Am I right to be annoyed about this? - Airsoft World

[GiantKiwi]

If the goods are not as described then they are classed as faulty. If the seller does not correct the error then you can return the goods for a full refund and the seller is liable for postage.

Its not a cancellation.

Doesn't matter what you are told in a seminar consumer law is consumer law.

Click to shrink...

You can blow enough hot air to fill an entire hot air balloon, and you will STILL be wrong - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_20150015_en.pdf

Page 13, Section 11: Goods to be as described - Point (4) - Any information that is provided by the trader about the goods and is information mentioned in paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 or 2 to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (main characteristics of goods) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.

It's a cancellation. Definitively a cancellation, defined by the legislation documentation. /EOD.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

But the goods were not as described. It showed the mags in black and never said colour may vary.

Wrong colour not fit for purpose not as described.

If you buy a black car and they deliver a white one you don't have to pay for a truck to take it back. The onus is on the seller to provide goods as described and if they dont without informing you they are in breach of contract.

If the op took them to small claims he would win.

Its not a cancellation.

As for "EOD" world doesn't work like that.

 

[proffrink]

Ok, from a quick read could you maybe clarify this?

If we check section 20 (page 18) 'Right to reject' and 22 (page 20) 'Time limit for short-term right to reject' then it says the following:

Also, apologies for the formatting. Damn .pdfs

(7) From the time when the right is exercised—
(a) the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and
( B) the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.
(8) Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

Spoiler

Click to shrink...

In section 22 we see that he/she has up to 30 days to do this from the POS.

Spoiler

Edit

Fixed formatting

 

[Lozart]

You can blow enough hot air to fill an entire hot air balloon, and you will STILL be wrong - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_20150015_en.pdf

Page 13, Section 11: Goods to be as described - Point (4) - Any information that is provided by the trader about the goods and is information mentioned in paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 or 2 to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (main characteristics of goods) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.

It's a cancellation. Definitively a cancellation, defined by the legislation documentation. /EOD.

Click to shrink...

Para (a) Schedule 2 (Schedule 1 only applies to on premises purchase) states: the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium of communication and to the goods or services;

It says nothing about cancellations. If the information describing the "services" part of that doesn't explicitly say that return postage of goods not as described will not be covered then how would the piece of the CRA that you quoted have any relevance?

 

[Lozart]

Consumer rights act Sect 20: Right to reject

(7) From the time when the right is exercised— (a) the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and ( B) the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8) Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.

Click to shrink...

I obviously draw specific attention to the second part there.

 

[proffrink]

2latem8

 

[Lozart]

2latem8

Click to shrink...

Ninja'd!

But it bears repeating

 

[L3wisD]

Dude, I worked for one of the bigger UK Independent online games retailers for 2 years, I had to sit through a 6 hour seminar on the regs when these came in, seminar was led by a consumer rights lawyer with 20 years of experience in the field. You are wrong. By returning the goods, correct or not, you are invoking a cancellation as far as the law cares.

Click to shrink...

So this is the equivalent of someone ordering a PS4 copy of a game and being sent the Xbox One version.Wouldn't the onus be on the retailer to correct their mistake?

I used to work for the mail-order department at Andertons Music and that would have absolutely been the case if it was our balls up.

Though this is before the regs changed (I didn't know they had until now), so it might be different there now.

I dunno it just seems a bit... Shitty for a retailer to try and duck out of their own balls up?

 

[Lozart]

Hi everyone,

I purchased two GHK G5 magazines from Airsoft world, which arrived yesterday. Now, the page on their website shows a picture of a black G5 magazine, and no colour option of any kind. Because of this, I assumed they'd come as black.

I was wrong. They came in dark tan. Now, I know this is a bit picky, but the mags are damn expensive as it is (my order was £90 in total) and for them to come in a colour which, in my opinion, really doesn't suit the black G5, well, I'm just annoyed.

Is it fair to return them or is it not really worth the hassle?

Regards,

Alfie

Click to shrink...

As much as we (clearly) like a good frank and open discussion about the ins and outs of the law, has the OP actually contacted the retailer? Are we in fact arguing the toss over a complete irrelevance?

 

[GiantKiwi]

Are we in fact arguing the toss over a complete irrelevance?

Click to shrink...

Probably.

 

[proffrink]

I think OP has made it clear that he'd like to resolve this though. A short email isn't going to change that. I think the main issue I took with this whole thing was the implication that a retailer will likely just say 'no' to a refund on shipping. I've yet to meet one that's made a legitimate mistake who's not willing to cover P&P (in the UK at least). It's poor PR for the sake of £4 and - as we saw - probably against the law.

 

[Lozart]

I think OP has made it clear that he'd like to resolve this though. A short email isn't going to change that. I think the main issue I took with this whole thing was the implication that a retailer will likely just say 'no' to a refund on shipping. I've yet to meet one that's made a legitimate mistake who's not willing to cover P&P (in the UK at least). It's poor PR for the sake of £4 and - as we saw - probably against the law.

Click to shrink...

All good points but the original question was whether or not he was right to be upset at getting the wrong colour. He then said that he thought the cost of posting them back would be a lot (which then precipitated the discussion about consumer law). At no point have we actually established if he's even spoken to the retailer (who as you say will most likely want to sort it out anyway).

 

[proffrink]

Well, my initial point was that even if they weren't obliged to refund him they probably would anyway. I think we answered the question in the first 5 posts, so hopefully he's done just that

Never been happier for a thread to be derailed like this though. Some potentially very important legal stuff on this second page (even if we might have all interpreted it wrong).

 

[Tamberlin]

The airsoft World listings for GHK magazines is crap.... it has a picture of a G5 mag when referencing the M4 mag. It does however clearly state on the G5 mag listing that they are tan or am I missing something?

Click to shrink...

That's because I told them of their mistake. Anyhow, they're giving me a full refund and paying for the postage.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

So everybody but Kiwi was right then? ?