OT: Delivery Conditions - unreasonable?

[PeterC]

Looking at buying several items from various sites, so look at Delivery and T&Cs. The following, or something like it, is becoming common:

"You must inspect goods thoroughly before signing for delivery. When signing for a delivery you accept that the goods have been received in good condition. If items are damaged on delivery you should not accept them, let the courier return them to Taps4Less. You should never sign a delivery as 'unchecked'."

Now, even for something simple, this means that the driver would have to wait while I inspect the packaging, unpack the item and inspect it then, if necessary, read instructions then assemble/test it in all configurations.

One item will be a comination ladder (say about 30 min. to try every configuration under load); another, a pair of taps - about 2 or 3 min. Now, if I order the makings for a new PC, the driver will have to wait for at least 3 days for full testing!

Are these conditions enforceable? Seems to me that the driver won't wait and I would have to sign for something that I can't ascertain, so that's unreasonable at best and unfair terms, even.

[NT]

T&Cs cant take away your rights in law, under the SOGA and DSR

NT

[Tim]

I don't think the conditions are enforceable. You can always sign "Received but not inspected" if it's an old fashioned peice of paper that they want signed. Not sure that you could do this with a digital signature recording device.

Tim

[Peter Parry]

In so far as they relate to visible damage to the package when delivered, yes they are. They do not refer to a fault which would not be immediately visible. You tend to find them most with suppliers of large items where damage is not infrequently caused by the customer after delivery while moving or storing them.

[Neil]

I've been hearing lately that it is becoming common to sign 'Damaged' anyhow. If the goods are damaged when they unpack them later then they have indicated it on the delivery note - otherwise no harm done. Don't know if that would cover them or not.

[Andrew Gabriel]

I often sign "box damaged, goods uninspected", as that's a fairly common delivery scenario.

[pete]

In practice I think this means perfoming a visual inspection of the packaging - not a Goods Inwards QA test of the product against it's specifications. You always have the right to return an item if it breaks withing an unreasonable time, so you won't/shouldn't be help liable. I think this is mainly to stop supliers getting stuffed by the couriers who damage stuff in transit (or whatever van they use). Just so long as there are no outward signs of abuse, and the box doesn't rattle when shaken should be enough.

[Cash]

---------------------------------------------------------------

The simple answer is *NO*.

Under the DSR (Distance Selling Regulations) you have up to seven days from the day after delivery to inform the seller that you are rejecting the goods (you don't have to give a reason).

See:

the goods are damaged, then SoGA (Sale of Goods Act) applies - and subject to the item bought, you have up to 6 years 'cover' 5 in Scotland) for inherent faults (due to manufacture or material defects).

See:

DSR and SoGA override any manufacturers warranty - but be aware that under SoGA, wear and tear or abuse is covered and there can be a pro-rata charge applied for the use that you have made of the defective item over time.

Also be aware that DSR *DO* *NOT* apply if you go to a store and buy them (e.g. popping down to one of the 'sheds' to buy some item or other) - legally, you are stuck with the item unless it is defective and then SoGA will apply

Cash

[PeterC]

Ah, one supplier that I want to use states that damaged goods must not be accepted but taken back by the driver, so signing as 'Damaged' directly contravenes this. That, I feel, is not unreasonable.

[PeterC]

Now that is what I'd say is reasonable. I had a TV delivered; it was DOA, but I didn't find out until plugging it in. I couldn't have checked easily for a rattle as weighed 35kg! The box wasn't obviously damaged (no holes, teras etc.) but the triwall was flattened on the side by the screen, so it'd fallen on its face.

[PeterC]

A lot of those are so worn that the display is illegible - how would that affect things?

[PeterC]

Sorry - replying to myself. Another example:

Goods Damaged in Transit & Shortages You must thoroughly check the goods at the time of delivery as you are signing the carrier's receipt that you have received them in good condition. We will not be responsible for any goods signed for as satisfactory. In the unlikely event that the goods have been damaged in transit, you must refuse the delivery and inform us immediately in order that we may despatch a replacement as quickly as possible. You should inform us promptly of any shortages so that we can take up the matter with the carriers and trace the missing items."

and:

"When your goods arrive it is important that you check that the items are in good condition and the quantity of items received corresponds to the quantity you are signing for. In the unlikely event that your goods have been damaged in transit, you must refuse the delivery and contact our sales team immediately in order that we may dispatch a replacement quickly and minimise inconvenience to you. Please inform us promptly of any shortages so that we may take the matter up with our couriers and trace the missing items. We must emphasise the importance of checking your goods thoroughly at the time of delivery as you are signing for them in good condition. Please make sure they are.

Signing "Unchecked", "Not Checked" or similar is not acceptable."

The last sentence is becoming more common. I wondered if it might be because suppliers want to reduce costs, carriers therefore want fewer claims and so the customer, who's the 'victim' has to bear the blame.

[The Medway Handyman]

I always sign for parcels 'U/X' for unexamined.

[js.b1]

Always sign your name as "Unchecked" even if a handheld digital signature, if they refuse say bluntly "then wait, your choice" and check the parcel meticulously.

Packaging that is damaged is not obvious.

- Some white goods are packaged in a shell of polystyrene with little more than a foil of cardboard to hold it in position. A lot of PC gear (cases) is shipped likewise, so was some Sun & Cisco kit back in the

1990s with spectacularly expensive results.

- Polystyrene will take a blunt-instrument bash and appear ok except for visually superficial surface deformation when examined closely or indeed hidden under tape/labels.

- On opening you find a corresponding dent in the metalwork which is impractical to "knock-out".

Polystyrene is crap compared to spaceframe polyethylene in a proper box.

[geoff]

In message , PeterC writes

Ah, but put yourself in my position, where for example, someone took receipt of a fan I had sent out, with the words "Do not sign "received in good condition" unless you are sure" in big letters on the delivery note

CityLink broke the bugger, but since the customer had just signed for it (who looks at the paperwork ?) they refused to accept liability

Nor do they seem concerned that they are losing what I would have claimed every day as I put business elsewhere

SO ...

Check the goods thoroughly and make the driver wait until you are satisfied that the goods are OK

[geoff]

In message , Neil writes

Now, there's an idea

[dave]

Ah and there you have it. I have had several drivers twitching and tutting looking at their watch and even walking away while holding the etchasketch out!

Also so often the screen display to sign is invisible due to ambient light reflections. But the drivers have a schedule to keep and get very shirty if delayed. Given that fact and this signing business, one hopes something may be done to sort it out - as it is definitely getting worse.

[Mark]

It's a cynical attempt to try to shift the responsibilty onto the comsumer. IMHO they know that a large number of packages are damaged in transit and they don't want the hassle of claiming from the couriers.

Unless the damage is obvious these T&C's are unreasonable and unenforceable.

[PeterC]

Given the amount of inconvenience already in ordering items for delivery, this is just another hassle that we don't need. I'd guess that the members of this group are above average in both ordering items and dealing with problems.

Both the terms re. signing and delivery times need sorting out. It should be a legal requirement for the customer to be given a 3 hour bracket for delivery. I've spent 2 days in for 2 deliveries; if I'd known that they both would be about 1600h...

[PeterC]

If you put that on and the customer actually reads and obeys it, fair enough. If, however, you'd put on the opposite (as per some of the terms that I've quoted) and I hadn't, then what would you have done?

Often the paperwork is in a stuck-on polypocket and won't even be opened at the time of delivery.