Moral conundrum please help

now im curious as to what the item is

I suppose your safe unless he requests it back, its possible it was sent and someone at royal mail got "lazy"
 
Would it fall under unsolicited goods? I believe so.

The RIGHT thing to do is to tell them if they want it back they can arrange for it to be collected, I don't think you legally have to though.
 
Martini1991 said:
I'd tell them about it, but collection would be at your convenience.

In the last year, I've had a Gigabyte Z87 board (150 quid) sent to my house wrongly from a competitor, and a few months ago I had 256GB SSD (80 quid) come from OCUK by mistake.

Both times I contacted them to ensure it got back to them.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here, OcUK sent me an extra keyboard, sent it straight back and they gave me a mousepad as a thank you! :D Well chuffed!

OP: I'd contact the seller and send it back. How would you feel if it was you selling the item? Then again, I like to think I'm quite a moral person.
 
You wanna keep it just because the seller was a bit slow in replying to you?

Yeah.. sounds like reasonable grounds for theft to me...

nope.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
OK, fair enough but it is still 'theft' in a moral context, whichever loophole you try and exploit.

Given the title of the thread, my point is still relevant.
Click to expand...

But "theft" is a legal construct, and as such should be used to describe the act of it. There are many appropriate ways to describe what is going on without going to emotionally charged language such as "theft" and "stealing". My point is that words have a meaning, and with words like theft, it's important that the meaning isn't corrupted. So whilst I know what you were getting at, it's not theft until it meets certain criteria.

It has nothing to do whether it's right or wrong from a moral perspective though.
 
Robinhood said:
There is no such legal concept as "finders keepers" so if you plan on keeping it..it would be stealing/theft?
Click to expand...

This, keeping it is theft.

I would return it. i always tend to do the action that I hope would be returned in my favour. If I lost something valuable I hope someone would return it to lost and found, so I do the same. Simple.
 
Oh come on OP! Tell us what the item is! We won't mock you! Honest!

As for your moral dilemma, would it leave you with an uneasy feeling of guilt? Or would that feeling quickly pass? And did it come via a recorded delivery?

D.P. said:
This, keeping it is theft.
Click to expand...

So if I sent my TV to someone (by accident) I didn't like, and they kept it, I could then have them charged with theft?
 
Atlas23 said:
As for your moral dilemma, would it leave you with an uneasy feeling of guilt? Or would that feeling quickly pass? And did it come via a recorded delivery?
Click to expand...

I have no guilt at all. It came via the royal mail tracked service but not the signed for delivery. I *think* this just gives confirmation of delivery and not an accountable person.

Agreement on above though, please don't tell me I'm stealing things because I'm not. I don't recall walking into a shop and taking it without payment and I don't remember hacking into anyones EPOS to create a mystical order for one.
 
spoffle said:
But "theft" is a legal construct, and as such should be used to describe the act of it. There are many appropriate ways to describe what is going on without going to emotionally charged language such as "theft" and "stealing". My point is that words have a meaning, and with words like theft, it's important that the meaning isn't corrupted. So whilst I know what you were getting at, it's not theft until it meets certain criteria.

It has nothing to do whether it's right or wrong from a moral perspective though.
Click to expand...

He has obtained goods that do not belong to him, that he has not paid for.

The thread is about morality, not legal constructs.

In the moral context if you receive something that does not belong to you (that you can reasonably suspect the owner would wish returned given the high value of the item) and you know who the owner is and could easily contact them but you decide not to and keep it anyway, what are you doing?

Given your objection to emotive language, I am interested to know what you would call it (given that legal construct definitions by your own admission should not be applied in a moral context).
 
Steveocee said:
I've not stolen anything. At this point I have received mail for an order that was cancelled weeks ago. The conundrum is am I stealing it or not?
Click to expand...

It's not a conundrum... frankly that's retarded. A seller has made a mistake, you've recieved an item you shouldn't have - just contact the seller and tell them... it's not rocket science - they just need to arrange for a courier to collect it when you're free.
 
I can't believe that you're asking this question rather than just doing the right thing. It is obvious by the tone of your post that you believe it to be morally wrong to keep the item, and are just trying to justify your reasons to do so. At the end of the day you haven't paid for the item, they've made a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes. No matter your treatment beforehand with them being a little slow in responding (there could be any number of reasons for this, not just them messing you about), it doesn't give you the right to keep something that you haven't paid for.

So, do the right thing, contact the company, let them know they've made a mistake, let it be on your terms to return the item, and maybe they'll give you something as a gesture of thanks? I can't believe the sense of entitlement of people these days. As soon as a mistake is made, it's like it's the end of the world, when really, it isn't at all. You don't deserve to keep something you haven't paid for. It's simple and even if the law doesn't state it, morally, that's theft.
 
Last edited:
BuffetSlayer said:
He has obtained goods that do not belong to him, that he has not paid for.
Click to expand...
This covers many scenarios.

The thread is about morality, not legal constructs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you are using legal contstructs to describe situations they don't apply to, hence my objection.

In the moral context if you receive something that does not belong to you (that you can reasonably suspect the owner would wish returned given the high value of the item) and you know who the owner is and could easily contact them but you decide not to and keep it anyway, what are you doing?
Click to expand...

The morality aspect is subjective. If the seller doesn't ask for the item back, it is unsolicited goods.

Given your objection to emotive language, I am interested to know what you would call it (given that legal construct definitions by your own admission should not be applied in a moral context).
Click to expand...

No, I said you shouldn't use legal constructs to apply to things that they don't apply to. You are calling it theft to emotionally charge the situation, when it isn't theft until the seller asks for it back, and the OP refuses.

So as above, as it stands, they are unsolicited goods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom