Good, that's a relief. As much as I resent being held hostage by a company, I think it's just as bad the other way around. I wouldn't want to be browbeating anyone into giving me things to which I had no legal right.

Ok, thanks, Bankfodder. I figured that was the case. I'm surprised at their reaction to be honest; I only wanted them to pay the postage. The item in question was a gaming mouse costing £115 so do you suppose the cost of returning it to Germany (and subsequently shipping out the replacement) is just in excess of the cost rate of building a new one, or is this some kind of trap? Or are they just being disproportionately generous so I'll let things lie? Conniff, I'm afraid you've lost me a bit. It was my understanding that regulation 14(6) of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 rendered the requirement for the customer to bear the expense of returns non-applicable in the case of faulty goods (as the customer has the right to reject said goods). Am I wrong in this? BRIGADIER2JCS, my thanks for taking the time to help me out but I think you may have misunderstood the question.

Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller. I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour). My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?

Seems to me r.14(6) of the ConsumerProtection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2334) applies here. It states that, where goods are returned as a right due to a breach of a term implied by statute (s. 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979), the rights of a seller - given by r. 14(5) - to require the buyer to bear the cost of a return are disapplied. Unless there is some reason things are done differently on eBay sales? I gather its a slightly different system as it predominantly caters for the sale of goods by individuals rather than companies. I regret that I don't know much about that though.