A word of warning, was:- ER40 Backplate mounted chuck

Hi Mark,

I completely agree with you. I would just like to say what I am going
to below, to make sure that some people do not read your comments and
abuse the points you have raised by using them inconsiderately against
ALL sellers.

Just clarifying a few points...or rathar..adding grey areas...as,
although this issue seems to be genuine, unfortunately, we also see
some customers abuse a product and then start quoting SOG/Distant
Selling Act, Trading Standards, etc. So, if anyone is wrongfully
considering to persue such an issue, they should consider that WE the
traders are human too..

> I would suggest that since the price charged was not the price you confirmed
> (do you still have a copy of the original advert?), then you are entitled to
> reject the contract under the distance selling regulations on the grounds that
> they changed the price.

Agreed in principal. Factors to consider: age of advert, E&OE, can
contents of conversation be proved,

> and that they are required by those regulations to pay
> the return shipping and refund you. You need to reject the goods by snail mail
> or email within seven _working_ days of the day after delivery.

Again - Grey area: Seller is not required to refund cost of return
shipping if the customer does not like the product, or if the customer
does not find it fit for HIS/HER purpose, provided the product is
returned in the same state that it was sent, and, it is the buyers
responsibility to make sure that the product comes back to the seller.
If lost in transit, it is still the buyers responsibility. I would
challange Trading Standards on this point. However, in our case, for
U.K. sales, as a matter of reasonableness, if we agree with the
customers observation of problem with quality, we agree to refund the
cost of the return carriage, based on the mode of return the customer
and we agree to. Each issue has to be dealt on a case by case basis,
which is why Trading Standards have to be responsible too for what
they say. In Tims case, presuming he is correct with his observation,
we would have apoligised and refunded the difference. IN CERTAIN CASES
ONLY, even when we feel - but cannot prove - that a customer has
abused a product and returned it, we issue refunds, and in some of
these RARE cases, we refuse to make any further supply to them. This
is a difficult decision to make as we could be wrong too!

> This isn't a change of mind, that would require you to pay the return shipping
> if the goods were rejected.

Agreed, but some - minority - of customers still try it on..

> The goods are also not customised or made to your
> order,

Agreed

>so they cannot charge a re-stocking fee even if you had changed your
> mind. In so much as their contract contradicts this, it's against the law!

Ahhh yes, but there are ways around it...play on words...can't say
exactly what...perhaps along the lines of "handling fee"..can't
remember exactly now, but I do know that there is a sentence which
does comply with the law....even though we DONOT charge it.

> You may need to talk to the trading standards office at which ever town they
> shipped the items from to get some leverage.
>
> This was a retail/private sale and not a business sale wasn't it?
>
> http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/102.cfm
>
> PS
> IANAL :-)
>
> Mark Rand
> RTFM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Posted by Peter Fairbrother on February 14, 2008, 8:46 am

Please log in for more thread options

Ketan Swali wrote:

> Again - Grey area: Seller is not required to refund cost of return
> shipping if the customer does not like the product, or if the customer
> does not find it fit for HIS/HER purpose,

depends - if the customer has told the seller what his purpose is then
the seller must refund shipping.

provided the product is

> returned in the same state that it was sent, and, it is the buyers
> responsibility to make sure that the product comes back to the seller.

Note the rejection under the Sale of Goods Act is *not* the same as
exercising any rights to reject/return goods under the Distance Selling
Regulations. SoGA always applies, DSR only applies when the sale is made
at a distance.

In general the customer does not have to give any reason for rejecting
goods under DSR, but must give a reason for rejecting goods under SoGA.

If the goods are rejected under the DSR then the seller may collect or
retain the actual cost of return carriage, or require the customer to
return the goods - but he may not charge a restocking fee or the like.
He has to refund the cost of goods and forward carriage within 30 days,
and cannot insist on a credit note instead.

Obn the other hand, if the goods are rejected under SoGA, eg as being
not as described, or unfit for purpose, then at most it is the buyer's
responsibility to ensure that the product is available for collection by
the seller.

In these circumstances the buyer is under no obligation to provide
return transport, and is only under a "reasonable" duty to keep the
goods secure and in good condition awaiting collection, for a
"reasonable" time.

Fair? I dunno, but that's the law. It doesn't seem too bad for either party.

> If lost in transit, it is still the buyers responsibility.

That depends many other things, including whether SoGA or DSR (or both!)
apply, and it can be tricky. SoGA usually trumps DSR if there is a conflict.

I would

> challenge Trading Standards on this point. However, in our case, for
> U.K. sales, as a matter of reasonableness,

Good, that's the best way to do it - everyone gets things wrong or
muddled from time to time, and reasonableness keeps the customers
satisfied - whether or not they are going to buy anything else from you,
annoyed customers can affect your reputation.

if we agree with the

> customers observation of problem with quality, we agree to refund the
> cost of the return carriage, based on the mode of return the customer
> and we agree to. Each issue has to be dealt on a case by case basis,
> which is why Trading Standards have to be responsible too for what
> they say. In Tims case, presuming he is correct with his observation,
> we would have apoligised and refunded the difference. IN CERTAIN CASES
> ONLY, even when we feel - but cannot prove - that a customer has
> abused a product and returned it, we issue refunds, and in some of
> these RARE cases, we refuse to make any further supply to them. This
> is a difficult decision to make as we could be wrong too!

Indeed, it ain't easy.

-- Peter Fairbrother

Posted by Peter Parry on February 14, 2008, 1:19 pm

Please log in for more thread options

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:20:00 -0800 (PST), Ketan Swali

>> and that they are required by those regulations to pay
>> the return shipping and refund you. You need to reject the goods by snail mail
>> or email within seven _working_ days of the day after delivery.

>
>Again - Grey area: Seller is not required to refund cost of return
>shipping if the customer does not like the product, or if the customer
>does not find it fit for HIS/HER purpose, provided the product is
>returned in the same state that it was sent,

Assuming it's a consumer contract _only_ if the seller has complied
with SI 2000 No. 2334 and told the customer beforehand that he will
be responsible for return costs. If the supplier fails to provide
_all_ the information required in S8 of SI2000 then the seller is
responsible for collecting their goods at their cost, the buyer is not
even under any obligation to return them.

In this case Chester have failed to supply the required information by
attempting to charge an illegal restocking fee so all the cost are
entirely down to them. In such a situation the buyer also has 3
months and seven days to cancel the contract, not just 7 working days
from the day after receipt of the goods.

Actually Chester T'c&C's (assuming the pdf on their web site is the
current version) are remarkably ineptly written and transgress the law
for consumer contracts in several places. It's a long time since I've
come across a company trying to disclaim responsibility for death or
personal injury ("damages to the customer") something which has been
explicitly banned since 1977. They also try to claim that their
written specifications of the machine do not form part of the contract
(Explicitly negated by SOGA S142(D)).

>and, it is the buyers
>responsibility to make sure that the product comes back to the seller.
>If lost in transit, it is still the buyers responsibility.

No it is the sellers responsibility. The buyer has only to take
"reasonable care" to ensure they are not lost or damaged in transit so
if they packed them reasonably and used a normal delivery means such
as the Post Office risk passes to the seller as soon as they are given
to the carrier. The buyer doesn't have to insure the package against
loss.

(" if [the buyer] sends the goods in accordance with paragraph (5)(b)
[by post], he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see
that they are received by the supplier and not damaged in transit, but
in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease when
he sends them.")

> I would challange Trading Standards on this point.

You would lose, just as others have lost when they tried.

>>so they cannot charge a re-stocking fee even if you had changed your
>> mind. In so much as their contract contradicts this, it's against the law!

>Ahhh yes, but there are ways around it...play on words...can't say
>exactly what...perhaps along the lines of "handling fee"..can't
>remember exactly now, but I do know that there is a sentence which
>does comply with the law....even though we DONOT charge it.

There is no such sentence and no fee can be charged over and above the
_direct_ cost of recovering the goods if the customer was
contractually bound to return them and failed to do so. You are
required to refund the full cost paid including outbound postage from
you to the seller.

"14. - (1) On the cancellation of a contract under regulation 10, the
supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the consumer
under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom it was made
free of any charge, less any charge made in accordance with paragraph
(5)."

(Paragraph 5 refers to the customer not returning the goods)

Posted by Mark Rand on February 13, 2008, 4:12 am

Please log in for more thread options

wrote:

PPS:-

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Mark Rand
RTFM

Posted by Allan Waterfall on February 13, 2008, 4:15 am

Please log in for more thread options

Tim Leech Wrote:

> [color=blue]
>
> I've spoken to the card co., & unfortunately they say they can't do
> anything because there's nothing in writing. Any suggestions?
> OK, it's not megabucks, but it's made me extremely angry, especially
> the attitude of the senior sales guy. I got the impression that he is
> well practiced in dealing with unhappy customers.
>
> Tim

Beats me how Chesters stay in business with their attitude to
customers.

I bought a 626 mill from them a while ago and returned it for a
refund.It probably worked when they imported it,but I asked for a three
phase motor and they fitted one but the belt pulleys wouldn't line
up.They also fitted a Newall Dro and left two lovely pyramids of cast
iron dust on the ways where they'd drilled and tapped the bed.There were
also several other things wrong with it that were their doing.

They didn't want to return calls either.

Allan

--
Allan Waterfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Waterfall's Profile: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=52672
View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=817920

Similar Threads	Posted
D13 backplate	June 12, 2008, 5:18 am
Reducing noise from cabinet mounted motors	May 2, 2008, 5:04 am
The Proof as animals are skinned alive. SHOCK - Calls for China fur ban as animal cruelty exposed . - GRAPHIC WARNING!! HELP.	August 21, 2006, 4:30 pm
Help with Myford chuck	February 5, 2008, 2:00 pm
Perpetual Wax Chuck	April 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Cleaning 3-jaw chuck	May 28, 2008, 8:25 pm
FYI- odd chuck jaws on ebay	May 9, 2008, 1:52 pm
Grinding chuck jaws	May 15, 2008, 1:53 pm
ER32 Collet Chuck	May 23, 2008, 1:46 am
Removing a reluctant chuck from an ML7	June 10, 2008, 7:22 pm

XML Sitemap