Received a duplicate order in their error, now they want payment. Where do I stand?

[Berserker]

I think this thread can be best summed up in four words: Mountains out of molehills.

 

[Burnsy2023]

This

Have you missed the part where we said how wrong that post was?

 

[frosty03]

There are 2 sides to this. Is it right he keep it? No, legally or otherwise.

But then there is the whole matter of how to send it back. What if he works 9-5 mon-fri like many? I am certainly not going to take any time off or use any goodwill from the boss/company to make a trip to the post office during working time. Certainly there is an element of hassle involved in any case, as a result of THEIR MISTAKE.

So there should be a little quid pro quo here. If you want me to give up some of my time to go out and post the item back to you, then compensate me for that. If not, then you are welcome to come collect the item at MY convenience. I name a date/time within reason (not necessarily 9-5mon-fri), maybe a sat morning or weekend.

I should not be put at any inconvenience due to a **** up on the retailers end.

 

[[TW]Fox]

He is at a university 0.1 miles from a post office.

 

[Participant]

You contend ten seconds is the product of "ludicrous artistic licence", then concede that for you personally you would indeed "just drop it off" (i.e. the cost to you would be minimal)?

Yes, to both. And?

The ten second figure was hyperbolic, make no mistake about it.

You don't say. And make no mistake? I haven't made a mistake, I pointed out that it was ridiculous.

It was intended to highlight the absurdity of the statements made by countless contributors to this thread that presuppose the recipient of duplicate goods should not have to undergo any effort whatsoever to return them to their owner. I don't believe, nor did I assert, that these people were selfish.

I never said that you said they were selfish . I was talking in general terms about some of the responses in this thread.

The fact that this was a mistake is entirely relevant. There is legislation in place (i.e. the Distance Selling Regulations) to prevent retailers from sending unsolicited items then demanding payment, or maliciously doing so such that the recipient incurs costs in returning them, but this does not apply in the case of an honest mistake.

Of course it doesn't, and I never said it did apply. That has already been well established in this thread. What I'm questioning is the obligation of someone that has received goods in error to go to any lengths at all to return it.

The point of contention appears to be the fact that the recipient has to travel to their local Post Office branch to gain proof of postage. You consider this unacceptable, whereas I think it quite reasonable.

No I don't. I've already said this is what I would do. I'm trying to pose the question as to what would happen IF (please read that word) it was not so easy or convenient for someone in this situation to get to a post office.

Without proof of postage the recipient may not lodge an insurance claim with Royal Mail in the event the item is lost in transit; perhaps more importantly, the retailer has no proof the item has been sent at all, and the recipient may fraudulently claim it has when it has not.

Get the retailer to send a courier then.

It is my view that this is not an unreasonable amount of effort, that although the retailer would ideally compensate the recipient for this effort, the cost of doing so would undoubtedly be greater than the appropriate amount of compensation, and that the reasonableness of this request is compounded by the fact that, regardless of the retailer's mistake, the recipient continued possession of the item incurs a cost for the retailer.

The retailer is free to pick it up at their leisure.

Ultimately, it is wrong to knowingly maintain possession of property that isn't your own when returning it to its rightful owner requires only a minimal level of effort. An analogy would be finding a person's wallet on the street, that they have dropped by accident. An honest mistake leaving you in possession of another person's property. The only practical course of action to reacquaint the owner with their property is for you to incur the minimal cost and effort involved in handing the wallet over to the police.

According to your argument you are surely committed to the view that this person should not hand the wallet over to the police, or make any effort whatsoever to return the wallet to its rightful owner?

Well I feel sorry for people that have lost their wallet, hence I would certainly hand it into the police station, in the same way that I would hand the parcel into the post office. So once again I fail to see your point. You are attacking me and not the issue I raised.

Practically your entire response was full of fallacies and straw man, which is consistent with your stupid 'ten seconds' comment .

He is at a university 0.1 miles from a post office.

Fine, but what if he wasn't? What would you do if you were 70 and your nearest post office was 10 miles away? Of course this is partly irrelevant as it has no bearing on the OP's situation, but I still think it's worth discussing. Companies should not automatically expect people subject to their mistakes to rectify them for them.

OP would have been entirely within his [legal, not moral] rights (I think?) to tell the company that he won't be going to the post office but that the item will available at x address between the hours of x and x.

 

[teaboy5]

Yes, to both. And?



You don't say. And make no mistake? I haven't made a mistake, I pointed out that it was ridiculous.



I never said that you said they were selfish . I was talking in general terms about some of the responses in this thread.



Of course it doesn't, and I never said it did apply. That has already been well established in this thread. What I'm questioning is the obligation of someone that has received goods in error to go to any lengths at all to return it.



No I don't. I've already said this is what I would do. I'm trying to pose the question as to what would happen IF (please read that word) it was not so easy or convenient for someone in this situation to get to a post office.



Get the retailer to send a courier then.



The retailer is free to pick it up at their leisure.



Well I feel sorry for people that have lost their wallet, hence I would certainly hand it into the police station, in the same way that I would hand the parcel into the post office. So once again I fail to see your point. You are attacking me and not the issue I raised.

