On 5/23/2010 10:48 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
The retailers obligations are set by law and effectively the onus of
suitability lies with the purchaser, only if the product does not
provide the functions advertised or if it fails or is DOA/broken could
the reseller be forced to accept a return. If you want to test an item
in the shop you have to search out a retailer that provides demo
display items.
My most favoured bricks and mortar/mail order photo reseller has stock
on shelves for display but generally does not allow batteries to be
loaded in the cameras, ie all you get to do is feel. I guess that's
why it's so important to have a set of review sites that can be
trusted to adequately compare and report on gear such as cameras.
This is not how it is in Israel. But even if it were. Consider this.
Presently we're dealing with the case of rather unscrupulous buyer. And
what you say would protect a decent seller from such a buyer. But, OTOH,
what you say effectively provides an opening for unscrupulous seller to
"convince" a buyer to buy something, and once the box is open - voila,
the pure profit is made and buyer is left with an item that they might
not even need.
When faced with request from a buyer to return the mis-sold item, the
buyer would parry with "you're a grown up person, you should have
listened better; it is too late now".
I am thinking that the real solution has to take into account interests
of both parties and that with the slight (notice, just slight) bias
towards the consumer. It is because, in my view, the seller has more
power and more accented interest to gain profit whereas buyer may be
simply looking for something reasonably good and reasonably cheap.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
