From: Niel J Humphreys on
"Dr Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan.Reid(a)brunel.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhshqcv.4qe.Ivan.Reid(a)loki.brunel.ac.uk...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:26:51 +0100, Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote in <66lhs5lbirhe4n71406ifq1d872ptgd15g(a)4ax.com>:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:25:59 +0100, "Fran"
>><autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Online shopping customers who send back goods straight away must not be
>>>charged for their delivery, Europe's top court has said. Consumers can be
>>>required to pay the cost of returning the goods but should be refunded
>>>every
>>>other cost, it said.
>
>> That is the situation for goods returned under the Distance Selling
>> Regulations. If the goods are not in conformity with the contract
>> (not as described) then be it a private or business transaction they
>> can be rejected and the seller becomes liable for all costs. Rejection
>> makes the contract go away and the buyer must be left in the same
>> position as if they had not bought the goods so all of their expenses
>> must be refunded.
>
> I think you haven't got the essence of it. If you return
> something under the cooling-off period of the distance-selling regs you
> must be re-imbursed all your costs under the contract, including
> postage/carriage. *This does not include the cost of return
> postage/carriage!* I.e. as quoted above, "Consumers can be required to
> pay
> the cost of returning the goods."
>
> In other words, the _seller_ must be in the same position as before
> he sent the goods out -- no profit nor loss, and the goods in his hand.

DSR do not apply in this case though.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: MC on
Fran wrote:

>
> "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
> news:xn0gsyfvo4pzqb002(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > But the courts will probably see it differently. I know because
> > I've done it.
> >
>
> Of course you have.

Would you be calling me a liar?

MC
From: MC on
Fran wrote:

>
> "Rob Morley" <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20100416133923.23fd37a0(a)bluemoon...
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:48:41 +0100
> >"Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fat lot of good that will do. Even if one files a SNAD return
> > > postage isn't refunded.
> > >
> > How could eBay refund something that wasn't part of the original
> > transaction? That still doesn't affect the buyer's rights under
> > SOGA.
>
> Which do not include return postage.

Yes they do.

MC
From: BMW Boy on

"MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
news:xn0gszdtxrqm4v002(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> Fran wrote:
>
>>
>> "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
>> news:xn0gsyfvo4pzqb002(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> > But the courts will probably see it differently. I know because
>> > I've done it.
>> >
>>
>> Of course you have.
>
> Would you be calling me a liar?

'FRAN'tic is a *known* troll.

would be wise to not give it *any* attention.. i.e. *plonk* it!


From: BMW Boy on

"Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote in message
news:hqapjb$kds$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Rob Morley" <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20100416214450.3d4f429d(a)bluemoon...
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:24:34 +0100
>> "Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rob Morley" <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20100416133923.23fd37a0(a)bluemoon...
>>> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:48:41 +0100
>>> > "Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Fat lot of good that will do. Even if one files a SNAD return
>>> >> postage isn't refunded.
>>> >>
>>> > How could eBay refund something that wasn't part of the original
>>> > transaction? That still doesn't affect the buyer's rights under
>>> > SOGA.
>>>
>>> Which do not include return postage.
>>>
>>>
>> They most certainly do. Are you confusing SOGA with DSR?
>
> Yes.

Thought so, plonker!


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Chinky in the clinky
Next: EBay Shill bidder prosecuted