What are my rights - Refund for Non-Delivered Goods?

Forums › Off topic › What are my rights - Refund for Non-Delivered Goods?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1101671 4-Aug-2014 12:47

Krishant007: Just had to call in this morning to get an update. The store manager told me that the refund has been approved and will go through on Wednesday - for some reason, they only do refunds on wednesdays. But he took my bank account number and will be refunding me the full cost.

Thanks a lot to everyone who chimed in with their 2 cents. Really appreciate the help of the community.

Well done

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1101780 4-Aug-2014 15:27

Bung:
Sideface: When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging.

Why such a negative attitude? The item never left the store so there's no argument that it's not in perfect condition and it is obviously a stock item as opposed to a special order. I would question the financial state of any retailer that wastedmuch time trying to keep this sale rather than moving on.

The reason for this negative attitude is unfortunately very simple and I've seen this a lot on here and other discussion boards: some geeks just get a certain kick out of their belief that they are always too smart to be caught out by bad retailers and so forth and push caveat emptor to the Nth degree. On account of what the OP has said here, the retailer is not one I'd write home about positively: missed promises re: delivery date, promise of refunds that was seemingly later withdrawn (although subsequently made right), and just generally making things too complicated when it was best for everyone to move on. Whatever the strict legal rights and wrongs here, I don't consider the OP's requests to be unreasonable but if one asks certain people, he somehow is just in the wrong.

In the harsh business world, when people fail to deliver on their promises, the other side may well invoke rights of redress to get out of deals that it regrets ever getting into. Whilst there's probably an element of this going on with the OP, the retailer would never have suffered this if it did what it was supposed to. My sympathy for the retailer is at a non-existent level.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102660 5-Aug-2014 15:06

dejadeadnz:
Dratsab: OP - you should have asked for refund in first instance but instead you agreed to another dishwasher being delivered to the store. Go to Consumer NZ if you like. Go to the Disputes Tribunal if you like. You will lose.

It really isn't a good idea to dole out legal advice...

Would you be so kind as point me in the direction of any legal advice I've offered outside of my opinion?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1102689 5-Aug-2014 15:59

Dratsab:
dejadeadnz:
Dratsab: OP - you should have asked for refund in first instance but instead you agreed to another dishwasher being delivered to the store. Go to Consumer NZ if you like. Go to the Disputes Tribunal if you like. You will lose.

It really isn't a good idea to dole out legal advice...

Would you be so kind as point me in the direction of any legal advice I've offered outside of my opinion?

You had no basis for your opinion/advice to the effect that the OP will lose - you were guaranteeing him an outcome. Don't get all legalistic and start wordsmithing - why else would anyone post to the effect that someone will lose at the DT, if they aren't effectively advising "Give this up!"?

That you had no basis for your assertion is apparent from your apparent unawareness of s 5A of the CGA (recently inserted into the substantive Act), which had direct application to the OP's case and your apparent ignorance of how the DT works. However you try to couch your assertion as mere opinion, it was inaccurate, unwise, ill-informed, and unhelpful.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102691 5-Aug-2014 16:02

dejadeadnz: Don't get all legalistic and start wordsmithing

I'm not doing anything of the sort - that's you. I had an opinion, I expressed it. You don't like it - tough. If I have opinions in the future I'll probably express them too. You don't like them - tough.

dejadeadnz: However you try to couch your assertion as mere opinion, it was inaccurate, unwise, ill-informed, and unhelpful.

Is that legal advice or your opinion?

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#1102695 5-Aug-2014 16:11

dejadeadnz: You had no basis for your opinion/advice to the effect that the OP will lose - you were guaranteeing him an outcome. Don't get all legalistic and start wordsmithing - why else would anyone post to the effect that someone will lose at the DT, if they aren't effectively advising "Give this up!"?

That you had no basis for your assertion is apparent from your apparent unawareness of s 5A of the CGA (recently inserted into the substantive Act), which had direct application to the OP's case and your apparent ignorance of how the DT works. However you try to couch your assertion as mere opinion, it was inaccurate, unwise, ill-informed, and unhelpful.

Lawyer much?

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1102696 5-Aug-2014 16:12

This thread would seem to be circling the drain

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1102699 5-Aug-2014 16:18

Dratsab:
Is that legal advice or your opinion?

If the subtle difference between telling someone (with incontrovertible proof) that their views are unhelpful and lacking basis in reality and generally asserting to the effect that someone should give up their fight (when a legal issue is involved) escapes you,* then I am afraid I can't help.

* hint: one is genuine opinion, and an informed one, the other is unhelpful "advice").

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102706 5-Aug-2014 16:34

bazzer:
dejadeadnz: You had no basis for your opinion/advice to the effect that the OP will lose - you were guaranteeing him an outcome. Don't get all legalistic and start wordsmithing - why else would anyone post to the effect that someone will lose at the DT, if they aren't effectively advising "Give this up!"?

That you had no basis for your assertion is apparent from your apparent unawareness of s 5A of the CGA (recently inserted into the substantive Act), which had direct application to the OP's case and your apparent ignorance of how the DT works. However you try to couch your assertion as mere opinion, it was inaccurate, unwise, ill-informed, and unhelpful.

Lawyer much?

Actually he is a lawyer. Having a bad day and needs a lie down methinks.

jarledb

Webhead
3320 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102716 5-Aug-2014 16:50

People giving advice/options that are clearly wrong is never helpful. Just saying.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102728 5-Aug-2014 16:56

jarledb: People giving advice/options that are clearly wrong is never helpful. Just saying.

Agreed. I probably should have watered my opinion down on this occasion and written something like "don't fancy your chances".

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1102757 5-Aug-2014 17:59

Dratsab:
Actually he is a lawyer. Having a bad day and needs a lie down methinks.

I am having a rather fine day, actually. Jareldb summed up my thoughts nicely.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1102761 5-Aug-2014 18:08

dejadeadnz:
Dratsab:
Actually he is a lawyer. Having a bad day and needs a lie down methinks.

I am having a rather fine day, actually. Jareldb summed up my thoughts nicely.

Yes, he did a nice job. All without breaking Wheatons law.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41121

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1102775 5-Aug-2014 18:25

jarledb: People giving advice/options that are clearly wrong is never helpful. Just saying.

You had a great post. Until you wrote "Just saying" that escape valve for people who want to hurt but pretend to not to.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

gzt

18716 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7854

Lifetime subscriber

#1102970 5-Aug-2014 22:50

freitasm:
jarledb: People giving advice/options that are clearly wrong is never helpful. Just saying.

[ jarledb:] had a great post. Until [ jarledb:] wrote "Just saying" that escape valve for people who want to hurt but pretend to not to.

Ahem.

In some places/demographics it has changed over time from the original usage, and the original form of usage is still in use many places/demographics also. In fact of course both forms are in use in exactly the same/places demographics at the same time, with contextual markers to indicate the intention. This actually happens a lot with language easy to see when traveling to different places and in different subcultures.

I'm not sure if geekzone supported a full set of emoji with a translator would improve this situation or not ; ).

Edit: In the context of jarledb's other posts over time - personally interpreted this as not at all malicious.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5