x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

Thousands of shopping websites 'could be breaking law'
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5046		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  pcernie [ Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Thousands of shopping websites 'could be breaking law'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8421714.stm

Quote:
Which? is warning retailers to make sure they comply with what are known as the Distance Selling regulations - such as tie to return sold goods.

A Which? survey last month claimed that several well-known names, including Marks and Spencer and Game, didn't fully comply with regulations.

Both companies have since altered the wording on their websites, although both deny that they ever broke the law.


It's worth reading the whole article if you're curious about your rights in this regard ;)
Author:  Coref [ Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thousands of shopping websites 'could be breaking law'
As could the PC & electronics companies who sell PCs and then refuse to touch them (unless paid) after 366 days. It's a grey area but I've heard of people going to court successfully saying that you should expect good to last for >1 year and therefore they aren't fit for purpose.
Author:  Linux_User [ Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thousands of shopping websites 'could be breaking law'
Coref wrote:
As could the PC & electronics companies who sell PCs and then refuse to touch them (unless paid) after 366 days. It's a grey area but I've heard of people going to court successfully saying that you should expect good to last for >1 year and therefore they aren't fit for purpose.


Depends, up to the Courts really. The current liability period is up to 6 years. However, up to 6 months after purchase it would be up to the retailer to prove that the goods were not inherently faulty, after 6 months the burden of proof switches to the consumer (to prove the goods were faulty and should have lasted for longer). If faulty the retailer must offer a repair, replacement or refund (depending on what is the most acceptable/economical).

If you can't manage to agree on a course of action with the retailer than you have to sue them in the civil courts, it will then be up to the court to decide what remedy, if any, is suitable.

These all come under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

However, this is all set to change within the next few years with the incoming Consumer Rights Directive, which will change the liability period to a guaranteed 2 year period (but no more than that). This Directive will be a maximum harmonisation Directive too, which doesn't give Westminster the scope to extend the liability period either.
Author:  veato [ Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thousands of shopping websites 'could be breaking law'
Coref wrote:
As could the PC & electronics companies who sell PCs and then refuse to touch them (unless paid) after 366 days. It's a grey area but I've heard of people going to court successfully saying that you should expect good to last for >1 year and therefore they aren't fit for purpose.


I returned a (just under) two year old camera. The shop couldnt believe I was stupid enough to bring it back as they only gave you '1 year' and I'd have to go back to manufacturer.

Wrong!

Got it all sorted the same day minus a 10% fair use fee per annum of ownership - which I think was fair.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/