Is this an attempt to contract out of the CGA?

Forums › Off topic › Is this an attempt to contract out of the CGA?

1 | 2

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1721744 17-Feb-2017 12:00

BlinkyBill: Mountain/molehill. Please apply common sense.

The items are packed for delivery. If the packaging is undamaged, then the goods are fine. Totally unnecessary for the delivery packaging to be opened, every component inspected for damage, whilst the delivery guy waits. That is unreasonable.

If the goods arrive and the packaging is broken in half; don't accept delivery.

If there are important components missing then that is not a delivery issue, that is a packing issue.

People, apply common sense and be reasonable. If everyone went overboard like this for everything ...

The problem with this common sense approach is that not all business operate this way. Although in general, NZ consumers have protection from NZ companies that try to tie one on. That doesn't stop local business from trying to shirk their responsibilities though.

As another example, my daughter ordered some goods from a US based retailer. She used the cheapest shipping method (no tracking), and didn't opt for their "shipping insurance". The last status update indicated that her goods arrived in New Zealand December 27th, but the parcel never arrived here.

As the sender, the retailer is the only one who can lodge an investigation with their shipper into what happened to this parcel. But they are steadfastly refusing to do so, because she didn't opt for the shipping insurance. I've even confirmed with New Zealand Post that the correct course to escalate this is for the retailer to do this, regardless of shipping method chosen. But they still steadfastly refuse. Instead they have offered her 25% of the order's value as store credit, to be used towards a future order. Which we will be declining.

So in my original case, if components were missing or damaged a retailer operating in a country with lesser consumer protection laws may refer to the email text as a way to dodge their obligations to the consumer. I'm reasonably confident that can't happen in New Zealand, but as always there's room to be educated on this. Hence this thread.

KrazyKid

1238 posts

Uber Geek

#1721825 17-Feb-2017 13:26

At work we sign all courier dockets to include the phrase "subject to inspection"
Covers us for hidden damage we might not see.

As far as them trying to contract out the CGA - sound more likely that they want to be able to blame to courier company for damaged in transit if required.

Since they can't actually contract out the CGA there is no issue here for you.

mattwnz

20144 posts

Uber Geek

#1721868 17-Feb-2017 15:15

I hate how companies try this on, as it is trying to put all responsibility on the buyer. I ALWAYS sign any courier delivered goods as NOT EXAMINED. I have never had a courier say you can't do that. If they did, I would say that I would need time to examine it, and would they wait why I did this. Although in the past I did do this once and it took 30 minutes to check everything while the courier waited for, it was for something that had been previously damaged, but I doubt they would wait that these days. Often couriers will drop of the goods anyway and not get a signature or someone else may sign for it, and not the buyer that agreed to the contract anyway.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1721901 17-Feb-2017 16:05

I just got a mental picture of a courier driver hopping from foot to foot while you count dowel pins!

Mike

muttley68

63 posts

Master Geek

#1722162 18-Feb-2017 11:17

KrazyKid:

At work we sign all courier dockets to include the phrase "subject to inspection"
Covers us for hidden damage we might not see.

^^ This ^^

STI (subject to inspection) has been the go to annotation on courier packages that can't be inspected in a timely fashion (ie, while the courier stands around waiting), for as long as I can remember.

We would get pallets of electronic equipment delivered in one go, and there was not much more you could do than a quick walk around to make sure there were no obvious signs of damage, e.g. forklift blades obviously penetrated the packaging, or clear signs the pallet had been dropped.

So we would always sign the delivery docket with "STI" to make it clear that we would come back to the courier/freight company if inspection showed damage when opened (within a reasonable time or delivery, might be pushing it to complain several weeks later)

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722175 18-Feb-2017 11:28

Having dealt with this before, you are only signing that the external condition of the parcel is intact. No dents from dropping, no crushing, no holes in the side etc.

If something is broken inside and the external is ok, its usually either insufficient packaging or else it was packed already broken. Too many local places do not properly pack things and just put courier tickets on the side of retail packaging which they wrap up in brown paper and similar. That is not a courier problem if it arrives broken inside since that is not well enough packed.

Richard rich.ms

cshwone

1070 posts

Uber Geek

#1722192 18-Feb-2017 12:48

BlinkyBill: Mountain/molehill. Please apply common sense.

The items are packed for delivery. If the packaging is undamaged, then the goods are fine. Totally unnecessary for the delivery packaging to be opened, every component inspected for damage, whilst the delivery guy waits. That is unreasonable.

If the goods arrive and the packaging is broken in half; don't accept delivery.

If there are important components missing then that is not a delivery issue, that is a packing issue.

People, apply common sense and be reasonable. If everyone went overboard like this for everything ...

Must disagree as I had exactly this scenario with two pantry units (already assembled) where the packaging was totally undamaged but both units had the backs bashed in - probably from mishandling. So annotating with 'subject to inspection' is a must for me.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20144 posts

Uber Geek

#1722254 18-Feb-2017 14:26

richms:
Having dealt with this before, you are only signing that the external condition of the parcel is intact. No dents from dropping, no crushing, no holes in the side etc.

If something is broken inside and the external is ok, its usually either insufficient packaging or else it was packed already broken. Too many local places do not properly pack things and just put courier tickets on the side of retail packaging which they wrap up in brown paper and similar. That is not a courier problem if it arrives broken inside since that is not well enough packed.

The problem with that is often the outer packaging is damaged, but the goods inside are perfectly fine

mattwnz

20144 posts

Uber Geek

#1722255 18-Feb-2017 14:29

muttley68:
KrazyKid:

At work we sign all courier dockets to include the phrase "subject to inspection"
Covers us for hidden damage we might not see.

^^ This ^^

STI (subject to inspection) has been the go to annotation on courier packages that can't be inspected in a timely fashion (ie, while the courier stands around waiting), for as long as I can remember.

We would get pallets of electronic equipment delivered in one go, and there was not much more you could do than a quick walk around to make sure there were no obvious signs of damage, e.g. forklift blades obviously penetrated the packaging, or clear signs the pallet had been dropped.

So we would always sign the delivery docket with "STI" to make it clear that we would come back to the courier/freight company if inspection showed damage when opened (within a reasonable time or delivery, might be pushing it to complain several weeks later)

The problem with using an acronym like that is that the courier could dispute not knowing what that means, or they may have thought you were signing your initials. STI stands for several things. So imo it is better to write the words so there is no confusion.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722294 18-Feb-2017 15:48

mattwnz:
The problem with that is often the outer packaging is damaged, but the goods inside are perfectly fine

Then you make them wait to check it out. Proper packaging _should_ survive normal courier handling, but most NZ companies have no clue how to do that, when compared to the likes of amazon where everything is double boxed with ample room around it.

Richard rich.ms

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1722852 20-Feb-2017 02:06

I would say that the vendor is in violation of the Fair trading act, section 13, paragraph i

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Suckerpunch

124 posts

Master Geek

#1722856 20-Feb-2017 07:09

BlinkyBill: Mountain/molehill. Please apply common sense.

The items are packed for delivery. If the packaging is undamaged, then the goods are fine. Totally unnecessary for the delivery packaging to be opened, every component inspected for damage, whilst the delivery guy waits. That is unreasonable.

If the goods arrive and the packaging is broken in half; don't accept delivery.

If there are important components missing then that is not a delivery issue, that is a packing issue.

People, apply common sense and be reasonable. If everyone went overboard like this for everything ...

The fact the selling company is actually posting this message shows they have no knowledge of the CGA law or they do have the knowledge but are trying to deceive their customers.

Therefore it is not worth the risk for the customer to apply common sense here, since they are clearly dealing with an ignorant and\or arrogant business which cannot be trusted.

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1723436 21-Feb-2017 08:07

So as it turns out, this tale has a final chapter. :-)

When pulling out all the pieces for assembly on Saturday, I noticed there was some minor damage to the top piece (it's a TV cabinet).

I contacted Urban Sales (> 24 hours after receiving the goods, which were not inspected on delivery). They promptly replied with an apology, and told me they'd investigate. This morning I received an email confirming that this would've probably happened in transit, as they inspect everything before it is sent out. As restitution they offered a partial refund, which we accepted.

In summary, despite the disclaimer in their shipping notification email and on their website, Urban Sales let common sense and good customer service prevail. I would not hesitate to recommend them to anyone looking for a NZ supplier of IKEA furniture.

1 | 2