From: Fran on

"Rob Morley" <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20100319113512.7409d2c6(a)bluemoon...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:48:54 +0000
> Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
>> RM has no contractual relationship with either the sender or the
>> buyer. Uniquely, their relationship is defined by statute rather than
>> by contract. That is why they are perfectly happy to accept claims
>> from either sender or (expected) recipient and treat both in the same
>> way.
>>
>> If the amount RM will refund will cover the cost of the item and as
>> they have already as much as admitted they will pay to the buyer a
>> pragmatic solution would seem to be for the buyer to claim directly.
>>
> I'm surprised RM doesn't prefer to compensate the seller for his cost
> than the buyer for his, presuming that a business seller has some
> profit and therefore his cost will be lower.
>

Quite. Especially as they only compensate you with the "manufacturing" cost
if you're a business, rather than cost plus profit.