I've been thinking about this from a legal point of view and I can't see that QVC are breaching any law or regulation by refusing to do business with people who return more than 50% of the items they receive. Their terms say that they offer a 30 day money back guarantee and provided they do refund any item returned within that period, they are fulfilling their promise. I am not aware of anyone who has been refused the 30 MBG on a returned item. Any retailer can refuse to do future business with a person and QVC have the right to refuse to do future business with anyone who they feel is abusing their MBG policy.
When I think about what the presenters say about the policy, they just say 'you can have a full refund if you change your mind', they don't go on to say 'and you can return as many items as you like, we'll still do business with you'. I can see why people might not like the 50% return policy but I can't see how a regulator could find QVC are doing anything wrong.
White Russian: I, too, have been giving this matter consideration. Whilst I agree that a company can refuse to do business with customers returning its products, it is my reading - from comments made on the forum - that members have been quite justified, on several grounds, when criticising Q’s policy on accounts closure.
First, many commenced their shopping with Q prior to the establishment of Q's website. Often they received only a membership card without any additional information on Q’s terms and conditions – within which one finds the relevant clause (9.3).
Second, although the relevant clause (9.3) of Q’s terms and conditions is to be found on Q’s website, the clause is, in my opinion, rather vague and inexplicit.
9.3 It is our policy to contact and work with customers whose level of returns is very high. This is to ensure that our prices are not negatively impacted by the cost to QVC of dealing with an extremely high number of returns by a small minority of customers. If a customer continues to return an extremely high number of products to us, we reserve the right to close their account. If this happens the customer’s statutory rights will remain unaffected, orders accepted by us before the account has been closed will be fulfilled in accordance with these terms and individual product warranties will continue to be honoured in accordance with their terms.
What, for example, does ‘work with customers mean’? Some people have had their accounts closed without having received either a telephone call or a letter. Many of those who did receive a telephone call would not have construed the often unhelpful telephone conversation as ‘working with’ the member.
Turning to the question of returns: what comprises a return? This is asked in all seriousness. I would contend that the following items being returned to Q should NOT be included in any global figure:
1 Items not fit for purpose
2 Defective items
3 Items sent in error
4 Items delivered outwith Q’s stated delivery times
5 Items which were too large or too small
6 Items which failed to meet realistic expectations based on information given on the web and/or by sales presenters
7 Items which caused adverse reactions
The next questions to be asked and answered are
1: what is the proportion of returns deemed by Q to be ‘extremely high’; and
2: over what period is the figure that triggers concern on the part of Q calculated?
Cl 9.3 is silent on these important statistics.
Q’s members are not in a position to know. It is clear that on those occasions when members have contacted customer service, they have received inconsistent responses.
So, where does this get us? In any dealings between a business and a consumer the law recognises the unequal bargaining power between the two parties. In situations of unequal bargaining power there is the possibility of the exploitation of a weaker by the stronger party. Where business terms/ clauses are vague/ ambivalent/ open to different construction, courts invoke the contra proferentem rule: the clause is construed against the person seeking to impose it.
This should mean that clause 9.3 would be construed against Q.
White Russian, with regard to your second paragraph, if Q does say, ‘You can have a full refund if you change your mind’, I think that this could very reasonably be construed to mean that the refund includes p&p – which in fact it does not. Q presenters should always say that Q refunds the purchase price only.
Also, if a company representative says to a customer, ‘You can return as many items as you like’, I think it reasonable for the customer to interpret this as meaning that the company will continue to do business with him or her.
I do not dispute Q’s right to impose whatever restrictions it wants, within the law. What I do dispute is its right to act on restrictions when those restrictions have not been explicitly stated to the customer prior to any transactions occurring.
:sweat:
