🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jun25.220745.1234@sequent.com> stimey@sequent.com (Greg Peckham) writes:
>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:
>%>
>%>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.
>
>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.

I believe Glen would be obligated to take the printer back or pay for
fixing it, but he should not be responsible for the costs to have it
returned to him.  If the purchaser is not satisfied with having the
printer repaired, then the purchaser is responsible for the costs to
ship it back to the seller.  I believe that he (the purchaser) could be
held responsible for initial shipping costs to him as well.

- Jeff