The intention of an eBay listing, bound by the eBay User Agreement the same as any other, is to supply at a price so is subject to the consumer protection legislation.

HM Customs and Excise inspection is not a free service. The Royal Mail has to cover the practical cost, the same as an airport has to cover the cost of the customs and immigration control.

This is not just a breach of the DSRs. Since the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 [section 6(4)©], it is a strict liability criminal offence.

It is Common Law right, to prosecute an offence. Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides that any person may institute or conduct any criminal proceeding to which the duty of the CPS to take over does not apply. All you have to do is lay the information before a Magistrate in order to issue a summons if the evidence appears to be sufficient to justify the prosecution. The Police need not be involved.

According to the DSRs "the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall be treated as if it had not been made" and the Sale of Goods Act applies to a contract of sale.. The effect of a cancellation is therefore to forego the SOGA. The exception to not having to refund the cost of returning goods is s.14(6)

The opinion of a District Judge in a County Court is not a binding precedent.

The difference between the right to request a repair or replacement and the right to rescind the contract is that in order to to rescind a contract, a misrepresentation must be proved. The liability to conform to contract (Part 5A of the Sale of Goods Act) and the liability for misrepresenting (Misrepresentation Act 1967) are different issues.

Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act applies: The terms of the eBay User Agreement are the same for all the members and all the listings.

c.f. Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

No, "the EU thing" is not "in ADDITION to SOGA", in the present tense, because there is no part of "the EU thing" that is not implemented by the UK legislation. The UK legislation does not diverge from the EU thing and if it did, the UK legislation would be subject the authority of the European Court of Justice. If you compare the wording with the "the EU thing", you will find that when the Sale of Goods Act was amended by The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, to implement "the EU thing", the wording was cloned, for the most part, directly from "the EU thing".

It is a statutory duty, for a supplier to reimburse the consumer when a distance contract is formally cancelled. The argument about the delivery is a red herring. The consumer's right to cancel a contract that is not excepted is unconditional.

According to Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act None the less, this would not apply when you properly inform that a distance contract is cancelled because the SOGA applies to a contract, which must then be treated as if it had not been made, apart from the Distance Selling Regulations. An attempt to continue to inflict unwanted goods could be prosecuted as an offence under Section 7 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, Aggressive commercial practices If you want to cool their enthusiasm, that ought to do the trick. PS. As a matter of common sense, if you refuse to accept a delivery, that saves the cost of returning the goods to the seller, if the seller was wise enough to declare an address for the Royal Mail to return the goods to. It is not so uncommon for a seller to neglect to do this, the eventual result of which I do not care to opine about.

The ins and outs of this are not so much of a secret. To find my way to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 all I had to do was Google. Local authorities all across the country issue press releases to draw attention to the fact that heavy fines can and will be imposed, with the legal authority explained. Those who would rather believe that a local authority would not be exactly aware of its statutory powers and duties need to reflect on just how dangerously stupid they are to hope so. What the councils would like to do, of course, is completely ban the habit, outdoors as well as in, and if it comes as some sort of a surprise that they would, it goes to show how dangerously stupid you are. It might be wiser not to flaunt the fault in public, but it is not so easy to legislate against ignorance. There is far too much of it about, to hope for that.

I am struggling to make sense of what the basis of your claim is supposed to be. If you go to court to claim because of a breach of contract, you therefore claim that the contract is in force and intact. If you agreed with the seller to cancel the contract, there is no contract to enforce. The agreement to cancel would then be a contract to supersede the original. If you rather rescind the contract, the basis of your claim would be misrepresentation, but this may fail to stick if the defendant proves he "had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true". Did you pay a surcharge to have the thing delivered before a certain date? If there was no special consideration, to persuade the retailer to set aside the usual term that time is not of the essence, the 3 week promise would not amount to a contract, to supersede the usual term. It is possible to claim because of a broken promise, but you would have to prove a detriment, an assessable damage because of your reliance. If time was an essential part of the subcontract, between the retailer and the manufacturer, the better chance would be to sue the manufacturer for the breach. With a bit of luck you would then be on the same side as the retailer, with the odds in your favour. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act provides for this.

Where was that other thread, where a member with personal experience of this tells the story of a demand for a breakdown of costs? I shall post a link if I find the time to look. They came back with an enormously increased, itemised invoice. The important point to note is that it is not the retail loss preventer who would have to provide the breakdown ; it is the cost to the client that they charge for so the main effect would be to annoy Primark but what the hell, if you fancy the chance to poke about in the hornet's nest, that is fine by me. These are not fly by night cowboys. These are hardened professionals, advised by a QC.