4 ms·
Perhaps Amazon are concerned that if they do not intervene, the legislature will make them liable for what they sell, and have supposed that this way is cheaper
by elipsey 7y ago
Perhaps Amazon are concerned that if they do not intervene, the legislature will make them liable for what they sell, and have supposed that this way is cheaper.
- Silhouette 7y agoI've never quite understood how they aren't already liable for what they sell under our normal consumer protection rules here in the UK, at least for anything under FBA. They present themselves as some sort of marketplace, but since they're the ones taking the money, they're the one supplying the products, and they're the ones you communicate with if necessary, I don't see how they aren't also on the hook for all the normal obligations any merchant has under these laws, regardless of any legal weasel words they might include in their terms. Maybe they are and I just haven't come across any relevant examples of legal actions or regulatory interventions yet.
- nimish 7y agoLegally they aren't. They also sever the link that lets you use Section 75 to force refunds of defective goods.
- Silhouette 7y agoLegally they aren't. I understand that they take that position. What I'm asking is whether it stands up to a substantial legal challenge. Both Parliament and the courts in England (and the EU, for that matter) have historically taken a fairly dim view of attempts by merchants to exclude liability, which is why various statutory rights can't be contracted away by consumers for example.
- r00fus 7y agoAlmost all other such operations hold the seller and marketplace responsible. I really wonder how Amazon gets away with it.