Online Sale - Condition Based Return ; Goods Returned Damaged

[Marantzdigital]

Hello,

I have done quite some searching on the web, including the gov site but could not find a definitive answer.

I've sold goods to a customer and sent out the wrong product in error.
The customer's installers had unpacked & attempted to install the goods, only to find they were incorrect - the customer contacted me at this point.

I've offered a full refund upon return of goods, as per the customer's rights with my sincere apologies.
Customer is satisfied and has been co-operating on good terms.

The goods have been returned to me but with scratches and marks / damage - which can be rectified but would require professional work that I am unable to do inhouse.
The marks/scratches/damage was caused in the process or removing, handling the goods as they had to use tooling to do so. The customer has stated this.
I feel this would fall under lack of reasonable skill and care being used by the installers. It is not normal to cause marks/scratches when doing their job, especially not on a brand new item.

Where do I stand LEGALLY on this, as I can see guidance stating that a retailer can deduct costs to return the goods to the original condition supplied (condition based return) but it seems a little blurred.

Thanks for reading

 

[Newchodge]

Hello,

I have done quite some searching on the web, including the gov site but could not find a definitive answer.

I've sold goods to a customer and sent out the wrong product in error.
The customer's installers had unpacked & attempted to install the goods, only to find they were incorrect - the customer contacted me at this point.

I've offered a full refund upon return of goods, as per the customer's rights with my sincere apologies.
Customer is satisfied and has been co-operating on good terms.

The goods have been returned to me but with scratches and marks / damage - which can be rectified but would require professional work that I am unable to do inhouse.
The marks/scratches/damage was caused in the process or removing, handling the goods as they had to use tooling to do so. The customer has stated this.
I feel this would fall under lack of reasonable skill and care being used by the installers. It is not normal to cause marks/scratches when doing their job, especially not on a brand new item.

Where do I stand LEGALLY on this, as I can see guidance stating that a retailer can deduct costs to return the goods to the original condition supplied (condition based return) but it seems a little blurred.

Thanks for reading

They were the wrong goods, that is your fault. Damage was caused while trying to install them as if they were the right goods. Did you tell the customer you had sent the wrong thing before they tried to install them? If not I would suggest that the damage is a direct result of your error and the customer is entitled to 100% refund. I might argue they are entitled to the wasted cost of attempted installation, but that may be going too far.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

The lack of reasonable care probably would fall to you for getting the initial order wrong!

Also, was this B2B or B2C supply?

 

[Marantzdigital]

The installers didn't mark/scratch the goods on installation, but actually on putting the goods back ready for the customer to box up and return. The installation attempt/test/final process is a scratch free one.

The goods were marked/scratched after we had agreed to have goods returned for a refund.

So imagine ;
The goods had been prepped (fit additional removable items) ready for final installation and were in new unmarked condition.
Then they realise they would not be correct. They are still in new unmarked condition.

The customer requests for them to remove the additional items they fitted as the goods were going to be returned. The goods then were marked when the installers were possibly less bothered about the job, although they had been paid.

I think an example I can give is ;
if a brand new TV had its HDMI leads connected and wall-mount fitted, ready to be fitted into its unit space, but at the last moment the professional installers attempt a dry fit, the installers realised the supplier had sent the wrong sized TV.
The customer requests that they remove the HDMI leads and wall-mount, so the TV can go back to sender, but the installers end up scratching the TV with a screwdriver and socket wrench across its fascia, or worse putting a dent in the corner. No damage should be occurring to the TV, regardless of if it fits or not as the TV should be handled with care at all times to avoid marking or damaging.

 

[Marantzdigital]

I edited the above but it didn't save and cant edit now!, sorry for the double post.

This was B2C sale online.

I am happy to refund the customer the cost of goods, return postage and their installation fees if need be, as they are rightly due, as I believe I would be in breach of contract due to supply of goods not fit for purpose or incorrectly supplied goods, in this case.

The part I am uneasy about is, do I bare the loss incurred by a professional installer's unfortunate actions, as marking the goods, at any point of doing their job, is not acceptable in such a field (well most I guess).
It is quite a substantial amount to rectify such damage.

