazon they go the extra mile to encourage people
to buy through/from them.
--
Roland Perry
16 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
>> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
>> consumers.
>>
>> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
>> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
>> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
>> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
>> really distinguish between them.
>>
>> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
>> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>
>The parts I'm querying:
>
>- The distinction about the reason for return (when the item isn't faulty,
>incorrectly sent/described, etc). I understood there was no distinction
>about this: 'I changed my mind' is a fine reason, irrespective of *why* I
>might have changed my mind.
Like I said, I think they are conflating the reasons (whether to cause
>> I don't see anything there which is against the Consumer Rights Act
>> (formerly known as DSRs), a process which is often over-read by
>> consumers.
>>
>> The only thing I'd take issue with is the way they are driving a wedge
>> between "goods you aren't happy with" (maybe a pair of shoes were not
>> the colour you were expecting), and "Wrongly purchased" (perhaps a pair
>> of shoes you ordered the wrong size by mistake). The legislation doesn't
>> really distinguish between them.
>>
>> So to get the full benefit you'd have to claim the wrong-size shoes were
>> something you "weren't happy with", because they don't fit.
>
>The parts I'm querying:
>
>- The distinction about the reason for return (when the item isn't faulty,
>incorrectly sent/described, etc). I understood there was no distinction
>about this: 'I changed my mind' is a fine reason, irrespective of *why* I
>might have changed my mind.
deliberate confusion, or because they are amateurs doing cut'n'paste of
stuff they saw someone else using, is an open question).
>- The charging of a restocking fee. I thought the deal was that the buyer
>pays return postage, the seller has to refund the whole payment the buyer
>paid, including the postage element (unless the buyer paid extra for express
>or other postage services on top of the baseline). Therefore how can this
>20% restocking fee fit with this?
Week, they can impose whatever conditions they like.
>- How this interacts with ebay policies - ie when the seller says 'accepts
>returns', what additional conditions does ebay impose on that?
And does WtDSRaCTW applicable to them?
>- Whether ebay's policy provides more rights to a business buyer than would
>ordinarily be the case?
after their divorce) are more favourable to buyers than the statutory
minimum. Like M&S and Amazon they go the extra mile to encourage people
to buy through/from them.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jan 16, 2022, 10:15:23 AM1/16/22
to
In message <j4ig3m...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:07:18 on Sun, 16
Jan 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
>quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the goods as you
>would normally be able to in a shop.
Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
in the shop?]
I can guarantee that the reason exclusions like that are floated is that
too many people have fraudulently sent the broken board back, instead of
the new one, and the supplier has got fed up with it.
Whether that's a cost-of-doing-business given whatever the law is this
week, or there's some other remedy for the trader, is probably what the
purely legal aspects of this thread need explore.
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
>quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the goods as you
>would normally be able to in a shop.
appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
in the shop?]
I can guarantee that the reason exclusions like that are floated is that
too many people have fraudulently sent the broken board back, instead of
the new one, and the supplier has got fed up with it.
Whether that's a cost-of-doing-business given whatever the law is this
week, or there's some other remedy for the trader, is probably what the
purely legal aspects of this thread need explore.
--
Roland Perry
Theo
Jan 16, 2022, 10:57:41 AM1/16/22
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
> in the shop?]
Such things are often in sealed packaging that means you can inspect the
> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
> in the shop?]
goods without opening the packaging. For example computer memory modules
come with a clear plastic cover so you can see their size, markings, etc.
But you can't touch them without breaking the seal.
I think if the item was supplied in a sealed brown cardboard box you would
have to break the seals to be able to inspect the item.
I suppose what we're fishing for is a definition of 'inspect', which might
include 'look at' but perhaps not 'fit to car and drive 5000 miles on'.
Although it is hard to 'inspect' a laptop without turning it on, for
example.
Theo
RJH
Jan 16, 2022, 1:42:53 PM1/16/22
to
recently. One was a few months old web cam that didn't do as advertised, one a
bike tool that didn't fit. I got refunds and paid return postage pretty much
instantly.
I reckon they just absorb losses from people who play the system - much as
shoplifting etc. And I suspect the fraudulent claims aren't that large. I find
these discussions often descend into worst case scenarios that just don't
arise in practice.
--
Cheers, Rob
Roland Perry
Jan 17, 2022, 2:05:39 AM1/17/22
to
In message <yBe*za...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:57:24 on Sun,
16 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
>> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
>> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
>> in the shop?]
>
>Such things are often in sealed packaging that means you can inspect the
>goods without opening the packaging. For example computer memory modules
>come with a clear plastic cover so you can see their size, markings, etc.
>But you can't touch them without breaking the seal.
Lets be careful about conflating things like "should this memory module,
based on the spec, be suitable for my computer" and "is this particular
example broken, or mis-labelled".
>I think if the item was supplied in a sealed brown cardboard box you would
>have to break the seals to be able to inspect the item.
Many shops wouldn't allow that. You would have to restrict yourself to
reading whatever was printed on the box. And why are you examining it
anyway - is it to see if it's been mislabelled, or something else like
"oh dear the fixing holes aren't where I expect, I must have misread the
data sheet".
>I suppose what we're fishing for is a definition of 'inspect', which might
>include 'look at' but perhaps not 'fit to car and drive 5000 miles on'.
It's always worth reading the recitals, which unlike UK "Notes to the
Bill", have some legal force.
>Although it is hard to 'inspect' a laptop without turning it on, for
>example.
Which is why most shops will have specific demonstration unit for
customers to pore over (and subsequently get refurbished and sold
at big discounts to people like myself).
--
Roland Perry
16 Jan 2022, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
>> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
>> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
>> in the shop?]
>
>Such things are often in sealed packaging that means you can inspect the
>goods without opening the packaging. For example computer memory modules
>come with a clear plastic cover so you can see their size, markings, etc.
>But you can't touch them without breaking the seal.
based on the spec, be suitable for my computer" and "is this particular
example broken, or mis-labelled".
>I think if the item was supplied in a sealed brown cardboard box you would
>have to break the seals to be able to inspect the item.
reading whatever was printed on the box. And why are you examining it
anyway - is it to see if it's been mislabelled, or something else like
"oh dear the fixing holes aren't where I expect, I must have misread the
data sheet".
>I suppose what we're fishing for is a definition of 'inspect', which might
>include 'look at' but perhaps not 'fit to car and drive 5000 miles on'.
Bill", have some legal force.
>Although it is hard to 'inspect' a laptop without turning it on, for
>example.
customers to pore over (and subsequently get refurbished and sold
at big discounts to people like myself).
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
Jan 17, 2022, 4:02:26 AM1/17/22
to
duplicate this level of serrvices, which they could only achieve by allowing
the delivered unit to be inspected. Do you know of any case law or other rules
on this?
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Jan 17, 2022, 4:38:53 AM1/17/22
to
In message <j4kpkr...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:02:20 on Mon, 17
They are not required to as a statutory obligation, but the majority of
womens' fashion (to take a well known example) is mail-ordered on this
basis [and has been since long before whatever DSRs are called this week
were invented].
The degree of inspection allowed by many vendors includes returning
items as "broken", "not as described" etc. But that's a different
category to "Having installed Windows 10, I don't get on with it, so
I've changed my mind and will stick with my old Windows 7 laptop".
ps The original question related to eBay, which for a long time claimed
that because it was an "auction site", and things sold in bricks-and-
mortar auctions are "as seen", didn't need to have a returns policy.
But several layers of "look, you STUPID PEOPLE" eventually resolved
that. And it's now merely an "auction-style" site, although
separately much of the stuff today is "buy it now" which isn't any
kind of auctioning. Albeit there's "or best offer", which meant I got
£30 off something on Saturday.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime kind of purchase, and they've since
bombarded me with emails about buying another (this morning ten
similar items from other vendors).
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
womens' fashion (to take a well known example) is mail-ordered on this
basis [and has been since long before whatever DSRs are called this week
were invented].
The degree of inspection allowed by many vendors includes returning
items as "broken", "not as described" etc. But that's a different
category to "Having installed Windows 10, I don't get on with it, so
I've changed my mind and will stick with my old Windows 7 laptop".
ps The original question related to eBay, which for a long time claimed
that because it was an "auction site", and things sold in bricks-and-
mortar auctions are "as seen", didn't need to have a returns policy.
But several layers of "look, you STUPID PEOPLE" eventually resolved
that. And it's now merely an "auction-style" site, although
separately much of the stuff today is "buy it now" which isn't any
kind of auctioning. Albeit there's "or best offer", which meant I got
£30 off something on Saturday.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime kind of purchase, and they've since
bombarded me with emails about buying another (this morning ten
similar items from other vendors).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jan 17, 2022, 5:47:14 AM1/17/22
to
In message <ss1ouv$s0v$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:42:39 on Sun, 16 Jan
2022, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> remarked:
Largely at the expense of their suppliers who they have over a barrel -
do it our way or not at all.
This isn't a new phenomenon, back in the day suppliers were so desperate
to get their items on the shelves in places like Boots and Dixons,
they'd agree to almost anything [short of wholesaling them at a loss if
retailed for ticket price, but "managers discount" items were funded by
the supplier, not the store]. Which includes the store never being out
of pocket, for any reason at all, especially returns.
>And I suspect the fraudulent claims aren't that large. I find these
>discussions often descend into worst case scenarios that just don't
>arise in practice.
There's all sorts of systemic fraud that need to be addressed. It
probably arises less with online purchases because there's always a
trail back to the buyers, and their individual "reputation" for
returning stuff.
M&S High Street stores used to have a big problem with their "no
quibble" money back, and people buying expensive items sold as seconds,
and then 'returning' them to a shop for a 'full refund'.
All sorts of ways to combat that, including trying to make sure that the
manufacturers took the M&S label off seconds before selling them to
market traders.
Of course some items like womens fashion clothing are priced/sold mail
order on the premise that most of it will be returned, they have to hope
it's not after being worn once.
--
Roland Perry
2022, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> remarked:
>On 16 Jan 2022 at 15:10:11 GMT, "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <j4ig3m...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:07:18 on Sun, 16
>> Jan 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>
>>> The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
>>> quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the
>>>goods as you
>>> would normally be able to in a shop.
>>
>> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
>> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
>> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
>> in the shop?]
>>
>> I can guarantee that the reason exclusions like that are floated is that
>> too many people have fraudulently sent the broken board back, instead of
>> the new one, and the supplier has got fed up with it.
>>
>> Whether that's a cost-of-doing-business given whatever the law is this
>> week, or there's some other remedy for the trader, is probably what the
>> purely legal aspects of this thread need explore.
>
>It's an interesting situation. I've sent back a couple of Amazon things
>recently. One was a few months old web cam that didn't do as advertised, one a
>bike tool that didn't fit. I got refunds and paid return postage pretty much
>instantly.
>
>I reckon they just absorb losses from people who play the system - much as
>shoplifting etc.
They continue to buy market share by being super-friendly to customers.
>
>> In message <j4ig3m...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:07:18 on Sun, 16
>> Jan 2022, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>
>>> The precise condition of packaging and goods is complicated but the
>>> quoted terms are a bit severe, you should be able to inspect the
>>>goods as you
>>> would normally be able to in a shop.
>>
>> Although whether (for example) fitting a circuit board inside your
>> appliance, and then saying "nah, I've changed my mind" is allowable,
>> might make an interesting test case. [Would you be allowed to do that
>> in the shop?]
>>
>> I can guarantee that the reason exclusions like that are floated is that
>> too many people have fraudulently sent the broken board back, instead of
>> the new one, and the supplier has got fed up with it.
>>
>> Whether that's a cost-of-doing-business given whatever the law is this
>> week, or there's some other remedy for the trader, is probably what the
>> purely legal aspects of this thread need explore.
>
>It's an interesting situation. I've sent back a couple of Amazon things
>recently. One was a few months old web cam that didn't do as advertised, one a
>bike tool that didn't fit. I got refunds and paid return postage pretty much
>instantly.
>
>I reckon they just absorb losses from people who play the system - much as
>shoplifting etc.
Largely at the expense of their suppliers who they have over a barrel -
do it our way or not at all.
This isn't a new phenomenon, back in the day suppliers were so desperate
to get their items on the shelves in places like Boots and Dixons,
they'd agree to almost anything [short of wholesaling them at a loss if
retailed for ticket price, but "managers discount" items were funded by
the supplier, not the store]. Which includes the store never being out
of pocket, for any reason at all, especially returns.
