Re[2]: distance selling directive

[Stephen <yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

S> If you (anyone reading this) had used the distance selling directive
to
S> return goods, would you be happy further down the line in a different
S> transaction, probably with a different company, to receive goods that
had
S> previously been returned?
S> If not, why not?

Since I started the thread, let me say that it is very difficult to
make a purchase based on a few lines of description and a thumb nail
picture
on a web site. When (in this case) the cd player arrived, it did not
have all the features I wanted, so I am sending it back. It is unused
and in mint condition and in original packing, so if someone else
later buys it, they will have a mint condition brand new, unused, item. I
don't
see how this is any different to me picking up a box of Persil in
Sainsburys, chnaging my mind and putting it back on the shelf for
someone else to pick up and buy. I am very grateful that such
legislation exists to make mail order shopping easier.

I agree that if the websites of (1) the manufacturer, and (2) the retailer
had
been better and if I had been able to find a decent review, perhaps I would
not
have needed to buy the item to find it was not suitable in the first
place. This would be preferable for everyone involved because there
would not be the hassle of them sending me an unwanted machine, nor me
having to send it back.

Of course, if I buy something at 1st hand prices, I expect it to be in
1st hand condition. If I wanted a 2nd hand something I would go to an
auction site and get the item at a lower price. SO if someone
scratched the item or used it in such a way as to wear it out (e.g.
screen burn?) yes I would be unhappy that I was note getting
everything I paid for, but since AIUI the regulations require return
within 7 days, I doubt this is time to wreck the item, but is
sufficient time to ake an informed decision on the suitability of the
item and its fitness for purpose.