Amazon selling dangerous lighting

[bernardgreen]

is certainly not a remotely realistic way to try to do it.

Told you so.

To BAS

John is pointing out that it is not possible for Amazon to test every item whose sale and purchase passes through their system. It is NOT good that dangerous items can be sold using Amazon as the "interface" between seller and buyer but there is no way that Amzon can verify every item is safe. There should be a system where amzon can be contacted and informed of dangerous goods that have been sold via Amazon and then Amazon can investigate and if necessary black list the supplier / seller.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

John is pointing out that it is not possible for Amazon to test every item whose sale and purchase passes through their system.

If I go into John Lewis to buy a light, am I exposed to the same lack of assurance?

It is NOT good that dangerous items can be sold using Amazon as the "interface" between seller and buyer but there is no way that Amzon can verify every item is safe.

Would the same argument be accepted from B&Q?

There should be a system where amzon can be contacted and informed of dangerous goods that have been sold via Amazon and then Amazon can investigate and if necessary black list the supplier / seller.

Who will pop up again in a matter of hours under another name.

The system there should be is that Amazon are held accountable as the importer and retailer.

 

[stillp]

The system there should be is that Amazon are held accountable as the importer and retailer.

They are not usually the importer though, any more than the carrier who delivers the goods is. If the items are shipped from China it is the customer who is the importer.

 

[bernardgreen]

Would the same argument be accepted from B&Q?

The sales contract is between the buyer and the company B&Q, it is not with the salesperson even though the salesperson is employed by B&Q to sell things for them.

B&Q are responsible for the items they sell being "fit for purpose". If they are not then B&Q are required by the Sale of Goods act to refund purchase price and, if the items causes harm or damage then B&Q could be held to be liable for damages. They would of course try to recover their losses from the supplier.

Some less than reputable independent "sheds" do use contract self employed sales people who themselves buy from the shed and then sell on to the customers. In these sheds the contract is with the sales person and not the owner of the shed.

 

[stillp]

There should be a system where amzon can be contacted and informed of dangerous goods that have been sold via Amazon and then Amazon can investigate and if necessary black list the supplier / seller.

That's good idea. a "Report this item" button?

 

[eveares]

That's good idea. a "Report this item" button?

The thing is though, due to the size of Amazon and the fact their international; they properly won't care unless they get load's of "danger reports" on a single item, and the average buyer will likely will not know the item is dangerous. Further more should an item be investigated by amazon, will it be done by someone who is in the UK who also knows about UK specific electrical safety and compliance with BS7671?

The way forward is for Customs (and Amazon) to not allow goods from places like china to come into the country that are shipped directly to the customer or small business, that are not subjected to the same level of regulation of places like B&Q, Argos, etc...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They are not usually the importer though, any more than the carrier who delivers the goods is. If the items are shipped from China it is the customer who is the importer.

That's what I'm saying. Treat them, legally, as if they are the importer. It's not the same as being a carrier - they provide the entire apparatus - web pages, search tools, payment systems, the whole kit and kaboodle to allow Flaky Goods Inc to sell to people here. They ARE responsible, and should be recognised as that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's good idea. a "Report this item" button?

Been there, done that, and as eveares says, they DGAS.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe you aren't that far from PBC in your willingness to get people killed for ideological reasons after all.

I would say that it's you who is being 'idealogical'. As I said, the problem certainly needs to be addressed, but you are proposing a totally impracticable and unworkable way of addressing it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My ideology is one of protecting unsuspecting and inexpert members of the public from being sold dangerous electrical items etc.

My suggestion is neither unworkable nor impracticable. It's pretty much a fictional construct to say that Amazon are not "selling" these items because all they do is to provide every single bit of infrastructure, including intangible ones like their name, to other parties. Once that is done away with, once we say "You will be treated as if you are selling these items directly" then their behaviour will change. We do not regard it as impracticable or unworkable to expect them to carry out due diligence on items which they do sell directly, therefore they can do the same with ones which they choose to allow others to sell via them so that they can make money from the sales.

 

[JohnW2]

My suggestion is neither unworkable nor impracticable.

It is. Goodness knows how many (probably millions) third-party sales result from eBay/Amazon/whoever listings every day, but there is no way that those 'facilitators of sales' would (or could) even consider 'vetting' every one of those items as if it were something they were selling themselves. If your proposal were to be effected, those 'facilitators of sales' would have no choice but to stop doing it, leaving sellers to find other ways of promoting and selling their products (quite probably direct from their own websites, probably backed up by an awful lot extra 'spam' e-mail).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Iggifer]

Blaming eBay/Amazon is like saying, if market trader x is selling goods y & z that are dangerous/counterfeit etc then the person who rents the market stall to market trader x is to blame.

Amazon should be held responsible for anything that is 'Fulfilled by Amazon' and comes from their warehouse, beyond that, they're a conduit. Nothing more.

 

[stillp]

they're a conduit. Nothing more.

So are the 'mules' who carry heroin from Jamaica. (other souces of Class A drugs are available)

 

[PBC_1966]

Blaming eBay/Amazon is like saying, if market trader x is selling goods y & z that are dangerous/counterfeit etc then the person who rents the market stall to market trader x is to blame.

Amazon should be held responsible for anything that is 'Fulfilled by Amazon' and comes from their warehouse, beyond that, they're a conduit. Nothing more.

Precisely. When they're acting as nothing more than a glorified middleman to put customer in touch with seller, and the goods never even come into their possession, that's a much different position than if they were buying the goods themselves and then selling them on like any regular retailer.

If the middleman who simply facilitates the transaction between two other parties and is acting in good faith should be held responsible, then why not everybody else who is involved? Should every ISP involved in providing the necessary communications for the sale to take place be held accountable for it? If there were any telephone calls back and forth before the sale, should all the telephone companies be held accountable? Should the post office, UPS, or whoever transported the package be held accountable? How about the airline or shipping company to which the carrier might have contracted the overseas part of the transport?

 

[JohnW2]

they're a conduit. Nothing more.

So are the 'mules' who carry heroin from Jamaica. (other souces of Class A drugs are available)

But it is those mules who, if they get caught, are held accountable for trying to import a prohibited substance into the UK (or wherever), not the airline who brought them here, or the taxi-driver who took them to the airport in Jamaica.

If we were going to be consistent and hold the "importer" responsible, would we not have to prosecute the buyers ('importers') of these 'shipped from China' products?

Kind Regards, John