From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:
> Basically that is it. The contract of sale has no reference to
> shipping, only to collection. The buyer is more than welcome to make
> their own arrangements and many do. If the buyer requests it the
> seller will make quite separate arrangements with a shipping company
> (which they may own) under a service contract, where they act as the
> agent of the buyer not as the seller, for shipping. The shipping is
> invoiced from a different company on a different date. It isn't at
> all underhand and at that level of purchasing buyers understand why
> sellers need to do it.
> --

OK, I can see how that might work in the example you have described.
But this doesn't necessarily translate to all types of sellers and
goods -- even if they set up a separate shipping company to try to
evade DSR. I think that the facts around the contract would be just as
important as the stated terms and stated contractual
arrangements/parties in determining whether it really is a separate
contract for the provision of services.

In your example, you say that the buyer is welcome to make their own
arrangements and many do. This would be factual evidence to support
the 'separate contract' idea. But merely saying 'we can arrange
delivery but you're welcome to collect' would in other cases be a sham,
perhaps evidenced by the fact that few, or no, consumers actually do
collect. For example, if an online CD retailer tried to make this
argument, it would clearly be a sham, because it would generally be too
inconvenient and expensive for the buyer even to consider collecting --
they might just as well shop in the high street.

From: Alison Hopkins on

"bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
news:1165397435.065046.142350(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Of course, if Sid views himself as a charitable organisation whose
> objective is to prop up the profits of sellers who ignore the law, then
> he should just follow your advice, relist it and swallow the loss.
> Because of the nature of clothing, all reputable mail order clothing
> companies allowed returns before they were required to do so by law. I
> doubt that Sid will use this seller again.
>

Bad form and all. I do think you are conflating two different arguments
here. Mail order clothing companies allowed returns - and built the cost of
them in - in order to increase business. Fair enough.

Now, from what Sid has said, I can't see why he'd not use the seller again.
His wife made a mistake - why is this the seller's fault? You're also
assuming that the seller is running a business.

Ali


From: Niel Humphreys on
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tnhstF14ekh6U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:1165397435.065046.142350(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>>
>> Your original criticism of Marcus was that he was using DSR for
>> something which it wasn't intended to cover (I actually disagree, and I
>> think that the matter was similar to the scenario which Peter Parry has
>> described here -- misleading, whether or not illegal). Here, Sid wants
>> to use the DSR for something which, even by your admission, it was
>> intended to cover. Are you really saying that he shouldn't use it,
>> even in these situations?
>>
>
> If it's a business, then it's legal enough, so it's up to him what he does
> and he must make the decision. If it isn't, then no.
>
> But I do still think that there is an obligation on buyers to check what
> they are doing. What gets forgotten in all of this is that returns on the
> basis of I-don't-like-or-want-it cost businesses - online or whatever -
> money. Often, the goods are not saleable as new, and there is also the
> return cost. Now, in the end, guess who actually pays for all the returns?
> And yes, the other side of it is that if you *do* have a decent returns
> policy, it may get you more business.
>
> I tend to live with the results of my own mistakes. Others may choose not
> to. Their choice. But there are always consequences, which I wish people
> would think through. (Not aimed at the OP, by the way, he sounds pretty
> sensible. If I were him, I'd relist the thing.)


Absolutely.
--

Niel H


From: Niel Humphreys on
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tnhstF14ekh6U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:1165397435.065046.142350(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>>
>> Your original criticism of Marcus was that he was using DSR for
>> something which it wasn't intended to cover (I actually disagree, and I
>> think that the matter was similar to the scenario which Peter Parry has
>> described here -- misleading, whether or not illegal). Here, Sid wants
>> to use the DSR for something which, even by your admission, it was
>> intended to cover. Are you really saying that he shouldn't use it,
>> even in these situations?
>>
>
> If it's a business, then it's legal enough, so it's up to him what he does
> and he must make the decision. If it isn't, then no.
>
> But I do still think that there is an obligation on buyers to check what
> they are doing. What gets forgotten in all of this is that returns on the
> basis of I-don't-like-or-want-it cost businesses - online or whatever -
> money. Often, the goods are not saleable as new, and there is also the
> return cost. Now, in the end, guess who actually pays for all the returns?
> And yes, the other side of it is that if you *do* have a decent returns
> policy, it may get you more business.
>
> I tend to live with the results of my own mistakes. Others may choose not
> to. Their choice. But there are always consequences, which I wish people
> would think through. (Not aimed at the OP, by the way, he sounds pretty
> sensible. If I were him, I'd relist the thing.)


Absolutely, it is not really fair that seller gets stiffed because the buyer
has made the mistake or changes their mind on a whim.
--

Niel H



From: Alison Hopkins on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:c73dn2dpufqsvs9am8tvga9ieakbbv1m8v(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:24:57 GMT, "Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam>
> wrote:
>

>
>>my
>>advice to her was the seller hasn't mislead her and she should have been
>>more careful. but i think now my advice was incorrect??
>
> It may have been right or wrong. If the sale was a private sale it
> was correct. If the seller was trading it wasn't. If you come up
> against a seller who continues to insist they are private sellers
> despite evidence to the contrary then apart from taking it to a court
> (quite simple using moneyclaim online) there isn't much you can do.

Hang on. (And again, not a dig at PP, who I respect greatly. Or Sid.) If Sid
thinks his wife dropped a bollock, and wasn't mislead, how can it be right,
moral or ethical to take this to court?

Maybe this is an old fart moment: but I do read much of these threads as
symptomatic of the whole compensation culture thing. "Ooops, made a mistake,
better get someone else to pay for it." As I said, that isn't aimed at
either of these chaps, but I think it's being ignored. This all seems to be
about the legality, not the morality.

Ali