🚀 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.
|>

No, I doubt he intentionally sent a bad printer, but anybody who has ever used a
laser printer should know better than to ship it without removing the toner and
stuff.  It's pretty obvious it'll make a big mess.  He should feel obligated to 
at least pay for repairs (i.e. forward the money he got from FedEx to the buyer.

Just my .02c

-- 
<=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>
| David Hollister			     Voice: 214-919-9303              |
| System Administrator                       dhollist@iphase.com              |
| Interphase Corporation		                                      |
| 13800 Senlac   Dallas, TX              As well to count the angels          |
| 75234-8823                                  dancing on a pin...             |
<=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>