Moral conundrum please help

Holding on to something that doesn't belong to you isn't much different from stealing.

Why would you want to profit from a situation when it involves doing something immoral? Surely you are worse off as a result.
 
Legally I'd say it comes close to the description of 'theft by finding' 'theft by finding'

The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner.[1] If the finder shows that reasonable steps to find the owner have been taken then the finder may establish that the required mens rea for theft, the intention to deprive the owner permanently, is absent
Click to expand...

And morally you're bankrupt if you keep it. Just like any rational adult would conclude.
 
Judging by your need to create this thread your conscience doesn't sit easily with you. :)

So drop them a quick message saying you have X item sent incorrectly, how do you want to procede. Your moral duty fulfilled.
 
As with the majority of most on here - I don't really see the dilemma at all.

It's not yours, you haven't paid to acquire it - regardless of how slow the chap was to email you back - email him, tell him you have it and send the thing back. You'll feel much better about yourself in the morning.
 
Nitefly said:
Very blurry situation. Not sure what I would do. I wouldn't judge anyone either way.
Click to expand...

How exactly is it blurry?

Despite all the legal loopholes of whether its is or isn't theft, that isn't relevant in the slightest. Strip everything else away, and take it to the morality of the situation.

If it comes down to whether morally he should or should't keep it - shouldn't keep it will win out every time. So therefore - he should send it back.
 
Jaystation said:
How exactly is it blurry?

Despite all the legal loopholes of whether its is or isn't theft, that isn't relevant in the slightest. Strip everything else away, and take it to the morality of the situation.

If it comes down to whether morally he should or should't keep it - shouldn't keep it will win out every time. So therefore - he should send it back.
Click to expand...

Three weeks of wasted time?
 
What 3 weeks of wasted time?

He ordered something three weeks ago and got a refund on it 2 weeks ago after he raised a dispute.

It turning up now in no way constitutes '3 weeks of wasted time' :confused:

Keeping something (supposedly expensive too) that doesn't belong to you because you feel put out that someone took a while to send it and didn't respond to your emails in the manner you liked is only morally 'very blurry' if you're completely bereft of any moral fibre IMO.
 
Kenai said:
What 3 weeks of wasted time?

He ordered something three weeks ago and got a refund on it 2 weeks ago after he raised a dispute.

It turning up now in no way constitutes '3 weeks of wasted time' :confused:

Keeping something (supposedly expensive too) that doesn't belong to you because you feel put out that someone took a while to send it and didn't respond to your emails in the manner you liked is only morally 'very blurry' if you're completely bereft of any moral fibre IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not very sympathetic to businesses that dodge out of bad contracts unlawfully.
 
Did we get to the bottom of what the item actually is yet?

Is it permitted on the forums to have an auction for said mysterious item? OP could give the proceeds to charity, thus ending the moral dilemma!
 
Nitefly said:
I'm not very sympathetic to businesses that dodge out of bad contracts unlawfully.
Click to expand...

They refunded him immediately after he raised a dispute because he felt a week was too long for delivery and didn't like the email responses he got.

How have we jumped to 'unlawfully dodging bad contracts' from that? :confused:

Secondly, how does that justify keeping things that aren't yours?
 
Nothing remotely 'unlawful' about that and given the OP suggests they sell thousands of these things, it's not likely it was a one-off item that he was hoping to force the OP to pay more for afterwards...

You're talking utter nonsense IMO and there's no justification here for effectively 'stealing' something that doesn't belong to the OP.

"You raised your price after you refunded me - that entitles me to keep your things!" What a load of guff.
 
Nitefly said:
By raising the price of the item afterwards.
Click to expand...

We don't know what the item is, so perhaps the market price went up during the period where the item was cancelled? Are you suggesting they put it up for sale, the OP purchased it, they wanted a better price so sent him nothing, he raises a ticket and gets a refund, they then relist at a higher price and then send it to him by mistake and that was all on purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom