Wrong gpu sent!

[HeX]

does that make sense to u? certainly not to me. what ever the code this etailer quotes, the card still comes in with its package and anyone who is not blind should be able to tell the difference. simple as that

You're missing the point. The customer isn't liable for the retailers mistakes.

In this case the customer never even noticed it was the wrong card (easy enough to do if you're not into your PC components, and the fact that the 7850 and 7870 packaging is nigh on identical), and even if they did, tough nuts to the retailer.

The customer actually offered them a reasonable way to return the card that wouldn't leave him out of pocket or inconvenienced, the retailer refused. So again, not the customers problem.

The retailer wanted to inconvenience the customer not once, but twice (first sending him the wrong card and expecting him to then take it back out and return it, and then again by making him wait a week for the correct card to be sent out), and leave him out of pocket (installation fee, removal fee, and installation fee again!).

End of the day the retailer got it wrong, and the customer shouldn't have to jump through hoops to fix their mistakes.

 

[Davepen]

So they charged him £40 to fit it, and want to charge £20 to come and swap it.....

Who are these people? Why didn't you fit it for him?

More over, why the heck didn't he fit it himself?!?!?!?

 

[djkav]

Who are these people? Why didn't you fit it for him?

Cos the OP lives 200 miles away from his cousin (its in the thread)

More over, why the heck didn't he fit it himself?!?!?!?

Maybe its because of his disability (also in the thread)

 

[FreeStream]

So they charged him £40 to fit it, and want to charge £20 to come and swap it.....

Who are these people? Why didn't you fit it for him?

More over, why the heck didn't he fit it himself?!?!?!?

I suggest you read the thread instead of the first few and the last few posts...

If you order something from an on-line retailer and they send the wrong item (regardless of why it is wrong be it the wrong colour, size or model whatever) you can reject the item under distance selling regulation but you don't have to, this also implies that you can accept the item. By keeping the card he accepted the item. The retailer has no right to ask for the item back or demand payment for the item and they certainly cannot charge your credit card for it, that is fraud and is a criminal offence.

So your telling me you make the delivery man wait for you to open everything up to check it is all correct?

And then if it IS wrong, you've opened the package, so he has to wait for you to repackage it?

Yea. Right. That is going to happen.

Etailors mistake. Pure and simple.

 

[andybird123]

So your telling me you make the delivery man wait for you to open everything up to check it is all correct?

And then if it IS wrong, you've opened the package, so he has to wait for you to repackage it?

Yea. Right. That is going to happen.

Etailors mistake. Pure and simple.

No, that's not what he is saying at all? where do you get that from?

he is saying that if you receive the wrong item, you have the RIGHT to return / reject if under DSR, nowhere is he saying you should make the delivery man wait while you check the contents

 

[mmj_uk]

Load of tosh mate, sorry. When I bought my GPU, I just opened it. I'm not one of those people who like to read the box nor do I pay attention to it. I didn't even realise my crossfire adaptor was missing from my box until I read online reviews. The excitement of receiving new hardware is like Christmas, just rip open the wrapping, throw the box and enjoy your new toy as fast as you can.

That's pretty silly though in all honesty, you should ALWAYS check exactly what is delivered against what you ordered, it could just as easily have been a 5850 delivered rather than a 7850.

In this case it's highly likely that he noticed he'd got a better card, payed to have it fitted regardless and then when the retailer got in touch he came here wanting to know how he could legally hold onto it.

The fact that he payed £40 (or claims to have payed ) to have the wrong card fitted because he can't do it himself is the main barrier towards a simple resolution.

 

[Hagar]

Any actions that take more than an hour of management time to pursue will have already cost more than the potential profit margin on the upgraded card. Therefore they are not doing this for reasons of profitability.
The cost should already have been written off or set against the picking departments bonus scheme or whatever. Now they are purely making or trying to make a point.
Maybe this is not a one off and a batch of orders has gone awry otherwise I cannot see the advantage in them following this through to such great lengths.

 

[Twirlywoos]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/index.php

 

[Steve.m]

You order a £1 pack of sweets.

You're sent £50,000 worth of diamonds by mistake.

Based on the advice given in this thread you're entitled to:

a) keep the £50,000 worth of diamands and
b) demand your £1 bag of sweets

Good luck with that one when you end up in court.

For "a"

Would that not fall under "Inertia Selling" where "the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them." therefore:- "The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him." and "The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished."

.

 

[Sin_Chase]

lol what

cowboy company or what

£40 for what would be an hour visit minimum is pretty cheap to be fair.

No idea where your comment comes from but you obviously do not live in the real world where businesses are set-up to generate profit.

Labour
Insurance
Petrol
Etc

Not much left out of £40 for an hours works.

 

[tommybhoy]

An earlier post said they were taking the extra money on the 16th, did anything happen?

Andi.

They sent an email (16th) saying that items were picked(as if you actually ordered it) and awaiting payment.

He ignored that email and checked his cc account for any unauthorised payments, there was no payments taken, then today he has just received an email informing him just to keep the card as a gesture of goodwill:

'Following a meeting with our management regarding this matter I raised your query with him, based on the facts you have given and also the fact a technician would be required to remove and install a replacement he has agreed as a goodwill gesture for you to keep the card you were sent in error at no additional cost.'

Problem solved and he's happy now.

Thanks for all the replys(even the daft ones that made me laugh).

 

[mmj_uk]

We're just going around in circles, IMO it's not inertia selling because a contract existed between both parties rather than appearing out of the blue, has the OP/friend even contacted anyone for legal advice yet?

I suppose there are two different angles to this, the moral and the legal.

In my opinion he's as guilty for this outcome as the retailer because he did not (supposedly) check that it was the correct item before paying to have it installed, MORALLY the right thing to do would be to pay the difference with the discount offered and solve the dispute with both parties satisfied with the outcome. Perhaps that is too mature a thing to do this day and age?

LEGALLY he may have a case to keep it but until he contacts someone for legal advice none of us really know for sure and are just egging him on.

 

[Sui]

They sent an email (16th) saying that items were picked(as if you actually ordered it) and awaiting payment.

He ignored that email and checked his cc account for any unauthorised payments, there was no payments taken, then today he has just received an email informing him just to keep the card as a gesture of goodwill:

'Following a meeting with our management regarding this matter I raised your query with him, based on the facts you have given and also the fact a technician would be required to remove and install a replacement he has agreed as a goodwill gesture for you to keep the card you were sent in error at no additional cost.'

Problem solved and he's happy now.

Thanks for all the replys(even the daft ones that made me laugh).

Glad to hear it, shame they tried to muck him around though, if they did this enough then some people would send stuff back, but I don't see why they'd bother unless the difference was that much greater in the products being sent out.

 

[tommybhoy]

In my opinion he's as guilty for this outcome as the retailer because he did not (supposedly) check that it was the correct item before paying to have it installed, MORALLY the right thing to do would be to pay the difference with the discount offered and solve the dispute with both parties satisfied with the outcome. Perhaps that is too mature a thing to do this day and age?

I shall quote this yet again:

He has sent off an email pointing out that the cards been used for a week and it can't be sold as new, suggesting he pays the difference minus the discount+£30 fitting, if they don't find it acceptable he has told them to send out a qualified engineer to remove the card and wants a full refund with no further custom from himself in the future.

 

[Jerry64]

They sent an email (16th) saying that items were picked(as if you actually ordered it) and awaiting payment.

He ignored that email and checked his cc account for any unauthorised payments, there was no payments taken, then today he has just received an email informing him just to keep the card as a gesture of goodwill:

'Following a meeting with our management regarding this matter I raised your query with him, based on the facts you have given and also the fact a technician would be required to remove and install a replacement he has agreed as a goodwill gesture for you to keep the card you were sent in error at no additional cost.'

Problem solved and he's happy now.

Thanks for all the replys(even the daft ones that made me laugh).

The right outcome imo.

 

[Surveyor]

For "a"

Would that not fall under "Inertia Selling" where "the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them." therefore:- "The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him." and "The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished."

Already discussed in the thread.

The problem is solved now so I think we can leave it.

 

[PiKe]

The right outcome imo.

Shame it took so long and was such a faff.

 

[andybird123]

quite often companies like this will try it on just to see if the customer will be stupid enough to lump it... as soon as you start quoting things like Distance Selling Regulations 2000 and Sale of Goods Act 1979 they realise you might have a vague inkling of what your rights are and back down

I've had a couple of run ins with faulty goods from this etailer in the past and if you just dig your heels in they soon cave

glad it turned out ok for your cousin tommy

 

[djkav]

The most sensible outcome. Why they didn't just do this at the beginning.

@mmj_uk: The moral issue should lie with the etailer who made the mistake in the 1st instance. They should have really come to this resolution from the start. Not start pressurising the customer.

 

[andicole0]

Good outcome I think.

Andi.