From: eBaywatchdog on
petrolcan wrote:

> Last week I bought a s/hand lens from a business seller and when it
> arrived it was NAD. Lens was full of dust and there was a scratch on the
> front optic.
>
> Contacted seller and sent back on promise of full refund.
>
> Refund comes today and is for the price of the lens minus the P+P I
> paid.
>
> Am I correct in thinking that I am entitled to my P+P back or do I
> swallow that as a loss alongside the cost of me returning the lens?

If you purchased from a business trader and the items purchased as new
with Buy It Now and you returned them within 7 days, you're entitled to a
full refund including postage & packaging, by law under the Distance
Selling Regulations (2000).


From: Peter Crosland on
"eBaywatchdog" <news(a)ebaywatchdog.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8LUMn.95825$Oo7.40289(a)newsfe10.ams2...
> petrolcan wrote:
>
>> Last week I bought a s/hand lens from a business seller and when it
>> arrived it was NAD. Lens was full of dust and there was a scratch on the
>> front optic.
>>
>> Contacted seller and sent back on promise of full refund.
>>
>> Refund comes today and is for the price of the lens minus the P+P I
>> paid.
>>
>> Am I correct in thinking that I am entitled to my P+P back or do I
>> swallow that as a loss alongside the cost of me returning the lens?
>
> If you purchased from a business trader and the items purchased as new
> with Buy It Now and you returned them within 7 days, you're entitled to a
> full refund including postage & packaging, by law under the Distance
> Selling Regulations (2000).


Wrong! Nothing to do with the DSRs but in fact the Sale of Goods Act. The
trader is responsible for the costs of return and must refund the full price
paid including carriage. PayPal will try and wriggle out of this but if
pressed will refund the costs.

Peter Crosland


From: petrolcan on
In article <8LUMn.95825$Oo7.40289(a)newsfe10.ams2>, eBaywatchdog says...
>
> petrolcan wrote:
>
> > Last week I bought a s/hand lens from a business seller and when it
> > arrived it was NAD. Lens was full of dust and there was a scratch on the
> > front optic.
> >
> > Contacted seller and sent back on promise of full refund.
> >
> > Refund comes today and is for the price of the lens minus the P+P I
> > paid.
> >
> > Am I correct in thinking that I am entitled to my P+P back or do I
> > swallow that as a loss alongside the cost of me returning the lens?
>
> If you purchased from a business trader and the items purchased as new
> with Buy It Now

If you bothered to read my original query you would see that it is a
secondhand item to which I refer.

> and you returned them within 7 days, you're entitled to a
> full refund including postage & packaging, by law under the Distance
> Selling Regulations (2000).

Not in this case.
From: petrolcan on
In article <mb6dnU28ftRfgpnRnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk>, Peter
Crosland says...
>
> "eBaywatchdog" <news(a)ebaywatchdog.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:8LUMn.95825$Oo7.40289(a)newsfe10.ams2...
> > petrolcan wrote:
> >
> >> Last week I bought a s/hand lens from a business seller and when it
> >> arrived it was NAD. Lens was full of dust and there was a scratch on the
> >> front optic.
> >>
> >> Contacted seller and sent back on promise of full refund.
> >>
> >> Refund comes today and is for the price of the lens minus the P+P I
> >> paid.
> >>
> >> Am I correct in thinking that I am entitled to my P+P back or do I
> >> swallow that as a loss alongside the cost of me returning the lens?
> >
> > If you purchased from a business trader and the items purchased as new
> > with Buy It Now and you returned them within 7 days, you're entitled to a
> > full refund including postage & packaging, by law under the Distance
> > Selling Regulations (2000).
>
>
> Wrong! Nothing to do with the DSRs but in fact the Sale of Goods Act. The
> trader is responsible for the costs of return and must refund the full price
> paid including carriage. PayPal will try and wriggle out of this but if
> pressed will refund the costs.

I haven't gone through paypal as yet. I'm dealing directly with the
seller and hoping to sort things out that way.

I'm hoping I will get it sorted as I buy about six items a year from
this particular seller.

From: Peter Parry on
On Mon, 31 May 2010 18:36:07 +0100, petrolcan
<petrolcan(a)SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>
>Am I correct in thinking that I am entitled to my P+P back or do I
>swallow that as a loss alongside the cost of me returning the lens?

You are correct. Upon receipt, you examined them as is your right
under the Sale of Goods Act S35 (2)

"Where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he has not previously
examined them, he is not deemed to have accepted them under subsection
(1) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them
for the purpose-
(a) of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the
contract,..."

The goods were not in conformity with the contract so instead of
accepting them you rejected them. The effect of rejection is to make
the contract void, it is as if it had not happened. The seller must
refund all your money and arrange for their goods to be collected. If
you have returned the goods uninvited they must reimburse you costs
but need pay no more than it would have cost them to recover the goods
(Usually though this will be more than you paid).

"S36 Buyer not bound to return rejected goods
Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and
he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound
to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to
the seller that he refuses to accept them. "

In addition to rejecting the goods you may also claim damages under
S53 for any direct costs you have suffered by the sellers failure to
supply goods in conformance with the contract.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp188.pdf

is a good description of the law.