Sent Item To Wrong Address
- Thread starter Hyper
- Start date
- Status
Legoman said:
Well then, I'll just wait and see
Edit: As I've said before, I just want to see what they have to say, as we all have varying views, and it's obviously not as clear cut as a direct interpretation of the law, otherwise ConsumerDirect could've told me.
Associate
Good post Explicit.
Was just thinking that as this is NOT a case of inertia selling, merely a mistake, then section 24 wouldn't apply in any event. I wonder if conversely the Theft Act would apply?
It would therefore be a criminal offence to keep the goods, although I suppose the obligation to make restoration could be argued.
I'm going to keep an eye on this thread to see how things turn out. I would think that things would go in the OP's favour should it proceed to a hearing. As has been said, the Unsolicited Goods Act was drafted to stop unscrupulous companies from inertia selling, rather than punish genuine mistakes.
Was just thinking that as this is NOT a case of inertia selling, merely a mistake, then section 24 wouldn't apply in any event. I wonder if conversely the Theft Act would apply?
Theft Act 1968 said:
It would therefore be a criminal offence to keep the goods, although I suppose the obligation to make restoration could be argued.
I'm going to keep an eye on this thread to see how things turn out. I would think that things would go in the OP's favour should it proceed to a hearing. As has been said, the Unsolicited Goods Act was drafted to stop unscrupulous companies from inertia selling, rather than punish genuine mistakes.
Regardless of when you received the monitor OcUK would be within their rights to request you return it at their expense or arrange for a courier to pick it up at your convenience.div0 said:*hypothetical*
What would happen if I ordered some RAM from OcUK, but I recieved the RAM and a Monitor?
What would happen if I ordered some RAM from OcUK, but recieved the RAM in the morning and the Monitor that afternoon?
What would happen if I ordered some RAM from OcUK, but recieved the RAM in the morning and the Monitor the next week?
See what I'm getting at?
If they sent you an invoice and expected payment for the monitor then this would contravene the Unsolicited Goods Act and be illegal.
Can you see the difference?
A company or individual who sent an item in error can legally ask for it back. However, they cannot demand payment for it because this is illegal under the UGA.
Legoman said:
I think you've misunderstood the point I was making. As what you have just said was exactly the same as the point I was trying to make
My point was that Benjarghmin had been saying that an item delivered in Error (the wrong item from an order) could not be treated as Unsolicited mail.
I was pointing out that there was a valid argument for why the OP's mistake could be considered a similar error, and hence NOT be Unsolicited mail. Just because he sent the card a week or so after the original (correct) item, doesn't mean that the card was Unsolicited.
However, other people have made much better points as to why the UGA won't apply in the OP's case. But as I'm not so into the law as it stands, then I just made a "logical" argument, to show how in Benjarghmin's own words, there was a "chance" that the card could be considered to NOT be Unsolicited.
Make sense? I hope so
Last edited:
Soldato
How long was the time between you
a) sending the goods out and realising the mistake
b) realising the mistake and informing the person who had recieved the goods and telling him it was a mistake
c) the person who recieved the goods telling you he had sold them already?
Will ask a mate about this for you as he works in a law firm, but i must admit to not knowing what his area is.
Colin
a) sending the goods out and realising the mistake
b) realising the mistake and informing the person who had recieved the goods and telling him it was a mistake
c) the person who recieved the goods telling you he had sold them already?
Will ask a mate about this for you as he works in a law firm, but i must admit to not knowing what his area is.
Colin
Soldato
Good post Explicit
Exactly what I was trying to say earlier on except probably more convincing and not at 2 am
Exactly what I was trying to say earlier on except probably more convincing and not at 2 am
A) I sent the goods on Thursday last week by Special Delivery and the the posty left a card at the recipients house and he collected it on Saturday morning.
B) I realized what I had done on Monday night when I got an e-mail from the person who was meant to get the package and he said someone else had signed for it.
C) I informed the recipient straight away and got a reply the following morning (yesterday) saying he had sold it at a car boot sale on Sunday.
Thanks, Sam
B) I realized what I had done on Monday night when I got an e-mail from the person who was meant to get the package and he said someone else had signed for it.
C) I informed the recipient straight away and got a reply the following morning (yesterday) saying he had sold it at a car boot sale on Sunday.
Thanks, Sam
There's virtually no doubt in my mind that he's lying about selling the card at a car boot sale. He would have sold it on eBay if anywhere as he appears to be a regular seller. I think he would just be trying to make the card as difficult to trace as possible.
You've probably come to a similar conclusion though.
You've probably come to a similar conclusion though.
Associate
I bet Benjarghmin is Matthew
Soldato
Its getting quite heavy going in legal talk right now! 
Looking at it from the receivers point of view, if i had received a graphics card though the post in the same way i would probably keep hold of it (might even use it!)and wait to see if the sender got in touch with me. I have to say though, i dont think i would make the effort myself to try and and contact the seller myself. Now, if the sender contacted my like you have done i would offer to send the item back to them or indeed send it on the correct recipient for them. I'm not too good at legal stuff and dont pretend to be but i would imagine the unsolicited goods act is to prevent companies such as book clubs and music clubs etc sending people "offer of the week" like they used to do and then simply invoice for the item a few days later. The fact that the law seems to have been ammended in 2000 makes me think this. This seems very different to your case .......... i was going to write more but dont want to get shot down by all the legal buffs in this thread. 
Looking at it from the receivers point of view, if i had received a graphics card though the post in the same way i would probably keep hold of it (might even use it!)and wait to see if the sender got in touch with me. I have to say though, i dont think i would make the effort myself to try and and contact the seller myself. Now, if the sender contacted my like you have done i would offer to send the item back to them or indeed send it on the correct recipient for them. I'm not too good at legal stuff and dont pretend to be but i would imagine the unsolicited goods act is to prevent companies such as book clubs and music clubs etc sending people "offer of the week" like they used to do and then simply invoice for the item a few days later. The fact that the law seems to have been ammended in 2000 makes me think this. This seems very different to your case .......... i was going to write more but dont want to get shot down by all the legal buffs in this thread.
Last edited:
Gog said:
I won't go into too much detail on the theft claim because it seems questionable to me. The section you quoted deals with one specific element of theft. As you probably know, you have to make out all of the elements before you can be guilty of theft.
So, you need to:
-appropriate
-property
-belonging to another
-dishonestly
-with an intention to permanently deprive
There is no major issue in establishing that the defendant appropriated property belonging to another with an intention to permanently deprive.
The problem is the dishonesty element. The defendant will almost certainly attempt to rely on s.2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
Paraphrased: If the defendant believes that he or she is legally entitled to deal with the property, then there is no dishonesty. The belief does not have to be reasonable nor does it have to be based on an accurate understanding of the law (see R v Small).
So, the defendant will simply argue that he believed he had the legal right to deal with the property because he thought the goods were unsolicited goods. Despite this being an inaccurate belief, he is entitled to rely upon it.
If the defendant can show that he was not dishonest, that will be the end of the criminal case. He will be acquitted.
Also bare in mind the time frame. The defendant allegedly sold the goods on Sunday and only on the next day did the OP inform him of the mistaken delivery. The defendant could use this to his favour to show that he was not dishonest. He could argue that he was unaware of the mistake at the time he sold the goods on Sunday.
So the theft claim seems questionable to me.
Last edited:
this thread is not a very smart decision for the OP, im sorry to say that.
the reason is that this thread allows the guy who mas the gfx card right now, matthew, to stay one step ahead of the OP since everything the op is going to do matthew will already anticipate a response to it.
i got no idea how this is going to end, it can go both ways.
the reason is that this thread allows the guy who mas the gfx card right now, matthew, to stay one step ahead of the OP since everything the op is going to do matthew will already anticipate a response to it.
i got no idea how this is going to end, it can go both ways.
- Status