But my main point is to understand the legal aspect, as being an online retailer there is always a chance that incorrect goods could go out (touch wood this has not happened before), I simply could not find any solid text regarding this.

 

[Rotor]

Hello,

I have done quite some searching on the web, including the gov site but could not find a definitive answer.

I've sold goods to a customer and sent out the wrong product in error.
The customer's installers had unpacked & attempted to install the goods, only to find they were incorrect - the customer contacted me at this point.

I've offered a full refund upon return of goods, as per the customer's rights with my sincere apologies.
Customer is satisfied and has been co-operating on good terms.

The goods have been returned to me but with scratches and marks / damage - which can be rectified but would require professional work that I am unable to do inhouse.
The marks/scratches/damage was caused in the process or removing, handling the goods as they had to use tooling to do so. The customer has stated this.
I feel this would fall under lack of reasonable skill and care being used by the installers. It is not normal to cause marks/scratches when doing their job, especially not on a brand new item.

Where do I stand LEGALLY on this, as I can see guidance stating that a retailer can deduct costs to return the goods to the original condition supplied (condition based return) but it seems a little blurred.

Thanks for reading

You`ll have to bite the bullet , offer the correct replacement and sell the marked one to someone else at cost and explain why, nothing lost.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

What cost of rectification are you talking about and what was the cost of goods supplied?

If they have accepted responsibility for damage, your case for a reasonable charge increases.

You could just inform the customer of the rework costs and deduct from the refund, however, you risk a chargeback (with additional costs).

 

[Marantzdigital]

Cost of rectification would be around 40 percent of the total value to bring the goods to an 'as supplied' condition.

I was willing to negotiate a condition based return, at less than this, and sell the goods as marked scratched not new, but the customer accepts only around 12 percent deduction as a final offer stating its my fault the goods were marked by their installer.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

They"re not wrong, are they?

 

[LPB 123]

Cost of rectification would be around 40 percent of the total value to bring the goods to an 'as supplied' condition.

I was willing to negotiate a condition based return, at less than this, and sell the goods as marked scratched not new, but the customer accepts only around 12 percent deduction as a final offer stating its my fault the goods were marked by their installer.

I am surprised the customer agreed to any deduction. I would refund them 100% and restore what you can if it's worth the time to do so or sell at a discount.

 

[Marantzdigital]

They"re not wrong, are they?

Does this refer to the customers view that it is my fault that the goods were damaged by a third party because they were incorrectly supplied?

If so, I would have thought that a professional installer would have been able to not damage goods that were in their possession, using 'reasonable skill and care'.

If the installer is legally permitted to handle / damage the goods as they please, as its my fault I sent the wrong goods, and I am legally obliged to accept whatever scraps are returned to me then so be it, but I cannot see this in black and white - is there somewhere I can find this or does it fall down to the outcome of a dispute?

I'd like to know for future reference and obviously like to follow this up with the customer eg if they are entitled to send back whatever, however they want, by law, then so be it, the law is the law, I won't take it personally. I just wanted some solid guidelines to follow

Thanks for the input so far

 

[fisicx]

If so, I would have thought that a professional installer would have been able to not damage goods that were in their possession, using 'reasonable skill and care'.

Were they professional? Might have been some bodger they met down the pub.

 

[jimbof]

Have / had you offered to refund them their resulting costs from your error - failed install and subsequent de-install (more expensive than just installing, one would imagine), their time and effort dealing with you and arranging return, resulting project delay, etc? Your post is detail-light as to the value of the goods and/or the the cost of installation. It may be these costs may offset your loss somewhat.

 

[Marantzdigital]

Were they professional? Might have been some bodger they met down the pub.

The cost of install & de install is around 6 percent in total.

Installer is a professional established business, they had prepped the goods for install, overlooking the size and spec on the goods box before proceeding to do their job as they had presumed that my business 'as a professional outfit' had supplied the correct goods.

I assume the installers had offered some compensation to the customer for some damage but only at 12 percent approx, hence the customer willing to accept 12 percent less.

I'm sure this is quite a common scenario where basic checks are overlooked eg starting with me sending the wrong size, then the Installer overlooking the sizes on box. Incorrect installation could cause injury or death. Customer sadly is in the middle of it all but sides with their installer.

