DSR Question

scratch said:
I think it's you that needs to get the clue buddy and stop being so condescending at the same time..even your link contradicts what you're saying!
Click to expand...

If the other poster chooses to respond to me in a derogatory fashion he can expect it back.

And as per the quote.

The purpose of the DSRs is to allow customers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods, then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods.
Click to expand...

Since when does a graphics card require opening the packaging? This is not a piece of clothing you have to check the size of. It's an expensive bit of hardware at risk of damage if incorrectly handled/installed. So no, using it in a system is not taking reasonable care nor is it justified.
 
The only legal requirement under DSR is that you make the goods available for collection by the retailer. Tbh you can do what you like for 7 days it will then be up to the retailer to claim for any costs involved with collecting goods or damaged goods.

Taking reasonable care is only a recommendation and is not a legal requirement. In all cases it is up to the retailer to prove that reasonable care was not taken and then make any claims.

Under the DSRs, when a customer cancels a contract but has already received the goods, they are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods and to return them to you. However, this only means that they have to make them available for collection by you from their premises, following a request from you in writing or on a durable medium available and accessible to the customer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
norm said:
If the other poster chooses to respond to me in a derogatory fashion he can expect it back.

And as per the quote.



Since when does a graphics card require opening the packaging? This is not a piece of clothing you have to check the size of. It's an expensive bit of hardware at risk of damage if incorrectly handled/installed. So no, using it in a system is not taking reasonable care nor is it justified.
Click to expand...

It makes no odds if it is a graphics card or even a car if you have bought it through distance selling the same rules apply.

It is quite clearly stated in the link you provided about testing items.

DSRs do not link cancellation rights with your ability to resell items as new. Unless the item falls under the cancellation exemption , customers can cancel a contract and return the goods to you even if they have opened and tested the goods and, as a result, you are unable to resell them.
Click to expand...
 
Of course there is another side to all of this.

Previously manufacturers could make all sorts of claims about products. Until you actually used the product, you had no real idea how true this was. Often the claims were subtle and subjective - we'll pick graphics cards shall we - I remember once having an Abit card with 'SILENT OTES!!!' cooling. It was about as far from silent as you were likely to get.

Prior to the DSR, unless you embarked on an expensive SOGA case against the retailer, who frankly wasn't even to blame for what was on the box of the manufacturers product but legally was, then that was that. You were stuck with the product even though it wasn't what you were expecting or led to beleive.

Now, with the DSR, manufacturers cannot get away with this. If they advertise a 'SILENT' graphics card and you whack it in your PC and it's not, then what used to be a subjective argument is now irrelevent. You can simply DSR it and buy something else.

Sadly it's a shame that the retailer is stuck in the middle, because in almost all cases like this - and there are many - it wasn't the retailers fault.
 
So is the retailer responsible for refunding the return postage as well, as this seems implied earlier in the thread?

I have DSR'd back to OCuk and only received the cost of the product, the return postage was on me.
 
They have to state at the time of sale who covers return post costs under DSR. It is still up to the retailer to arrange collection of any items being returned under DSR, but if they have stated that DSR returns are to be covered by the buyer at the time of sale, they will have to make a claim to have these costs recovered.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
So is the retailer responsible for refunding the return postage as well, as this seems implied earlier in the thread?

I have DSR'd back to OCuk and only received the cost of the product, the return postage was on me.
Click to expand...

The retailer is responsible for refunding the return postage *if* they don't state the customer is responsible in the T&C's.

OcUK do state this, so are not responsible for return postage.
 
MOOGLEYS said:
It makes no odds if it is a graphics card or even a car if you have bought it through distance selling the same rules apply.

DSRs do not link cancellation rights with your ability to resell items as new. Unless the item falls under the cancellation exemption , customers can cancel a contract and return the goods to you even if they have opened and tested the goods and, as a result, you are unable to resell them.
Click to expand...

It is quite clearly stated in the link you provided about testing items.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact if they've opened it and tested it and that's determined to be a breach of reasonable care, the seller could seek damages.
 
norm said:
Doesn't change the fact if they've opened it and tested it and that's determined to be a breach of reasonable care, the seller could seek damages.
Click to expand...

But it won't be determined to be a breach of reasonable care, so thats irrelevent. If it was returned with the fan hanging off, that would be determined a breach of reasonable care.
 
[TW]Fox;23685050 said:
But it won't be determined to be a breach of reasonable care, so thats irrelevent. If it was returned with the fan hanging off, that would be determined a breach of reasonable care.
Click to expand...

Well that would be up to a judge to determine so you couldn't say.

Is it reasonable to walk into a shop and start unboxing graphics cards and using them? No. So I don't see how the DSR changes that. It's not meant as a 7 day home trial.

Yes in all likelihood what the OP is proposing he could get away with, doesn't make it right however.
 
Castiel said:
So is the retailer responsible for refunding the return postage as well, as this seems implied earlier in the thread?

I have DSR'd back to OCuk and only received the cost of the product, the return postage was on me.
Click to expand...

you should have received the initial postage if you DSR'd the entire order, but not return postage since ocuk state it's your responsibility in their T&Cs, and this is allowed.
 
[TW]Fox;23684991 said:
The retailer is responsible for refunding the return postage *if* they don't state the customer is responsible in the T&C's.

OcUK do state this, so are not responsible for return postage.
Click to expand...

That's ok. I don't mind paying as it was my decision to return, I was just wondering. I assume returns for defects you get back the postage?
 
norm said:
Doesn't change the fact if they've opened it and tested it and that's determined to be a breach of reasonable care, the seller could seek damages.
Click to expand...

Opening and testing it CANNOT be classed as a breach of reasonable care. The regulations clearly state that a buyer is fully entitled to open and test the product within the eyes of the law.

As Fox says, if the product is damaged as part of the testing process then the retailer is entitled to some recourse via the courts, but that can only be dealt with after the retailer has refunded the buyer.

You can interpret the wording however you like but it's pretty black and white. You're the only one arguing your point here..maybe it's time to realise that you are wrong!
 
scratch said:
Opening and testing it CANNOT be classed as a breach of reasonable care. The regulations clearly state that a buyer is fully entitled to open and test the product within the eyes of the law.

As Fox says, if the product is damaged as part of the testing process then the retailer is entitled to some recourse via the courts, but that can only be dealt with after the retailer has refunded the buyer.

You're the only one arguing your point here..maybe it's time to realise that you are wrong!
Click to expand...

I've been trying to type that for awhile, but couldn't do it diplomatically.

AFAIK no DSR return has ever been challenged, not that I have gone looking for a case.
 
Castiel said:
That's ok. I don't mind paying as it was my decision to return, I was just wondering. I assume returns for defects you get back the postage?
Click to expand...

yes, in that case you do. Ime ocuk need prompting for that but they don't try and get out of it. But they haven't volunteered it, either.
 
norm said:
Well that would be up to a judge to determine so you couldn't say.

Is it reasonable to walk into a shop and start unboxing graphics cards and using them? No. So I don't see how the DSR changes that. It's not meant as a 7 day home trial.

Yes in all likelihood what the OP is proposing he could get away with, doesn't make it right however.
Click to expand...

DSR was added as an extra to the sale of goods act to allow you to try items you would not have viewed in a shop.

Anything you buy in a shop is covered by the "Sale of goods act" anything you buy online is covered by the "Sale of goods act" and the "Distance selling regulations".

So you cannot really compare your rights when you walk into a shop compared to your rights when you distance buy.
 
Section 17 paragraph (2) says nothing of the sort, it simply says there is an obligation to take reasonable care. At no point does it define reasonable care.

Using an item does not, by its nature, mean you have not taken reasonable care of it.
 
[TW]Fox;23685251 said:
Section 17 paragraph (2) says nothing of the sort, it simply says there is an obligation to take reasonable care. At no point does it define reasonable care.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was pointing out to Scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom