🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20fgrmINNf9h@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> villalj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John L. Villalovos) writes:
%In article <20fe6m$dpm@access.digex.net> stephen@access.digex.net (stephen balbach) writes:
%>
%>Just from a neutral perspective - I don't think Glen intentionaly sent a
%>bad printer, it obviously got messed up in the shipping.  The FedEx money
%>should go to repair the printer and if it cost any more than that Glen
%>should pay for it, since it was advertised as in excellent condition.  
%>
%>Nor is Glen obligated to take the printer back - it was not his fault it
%>was messed up in the shipping.  But he is obligated to provide what he
%>stated as a printer in excellent condition, by having it repaired (or
%>paying for the repair exspense).
%
%Actually I think Glen is obligated to take the printer back.  Since the printer
%was purchased by a check sent throught the U.S. Mail there are certain laws.
%And you are allowed to return anything you purchase sent through the mail for
%a refund minus shipping costs.  There is a time limit on that and I am not sure
%exactly what the time limit is.
%
%Later,
%-- 

Just my 2 cents, but I too believe Glen is obligated to take the printer back
and refund all the money.  True, the printer was damaged in transit by the
shipping company, but if Glen hadn't neglected to pack the printer correctly,
i.e. pulled the toner, etc., the problems would probably never had occured 
in the first place.

In my opinion, the person shipping an item is still ultimately responsible
for that item until the buyer takes posession and is satisfied with it.  If
the item's status isn't what was advertised, then that would be false 
advertising, pure and simple.

Laters,


-- 
	Greg Peckham	(stimey)	**************************************
       Sequent Computer Systems Inc.   *   No cute                          *
      Beaverton, Oregon  97006        *                   .signature here  *
     Phone:  (503) 578-3999          **************************************