The damage would not have occurred if the goods were handled correctly. A full refund would have been issued along with any other costs due.
I did not supply damaged goods so it seems strange that legally I should be receiving damaged goods back and refunding in full, especially when the damage is caused by a professional installer, there simply should be no damage caused in their line of work at any stage.

All things aside, no customer would pay for a service where an installer had caused damage, and infact I'm sure the installer would be required to repair the damage themselves due to lack of reasonable skill and care causing damage to customers goods - this I have seen documented on various sites.

So hence my question of how this differs from the current situation.

Its a combination of cock-ups really, that sadly do and can happen in in my line of business and that of the installers. Both errors are easily resolved, eg I can refund in full/issue a replacement on return of goods and the installer could have the goods repaired and presented back to the customer in the way they received them prior to proceeding with their work.

I'm happy to cover my errors but it seems unfair to accept the error of another professional business.

I did also consider refunding the customer as requested, and then contacting the installers for damage caused due to poor workmanship/ lack of reasonable skill and care.

 

[Newchodge]

Does this refer to the customers view that it is my fault that the goods were damaged by a third party because they were incorrectly supplied?

If so, I would have thought that a professional installer would have been able to not damage goods that were in their possession, using 'reasonable skill and care'.

If the installer is legally permitted to handle / damage the goods as they please, as its my fault I sent the wrong goods, and I am legally obliged to accept whatever scraps are returned to me then so be it, but I cannot see this in black and white - is there somewhere I can find this or does it fall down to the outcome of a dispute?

I'd like to know for future reference and obviously like to follow this up with the customer eg if they are entitled to send back whatever, however they want, by law, then so be it, the law is the law, I won't take it personally. I just wanted some solid guidelines to follow

Thanks for the input so far

Actually the customer is under no obligation to return the goods at all. They are unsolicited goods - you sent something that the customer had not ordered. It is your responsibility to recover them, if you want to go down the full legal route.

 

[jimbof]

The cost of install & de install is around 6 percent in total.

Installer is a professional established business, they had prepped the goods for install, overlooking the size and spec on the goods box before proceeding to do their job as they had presumed that my business 'as a professional outfit' had supplied the correct goods.

I assume the installers had offered some compensation to the customer for some damage but only at 12 percent approx, hence the customer willing to accept 12 percent less.

I'd be with your customer to be honest on this. They're going to have to book another install, at 6% cost; so the 12% is actually 18% (12% deduction plus 6% to re-install). You're not a million miles away from the 40% already - and in seeking your full costs you're effectively valuing their inconvenience, time and efforts at zero. It "boils my..." when companies do this to me and I end up chasing around after them and their process issues; and effectively doing work for them at no cost to them (waiting for couriers / engineers etc, asking for VAT invoices they've failed to provide in the first place, etc).

I reckon their 12% offer was reasonable, all things considered... You are sharing the pain at that point. Expecting the customer to put you back to a position as if it had never happened is a bit much.

 

[fisicx]

If the installer damaged the goods by not following the provided instructions then you claim off their insurance. The customer is not in any way responsible for any losses.

 

[Marantzdigital]

I do understand that time is money, the customer could ask for their time and fuel costs transporting the goods around but in reality when buying things online there is a chance that the retailer may send you the wrong goods or goods may be damaged in transit and you may need to spend some time and effort rectifying - legally there doesn't seem to be an onus on a retailer to reimburse time or effort.

Ive had to personally lug a kitchen table and chairs set back to argos , twice as there were missing parts in 1st box and the 2nd was dented.

If the installer damaged the goods by not following the provided instructions then you claim off their insurance. The customer is not in any way responsible for any losses.

Is this the customers responsibility or mine, as the installer was commissioned by the customer, and the customer was responsible for the goods being returned to sender in 'as received condition', minus any reasonable handling to inspect goods.

I simply was expecting incorrectly supplied goods to be returned to me so I could complete a refund.

So to break it down it seems to like being told " there's the goods, and yeah they are abit battered but that's your fault for sending the wrong ones by mistake and yeah that's the company who damaged thems name, you deal with it"

 

[fisicx]

I understand why you feel aggrieved but this is a unique situation for which there seems to be no precedence and therefore no legal answer.

What is the actual item that got damaged?