>And I suspect the fraudulent claims aren't that large. I find these
>discussions often descend into worst case scenarios that just don't
>arise in practice.
probably arises less with online purchases because there's always a
trail back to the buyers, and their individual "reputation" for
returning stuff.
M&S High Street stores used to have a big problem with their "no
quibble" money back, and people buying expensive items sold as seconds,
and then 'returning' them to a shop for a 'full refund'.
All sorts of ways to combat that, including trying to make sure that the
manufacturers took the M&S label off seconds before selling them to
market traders.
Of course some items like womens fashion clothing are priced/sold mail
order on the premise that most of it will be returned, they have to hope
it's not after being worn once.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Jan 17, 2022, 7:38:29 AM1/17/22
to
On 17/01/2022 07:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> They continue to buy market share by being super-friendly to customers.
> Largely at the expense of their suppliers who they have over a barrel -
> do it our way or not at all.
I'm just in the process of returning a £400 item that I bought before
> They continue to buy market share by being super-friendly to customers.
> Largely at the expense of their suppliers who they have over a barrel -
> do it our way or not at all.
Xmas and haven't needed. Free returns until 31 Jan. The item is
completely unopened, so as long as they don't open it to check it's
okay, they can simply restock it. Still, Amazon have paid for delivery
and collection.
It's a market place seller, actually, so maybe they have paid for that?
Roland Perry
Jan 17, 2022, 7:50:48 AM1/17/22
to
In message <ss3m0k$ptt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:04:37 on Mon, 17 Jan
2022, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
I expect the Market Place seller had to pay the carriage, and quite
likely the commission for the sale and maybe a returns fee (after all,
Amazon didn't just do all the work picking/packing and dispatching it,
they've done even more accepting it back).
That's one reason why for some low value items it's cheaper for the
seller to say (via Amazon) "just throw it away, don't bother sending it
back". Which is of course another fraud vector, but don't push your luck
"they know where you live".
--
Roland Perry
2022, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
likely the commission for the sale and maybe a returns fee (after all,
Amazon didn't just do all the work picking/packing and dispatching it,
they've done even more accepting it back).
That's one reason why for some low value items it's cheaper for the
seller to say (via Amazon) "just throw it away, don't bother sending it
back". Which is of course another fraud vector, but don't push your luck
"they know where you live".
--
Roland Perry
GB
Jan 17, 2022, 9:31:49 AM1/17/22
to
percentage down. ;-)
Andy Burns
Jan 17, 2022, 12:21:34 PM1/17/22
to
GB wrote:
> I'm just in the process of returning a £400 item that I bought before Xmas and
> haven't needed. Free returns until 31 Jan. The item is completely unopened, so
> as long as they don't open it to check it's okay, they can simply restock it.
> Still, Amazon have paid for delivery and collection.
>
> It's a market place seller, actually, so maybe they have paid for that?
I think it can end-up costing them dear.
> I'm just in the process of returning a £400 item that I bought before Xmas and
> haven't needed. Free returns until 31 Jan. The item is completely unopened, so
> as long as they don't open it to check it's okay, they can simply restock it.
> Still, Amazon have paid for delivery and collection.
>
> It's a market place seller, actually, so maybe they have paid for that?
I ordered an item from an amazon marketplace seller, they dispatched the wrong
item, I contacted them to see how they were going to handle it, they asked if I
wanted the wrong item instead at a discount, fair enough but I said I didn't, I
wanted the item I had ordered.
I asked if *they* were going to send out the replacement item, or should *I*
just return the item and purchase again?
They offered a bigger discount to keep the wrong item, I still didn't want it,
from that point it started to feel like "blame the customer", so I just clicked
the [return item] button and amazon gave me a nice label to take down to the
post office, a few days later I got a snotty message from the seller asking why
I'd sent it back and complaining how much it was going to cost them etc, etc.
Should have sent the correct item out then ...
Roland Perry
Jan 18, 2022, 5:21:32 AM1/18/22
to
In message <j4lmsk...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:21:23 on Mon, 17
Jan 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Although if it was "Fulfilled by Amazon", which a lot of them are,
they'll be the ones who shipped the wrong item.
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:
they'll be the ones who shipped the wrong item.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages