Is this an attempt to contract out of the CGA?

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

dclegg

2457 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 497

Trusted

Topic # 208568 17-Feb-2017 08:14

I got a delivery notification email last night for a local supplier of flat pack furniture. It included the following :-

****************************
IMPORTANT:

You must inspect each product including inside of the package upon arrival
(although the package looks ok from outside).

DO NOT ACCEPT any damaged products.

Please report to us within 12 hours from delivery with photos that shows
damaged item.

No claims will be accepted if you report us after 12 hours from delivery.

We do NOT cover any damage or loss on the item if you give an authorization to
courier for drop off, or POD (delivery receipt) is signed for clean
****************************

However, the government consumer protection website states

Common problems covered by the CGA

Include:

- products don’t do what they meant to or are defective
- products that differ from their description, eg on the packaging or in advertising
- products don’t match the sample or model you were shown
- products aren’t reasonably fit for a particular purpose you told the seller
- the retailer did not have the right to sell you the products
- late or no delivery or products arrive damaged in transit
-unreasonable price for products if not agreed beforehand.

This would seem to contradict what the retailer is trying to tell me. Or is there wording in the CGA that specifically states that damaged goods must be rejected at the time of delivery? If so I couldn't find it, and this seems impractical/illogical, as I'm not sure many courier drivers would wait around while consumers open up packaging to inspect for damage.

So am I right in thinking that this text from the retailer is essentially meaningless?

1 | 2

225 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 188

Reply # 1721666 17-Feb-2017 08:39

2 people support this post

It is not possible to contract out of the CGA. An email isn't a contract anyway.

But who cares? It would be stupid not to inspect received goods and notify the supplier if there's a problem. It's reasonable for the supplier to expect the inspection, relative to delivery, to happen on delivery.

Inspect the goods, inform the supplier straight away if there's a problem, and move on with your life.

BlinkyBill

PaulBags

738 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 186

Trusted

Reply # 1721671 17-Feb-2017 08:56

As I understand business purchases aren't subject to the CGA, so these terms may apply to business to business transactions. I say may because I would think they would have to be agreed before purchase, not dictacted later in an email.

Some businesses have wierd terms, but then also state the CGA applies and to whom. That's better than this.

dclegg

2457 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 497

Trusted

Reply # 1721674 17-Feb-2017 08:59

BlinkyBill: It is not possible to contract out of the CGA. An email isn't a contract anyway.

But who cares? It would be stupid not to inspect received goods and notify the supplier if there's a problem. It's reasonable for the supplier to expect the inspection, relative to delivery, to happen on delivery.

Inspect the goods, inform the supplier straight away if there's a problem, and move on with your life.

In this case, we're talking about two boxes containing flat pack furniture. So there are a lot of components to check and count for correctness. I'd be very surprised if most couriers were happy to stand around waiting for this process to happen.

Also, this will be assembled over the weekend (e.g. > 12 hours after delivery), and that would be when the contents would normally be unboxed for the first time. Bearing this scenario in mind, it's not reasonable for the supplier to place a 12 hour restriction on liability for damage.

I'm reasonably confident the CGA would have the consumers back here, but due to the intentionally vague wording of it, I'm always interested in second opinions.

Jaxson

6448 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 493

Trusted

Reply # 1721681 17-Feb-2017 09:27

That looks like the shipping companies content. That whole sign for delivery thing actually means you accept the condition of the goods etc in the fine print. It's all pretty messy really, and the courier guys not going to stand there waiting whilst you open every box and inspect the contents.

dclegg

2457 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 497

Trusted

Reply # 1721682 17-Feb-2017 09:29

Jaxson:

That looks like the shipping companies content. That whole sign for delivery thing actually means you accept the condition of the goods etc in the fine print. It's all pretty messy really, and the courier guys not going to stand there waiting whilst you open every box and inspect the contents.

It read as if it was the suppliers policy though, and not one they were communicating on behalf of the shipping company.

In any case, I'm interested to know if they can successfully hide behind that clause in the event of damage.

timmmay

13075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2156

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1721700 17-Feb-2017 10:10

4 people support this post

I'd probably reply to their email and politely ask if they'd considered the CGA, and give them the relevant piece of the CGA. I might also point out they can't add terms after a sale has happened.

AWS Certified Solution Architect Professional, Sysop Administrator Associate, and Developer Associate
TOGAF certified enterprise architect
Professional photographer

sen8or

625 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155

Reply # 1721706 17-Feb-2017 10:20

4 people support this post

I don't have an issue with a company putting a "reasonable" limit on an inspection, but that period has to be sufficient to allow a normal person time to inspect and mark off the goods.

If you are getting a single flat pack item, that may be a day or 2 days, depending on when you intend to assemble it, if you are getting more that one pack, then the period may be longer. Obviously the company doesn't want people to come back weeks after getting a pack and saying that panels were damaged, when that damage could have been the result of how the package was stored rather than a delivery issue.

As it stands though, a blanket "its not our problem" type statement doesn't cut it in my mind

cshwone

112 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Reply # 1721708 17-Feb-2017 10:27

I had exactly this problem recently with large items being delivered. I asked the courier driver to wait while I inspected the goods. He refused, therefore I signed the delivery sheet with a statement that the goods have not been inspected to protect myself as delivery notes invariably have a statement that the goods are in satisfactory (or similar) terminology. Quick scan, and copy for me and the driver.

vexxxboy

2371 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 503

Reply # 1721716 17-Feb-2017 10:47

its the same as those signs you see in supermarkets about having no responsibilty if your car is damaged in their carpark, which i was told have no legal standing and mean nothing.

ZollyMonsta

2578 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 194

Trusted

Reply # 1721722 17-Feb-2017 11:04

Poor grammar on the wording. American spelling too on 'authorization'. Is this a drop-shipping company?

As above, you can't contract out of the CGA.

Check out my LPFM Radio Station at www.thecheese.co.nz

Use this link to sign up to Bigpipe broadband and you'll get $20 off your first bill: Referral Link

dclegg

2457 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 497

Trusted

Reply # 1721725 17-Feb-2017 11:19

ZollyMonsta:

Poor grammar on the wording. American spelling too on 'authorization'. Is this a drop-shipping company?

As above, you can't contract out of the CGA.

Doubtful (unless I don't fully understand the definition of a drop-shipper).

They are importers of IKEA furniture. They have premises in New Zealand, and you can actually elect to pick up your stock from there. But my time is worth more than the $36 they charged for delivery. :-)

Other emails from them tend to indicate that English may be the second language of some of their representatives, which may explain the poor grammar and American spelling.

In any case, I'm chancing my arm with consumer rights. And the packaging was the best wrapped stuff I've seen in a while. IKEA stuff fits snugly in the boxes anyway, and the boxes were covered in a layer of heavy bubble wrap.

Initial inspections look OK, but there are glass panels in there somewhere, which haven't been sighted yet.

It's still an interesting conversation to have. It's always intriguing to me to see locally operating companies trying to shirk their legal responsibilities.

frankv

1968 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 933

Reply # 1721727 17-Feb-2017 11:26

One person supports this post

BlinkyBill: It's reasonable for the supplier to expect the inspection, relative to delivery, to happen on delivery.

I disagree. It's an unreasonable expectation on both the courier driver and the customer that they drop everything (no pun intended) to inspect a package on delivery.

There are many reasonable scenarios where it's simply not possible to thoroughly inspect a package when it's delivered...

* Goods delivered to a corporate Inwards Goods storeman rather than the actual recipient

* Goods left at a designated unattended location

* Faults which are not apparent on cursory inspection (e.g. a HDD which has been dropped and exceeded its max G load, but packaging is undamaged)

In this respect, the whole "signing for receipt of *undamaged* goods" is equally unreasonable, and I suspect legally untenable. If a courier firm requires you to sign for undamaged goods, then surely they must give you the opportunity to inspect the goods... i.e. their courier drivers need to be prepared to wait for the inspection to occur.

From my point of view as a customer, I really don't care whether the damage was done during manufacture or delivery... that's for the manufacturer (and their insurer?) to haggle over with the deliverer and their insurer.

BlinkyBill

225 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 188

Reply # 1721730 17-Feb-2017 11:34

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 ...

BlinkyBill

225 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 188

Reply # 1721731 17-Feb-2017 11:37

The delivery notification is both stoopid (I spelt it like that on purpose) and not enforceable in any way. The best it is is a bit of advice for you.

But that doesn't mean we need to stoop to that level.

If you really believe this is a problem, cancel the goods. I dare you.

BlinkyBill

225 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 188

Reply # 1721732 17-Feb-2017 11:38

Better yet, refuse to accept the goods on delivery. See what happens then.

BlinkyBill

1 | 2