From: Niel Humphreys on
"Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote in message
news:_0ydh.43634$Pk.43029(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:1165404601.808432.195700(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Sid wrote:
>>> I do, but i think it unwise and not useful to publish it here.
>>> actually on inspection, a refund is offered "if the item is
>>> misrepresented,
>>> but less postage costs" (I'm assuming he means postage both ways).
>>> Sid
>>
>> Setting aside DSR, this statement is clearly illegal as it restricts
>> the consumer's rights in respect of misrepresented or misdescribed
>> goods. The statement is void under the Unfair Contract Terms Act as
>> well as the unfair terms regulations, and it is also a criminal offence
>> to make statements like this (just like a 'no refunds' notice in a
>> shop).
>
> sadly it is endemic in ebay sellers that most use "not responsible for
> this and that...", i think ebay/uk should definitely take another look at
> this and force sellers to wake up to their responsibilties. it would make
> ebay a happy place all round.


No no no no, it makes more people buy from people like me who are more than
happy to step up to the plate when things go wrong. :)
--

Niel H


From: bcc97 on

Sid wrote:
> I think this has been answered in the thread before, but i can't find it
> now - does the buyer have to explicitely mention the DSR to exercise his
> rights under the DSR?
> if a buyer just states "i don't want this anymore", is that enough? I'm just
> thinking about where a mutual or a NPB would be appropriate from a sellers
> perspective.

There is no need to mention DSR.

Regulation 10(3) says

'For the purposes of these Regulations, a notice of cancellation is a
notice in writing or in another durable medium available and accessible
to the supplier (or to the other person to whom it is given) which,
however expressed, indicates the intention of the consumer to cancel
the contract.'

If, as a seller, you receive a message whose content is ambiguous, then
you should seek clarification. If you don't do so, a Court is more
likely to construe the message in the consumer's favour (i.e. as a
notice of cancellation).

From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:53:30 -0000, "nick"
<pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote:


>Or you could just be normal and move on...

What's normal about letting a business which ignores consumer law to
carry on doing so?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: Sid on

"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tnidqF14f274U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "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?

its about enforcing the buyers rights, not claiming that the seller
misdescribed or mislead the buyer

> 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.

it bothers me that most ebay sellers claim they are not responsible for lost
in the post, buyer pays return cost less outward shipping, less paypal and
ebay fees, etc
they get away with circumventing the law only because buyers put up with it.
the problem is so endemic on ebay it feeds on itself.
doesn't that bother your morality?
Sid


From: Alison Hopkins on

"Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote in message
news:7wydh.43640$Pk.27524(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:4tnidqF14f274U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>

>> 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?
>
> its about enforcing the buyers rights, not claiming that the seller
> misdescribed or mislead the buyer

Hm. There are rights, but also responsibilities. It may be an apparent
right, but does it make it morally right?

>
>> 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.
>
> it bothers me that most ebay sellers claim they are not responsible for
> lost in the post, buyer pays return cost less outward shipping, less
> paypal and ebay fees, etc
> they get away with circumventing the law only because buyers put up with
> it. the problem is so endemic on ebay it feeds on itself.
> doesn't that bother your morality?

Did I say it didn't?