From: Alison Hopkins on

"bcc97" <bcc98(a)> wrote in message
> Alison Hopkins wrote:
>> I think he knows far more than you do, as you have so ably demonstrated
>> by
>> your total inability to read a listing
> The OP admitted that he'd not read the listing properly. But that
> doesn't excuse the seller 'setting a trap' (in the OP's words) -- i.e.
> deliberately drawing buyers in, using a VAT-exclusive price, and then
> hoping that at least some of them miss the statement about the true
> price.

I'm not convinced it was a trap - and I did go and read the listing.
Carefully. <grin> But then, I always read them carefully.

>> I think you, as the one who is trying to evade his duty, are the cornered
>> one.
> The OP has cancelled, as is his right in law. He now has no duty
> whatsoever towards the seller, except perhaps the moral duty to
> co-operate in the 'cancelled by mutual agreement' process.

Maybe no legal duty, but I strongly believe he has a moral one far beyond
the one you are citing.


From: bcc97 on

Marcus Redd wrote:
> the text from the last email I received from him:
> "Educate yourself with distance selling, as they do not apply to auction
> site. Your account will be file for non-payment. Negative feedback works
> both ways. End of communication do not email me unless you have something
> constructive to say."

Sounds like a matter for Trading Standards, who might be able to
'educate' the seller about distance selling. Assuming that the seller
is not willing to educate himself, for example by reading the OFT/DTI
guidance (which, among other things, makes it perfectly clear that the
regulations apply to Buy It Now items on internet 'auction' sites like

From: Lord Edam de Fromage on
In article <el3o3j$db5$1(a)>, nospam(a)

> > and there are problems with
> > this related to the timescales for refunds & returns - specifically the
> > latest time for refund being before the latest time for return of goods)
> Agreed, a good point that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you have a
> proposal?

The only solution, as the problem lies within the DSR themselves, is to
re-write the DSR. However, this means switching things round so that
refunds are not made until goods are returned, which removes one of the
fundamental aspects of all consumer protection legislation - risk
remains with the seller.

From: Lord Edam de Fromage on
In article <4575690d$0$5478$9a6e19ea(a)>,
read(a) says...

> >> Asking about cancelling and actually exercising your right to cancel
> >> aren't the same thing.
> Strewth, that's splitting hairs.

No, it isn't. In one, you have clearly exercised your right to cancel
under DSR. In the other, you have merely offered the seller an
opportunity to remedy the problem, with cancellation being your prefered

If my wife asks if I would agree to make
> her a cup of tea, I put the kettle on. Anything else would be childish. But
> he's saying that I should have said "I hereby cancel"?

No, "he" (that is, me, the person you don't actually want to reply to,
so you hide behind someone else's quotes) is saying you should make it
clear you are cancelling under DSR. this isn't something I think you
should be, it's something you are required to do. Unambiguous statement
and all that.

> >> If the seller had replied immediately "I'll sell
> >> it for the original price" the buyer very probably would not have
> >> cancelled (nor started his threads about the sale where he discovered
> >> the other problems with the listing).
> Yeeeees... I don't see how that's important.

It demonstrates why an unambiguous statement of intent is required if
you want to exercise your right to cancel under DSR.

> Yeah. Although I don't deserver either the neg or the strike.

Actually, you *do* deserve the neg. If you'd read the auction before
clicking you wouldn't have clicked. Other sellers need to know that you
are a buyer who acts before reading the listing. This makes you a
potentially troublesome buyer.

No doubt the
> seller-nazis here will disagree, but they'll be wrong, and I've got all the
> "important" (hehe) ones kf-ed anyway.

"if they don't agree with me I don't want to listen to them"
From: bcc97 on

Alison Hopkins wrote:

> Maybe no legal duty, but I strongly believe he has a moral one far beyond
> the one you are citing.

Yes, on second thoughts, I'd agree. The buyer's moral duty also
extends to notifying the seller of his decision to cancel as soon as
he's made that decision and particularly if he'd already made payment,
so as to save the seller any postage costs.

But beyond this, nothing. The seller offers goods for sale and enters
into a contract in full knowledge that it is cancellable (or if he
doesn't have that knowledge, he needs to educate himself as
appropriate). No cause for complaint, legally or morally, if the buyer
exercises their legal rights. If the seller doesn't like it, perhaps
they should set up a high street shop instead.

I suppose you'll also be arguing that, if the goods were delivered
faulty, the buyer would have a moral duty not to complain, because it
would cost the seller to refund/replace/pay damages?