Jump to content


Would I have to offer a refund?


oxford0614
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4335 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

As you very well know, eBay do not provide information on the disposal of these cases, so - who knows? The sellers, as owners of the goods are the final arbiter, something you fail to appreciate. However, a buyer suing for non performance would have to have more money than sense.

 

---

 

I know well enough that eBay never prosecutes a buyer or a seller by proxy, because of a member's complaint. That would be the day.

 

The only prosecutions I have ever yet heard of were because a member made enough of a fuss on his own initiative, and when it does eventually happen it is incredible the extent to which eBay had already let the culprit get away with it.

 

Were eBay to prosecute it would give the lie to their propaganda to the effect that fraud almost never happens on eBay, while we know well enough that it does.

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Perpy - read my posts. I appreciate that you have substantial problems with English, but I'd be greatful if you could try. Or maybe get an adult to help you. Ask that adult what this meant:

 

As for the ebay terms of service thing - I've not read so can't comment. If there is a term in them that says that goods must be of satisfactory quality or similar, no matter what the status of the seller, then this might be an issue. I'd like to see an extract of the relevant term before commenting further.

 

2. I knew it couldn't be long before Perpwell quoted the Enterprise act incorrectly. I know I won't persuade perpy, but for other posters, that it tosh. The enterprise act defines what a consumer is for the purposes of trading standards and the oft who need to know for enforcement purposes. For consumers, suing someone, the enterprise act has absolutely nothing to do with it. So much so, in fact, that if you sue under the SoGA, you will never even mention the EA. That is why no-one ever has...

 

3. to the OP - I wouldn't spend much time listening to Perpx. We've tried to debate with him but as you can see pretty much the whole of the world disagrees with hi, I'd suggest that you take advice as you see fit and follow the advice that seems to you to be most credible.

 

Perpx - are you not going to confirm whether you were the one expelled from the ebay boards for these silly, and terribly inaccurate posts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

Which part of "all purchases by eligible buyers" is so hard to get?

 

The Enterprise Act is an act of parliament and "Every Act is a public Act to be judicially noticed as such, unless the contrary is expressly provided by the Act."

[s.3 Interpetation Act 1978].

 

Judicial notice is the "means by which the court may take as proven certain facts without hearing evidence" [Oxford Dictionary of Law]

 

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act binds the Crown, let alone a member of the public who would rather be above the law.

 

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So what is the ea for? What does it do? What powers does it confer? Seriously, I'm quite fed up with this. I think you are only here to try and lead folk astray. I see now why you were thrown off the other boards. Please don't cite stuff you don't understand and please god don't just reply to my first two questions with a copy and paste job from some statute or other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And while you are at it try and explain how the IA is relevant to this problem. I'll give you a clue. It isn't. It just another bit of attempted misdirection on your part to try and mislead readers to their detriment and to make it seem to the initiated that you know what you are talking about. Those of us with a few years of practical experience working with these laws can see that you are talking tosh. I worry that others might not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's fraud on eBay! Whether they admit to it or not is irrelevant, if I'm not convoked that my buyer is legitimate I do not have to accept tbe payment - eBay would not be stupid enough to attempt to impose sanctions on sellers simply because they were cautious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. So what is the ea for? What does it do? What powers does it confer?

 

----

 

Part 8 of the Enterprise Act obviously amends "the law relating to the protection of the collective interests of consumers" [c.f. the Preamble to the EA].

 

Section 212 which requires that "References to a listed Directive must be construed in accordance with section 210" is obviously intended to bind, not empower.

 

It means that this is what the Crown, an enforcement officer or anybody else is obliged by the law to do.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'see perpy, I think this is where you are going wrong. You've just quoted the act, without actually explaining what it is for. Just like your preference for randomly throwing in the interpretation act etc. It can't be obvious, as you've a) not said what it does and b) got it wrong so far.

 

The EA is the bit of legislation that, among other things, established the OFT and gives trading standards and the OFT the power to do stuff. It also has some section on insolvency.