Practically your entire response was full of fallacies and straw man, which is consistent with your stupid 'ten seconds' comment .



Fine, but what if he wasn't? What would you do if you were 70 and your nearest post office was 10 miles away? Of course this is partly irrelevant as it has no bearing on the OP's situation, but I still think it's worth discussing. Companies should not automatically expect people subject to their mistakes to rectify them for them.

OP would have been entirely within his [legal, not moral] rights (I think?) to tell the company that he won't be going to the post office but that the item will available at x address between the hours of x and x.

I can't believe you have a problem with this? Are you one of them people who loves to argue over the most simple things?

The OP should just get up and post the item back, after all he looks like he was going to keep it and not inform or pay the company for it until they noticed their mistake.

 

[Participant]

Are you one of them people who loves to argue over the most simple things?

Yes. Well, I'm one of 'those' people not one of 'them' people.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't have a problem with it, I'm debating whether or not it goes without saying that someone should have to make that trip.

Also don't quote massive posts unless you're going to say something useful, it's annoying.

 

[Duke]

If you think you would need another one soon, I would have just paid for it. Else send it back. Don't see the big problem personally.

 

[Al Vallario]

Yes, to both. And?

So you disagree with my suggestion — intentionally hyperbolic, as you realised, although for some people it would really be no more than a ten second detour — that there is minimal effort involved, then admit that for you there would in fact be minimal effort involved?

Of course it doesn't, and I never said it did apply. That has already been well established in this thread. What I'm questioning is the obligation of someone that has received goods in error to go to any lengths at all to return it.

As far as I am aware, you are under no legal obligation to do so; this has been established already. I'm talking about what it is reasonable for you to do in these circumstances. If you want to be an unreasonable pedant, you can hold the property of the retailer to ransom until they arrange for a courier to collect it, perhaps even charge them a storage fee as many in this thread have suggested, although as far as I'm aware there's no legal provision or precedent for that.

No I don't. I've already said this is what I would do. I'm trying to pose the question as to what would happen IF (please read that word) it was not so easy or convenient for someone in this situation to get to a post office.

As stated, there is no legal obligation so this person would not be compelled to undergo an inconvenience. In this case, if this point were articulated to the retailer, they would presumably be more than happy for a courier to be arranged...

Get the retailer to send a courier then.

...but not for something with such a low value as an ink cartridge.

Practically your entire response was full of fallacies and straw man, which is consistent with your stupid 'ten seconds' comment .

If you could identify just one logical fallacy in my post that would make my day

 

[Participant]

So you disagree with my suggestion — intentionally hyperbolic, as you realised, although for some people it would really be no more than a ten second detour — that there is minimal effort involved, then admit that for you there would in fact be minimal effort involved?

I agree that for some people there is minimal effort involved, yes. You're still (facepalm) missing my point, which is that the same is not true for everyone.

I'm talking about what it is reasonable for you to do in these circumstances.

And I am talking about circumstances different to the OP...what is reasonable if someone does not live near to a post office? I really don't see why you're struggling so badly with this.

- I would return it as I live near to a post office.
- However if someone did not live near to a post office, I'd think nothing less of them for requesting that the supplier comes and collects it. If the supplier feels that it's not worth sending a courier for an ink cartridge, so be it.

As stated, there is no legal obligation so this person would not be compelled to undergo an inconvenience. In this case, if this point were articulated to the retailer, they would presumably be more than happy for a courier to be arranged...

...but not for something with such a low value as an ink cartridge.

Well if they don't feel it's worth sending a courier, they're perfectly entitled to write off the cost.

If you could identify just one logical fallacy in my post that would make my day

Ok, one of many examples, but since you only asked for one:

The point of contention appears to be the fact that the recipient has to travel to their local Post Office branch to gain proof of postage. You consider this unacceptable

Fallacy 1/∞. I do not consider it unacceptable, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread.

 

[Pestilence]

Why not just pay for it and keep it as a spare. You'll need one eventually?

That'll save the supposed hassle of having to post it back?

Seems to me like you just want something for nothing.

 

[smiley1987]

Its really simple , send it back and ask for a refund .

 

[VaderDSL]

I'd laugh if the OP orders a new cartridge in the future and gets it duplicated again

 

[Participant]

I'd laugh if the OP orders a new cartridge in the future and gets it duplicated again

If that happened then surely you would tell them to get ****ed!

 

[VaderDSL]

If that happened then surely you would tell them to get ****ed!

I dunno I had to laugh at an experience I had with an online etailer.

I ordered some brakes for my bike, front arrived fine, but the rear was actually another front brake of a more expensive model.

I informed the shop of their error and posted it back to them. They refunded me the postage and sent me the correct brake. Or so I thought.

The next day the package turns up again with the wrong brake, so I tell them they have a problem with their inventory system. After a couple of hours I got an email back saying they did indeed have a problem with the brakes being in the wrong section of the warehouse.

Well I sent them back again and was refunded. Got £20 for my trouble as well