From: Sid on

"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tnrd0F14gg07U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "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?

people have different morals so the answer is yes and no, just depends on
who you ask. a good reason for having the DSR.

>>> 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?

of course not, i am merely pointing out the thin lines and slippery slopes
between all of the above.
Sid


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:29:13 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
<fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:


>"Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote

>> 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?

In this case, clearly it does. The seller is selling thousands of
items and clearly a trader. As such they have certain legal
responsibilities.

This seller is either profoundly ignorant of those responsibility or
is trying to evade them, we don't know which.

If the buyer does nothing then the buyer suffers the loss. If the
goods are returned to the seller because the label and the size are
mismatched the seller can obtain recompense from the manufacturer or
distributor, the buyer cannot. If it keeps happening it encourages
the seller to find a more reliable supplier and everyone benefits.

There is no legal or moral argument for allowing a seller who is
denying their customers their lawful rights to continue to do so. If
they are doing it by mistake they should be thankful that someone has
pointed out the error of their ways. If they are doing it
deliberately they deserve to be poked with a pointy stick.


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

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:01fdn2h4v3rlmoeuut4b4sd60v8mjkbc54(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:29:13 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
> <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote
>
>>> 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?
>
> In this case, clearly it does. The seller is selling thousands of
> items and clearly a trader. As such they have certain legal
> responsibilities.
>
> This seller is either profoundly ignorant of those responsibility or
> is trying to evade them, we don't know which.
>
> If the buyer does nothing then the buyer suffers the loss. If the
> goods are returned to the seller because the label and the size are
> mismatched the seller can obtain recompense from the manufacturer or
> distributor, the buyer cannot. If it keeps happening it encourages
> the seller to find a more reliable supplier and everyone benefits.
>
> There is no legal or moral argument for allowing a seller who is
> denying their customers their lawful rights to continue to do so. If
> they are doing it by mistake they should be thankful that someone has
> pointed out the error of their ways. If they are doing it
> deliberately they deserve to be poked with a pointy stick.
>

If the truth of the matter is as you have laid out, then I'd (mostly) agree.
It's not in line with what the OP originally stated, of course. (Which isn't
a dig at him. )

Ali


From: Phil Launchbury on
In article <1165399259.148523.270220(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, antonye wrote:
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>> They might. Marcus, meet ukrm. Ukrm, meet Marcus.
>
> Anyone coming from upce really isn't going to be up
> for the challenge, are they?

Oh I dunno - they might provide a second or so in light entertainment
value..

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
From: Alison Hopkins on

"Phil Launchbury" <phill(a)launchbury.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnendfta.u6j.phill(a)tabby.launchbury.org.uk...
> In article <1165399259.148523.270220(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, antonye
> wrote:
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>
>>> They might. Marcus, meet ukrm. Ukrm, meet Marcus.
>>
>> Anyone coming from upce really isn't going to be up
>> for the challenge, are they?
>
> Oh I dunno - they might provide a second or so in light entertainment
> value..
>
> Phil
>

It's a bit like cats with toys. Play for a few moments, then they get bored.

Ali