 

It defines consumers (in your much vaunted 212) as this is relevant to the work of trading standards and the oft etc, these bodies need to know who it is they are protecting and when they are permitted to take action. If you had studied any consumer law in depth you would appreciate that there is no one definition of what a consumer is, many pieces of legislation define consumer in their own terms. There are whole chapters on this area of law in consumer law textbooks. The UCTA definition is a little different to SoGA, which in turn is a little different to the CPUTR. Then there is a whole debate which fills volumes of case law on what a business is. For the purposes of trading standards deciding whether to apply for an injunction under part 8 for example, then they must be satisfied that the EA gives them the power to act.

 

For example, before taking action the OFT must be satisfied, for example, that there has been a contravention of a domestic infringement (for eg SoGA) that harms the collective interests of consumers. That is why, amongst other things, that consumer is defined. It is nothing to do with whether I am a consumer or not under the SoGA.

 

Please, I beg you, accept that you cannot just read extracts of any old statute and pretend that they support your strange view of the law in the UK. You cannot take consumer law in isolation, it is inter-related and just taking the odd section, as you are prone to do, gives a misleading impression of the true situation.

 

The EA is therefore relevant to enforcers, and it even lists the legislation they can enforce, it is not relevant to consumers suing in the county court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the thread.

 

The subject was the seller, not the consumer.

 

Consumer protection legislation usually applies to a contract, which on eBay is the eBay User Agreement.

 

The "supplier" bound by the contract is the therefore the suppliers in general, whoever is agreed to the contract in common, and the same goes for a "consumer".

 

Section 6 of the Interpretation Act applies;

 

Gender and number.

 

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

 

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

 

(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

 

© words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

-----

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations clarify this, by referring to the "average consumer".

 

I had already explained the meaning of judicial notice, so if you rather be ignorant, you do so at your own risk.

 

:cool:

 

It is ludicrous to suppose that an enforcement officer is "permitted" to take action.against a person, though the person himself is not so much as obliged to expect as much, let alone the chance to expect a judge in a court of law to be so ignorant.

 

Pause for a while to think it through. That is not what the law is about.

 

According to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations

 

It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations
A statutory duty is not a voluntary option.

 

:shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise that none of that makes sense, don't you? There really is so little structure I'm completely lost as to what your argument is.

 

I think it is:

 

The EA defines everything, except when another bit of law does. The IA means that the singular must be construed to mean the plural too, which no-one is denying, it just isn't a consideration here. Judicial notice is relevant somehow.

 

As for this:

 

It is ludicrous to suppose that an enforcement officer is "permitted" to take action.against a person, though the person himself is not so much as obliged to expect as much, let alone the chance to expect a judge in a court of law to be so ignorant.

 

Pause for a while to think it through. That is not what the law is about.

 

I got no idea. I think it might even be German or something. Can anyone translate that sentence?

 

Are you trying to be difficult, or do you really not understand your own posts? You sure as gravy don't understand consumer law.

 

I'm happy in this case no-one will be following your advice because they won't understand it!

 

For those that are reading though - It seems perp was expelled from another board for his ropey advice so I would caution you to take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK try this:

 

It is ludicrous to suppose that an enforcement officer is "permitted" to take action against a person, though the person himself is not obliged to expect that the action would be taken against him, which is to say that the person is obliged to fear the law.

 

If an officer is entitled to take action the implication is obviously that law applies to the person to be acted against, who is therefore a supplier of consumer goods according to section 210 of the Enterprise Act.

 

A sale is either an "undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge", or it is not an "undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge". Whoever enforces against a seller makes no difference to the fact of the matter, the supply of the goods.

 

If it goes before a judge the judge is concerned with whether or not the seller was bound by consumer law, as a matter of fact. Who put the case to a judge is irrelevant. An enforcement officer is not the law. Some may like to think they're the law but they're bound by the law, the same as the rest of us.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP was scared away by the bickering.

 

The answer is simple: if you sell on ebay, you have to abide by ebay rules. If it's unopened, then you can't prove it works.

 

Presuming they paid by paypal, the buyer would then have to open a dispute, then return the router at their own cost via tracked delivery. Paypal would then automatically give a refund.

 

A good seller would then test the router, and if it was genuinely faulty, would refund the buyer's return postage too. If the router wasn't faulty, then just re-list it and put it down to experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...