Sent Item To Wrong Address

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:02

Thanks for the post. Still wondering why this is continuing when we're getting an official voice on the matter :confused:

div0 · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:04

Benjarghmin said:
No. He already had the other item. They're two completely different transactions. One requested, the other not.

See my example though. I don't see how it is any different. In all my examples OcUK could have MEANT to sell the monitor to someone else, and would have a transaction saying that that was the case.

You've already said that if it arrives in error (the error being it is the wrong item, then it can NOT be classed as unsolicited).

So what about if the delivery guy brings me the RAM that I ordered, then comes back 5 minutes later saying, actually I've got another box for you. Is that then unsolicited and I can keep it? What about an hour later, or a day later, a week anyone?

Just putting it out as a suggestion, I don't know the answer myself!

wordy said:
Yep, you really want a free monitor

LOL

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:06

I'm not even going to bother replying anymore until I've got this phone call from Trading Standards. You're all so certain he's in the right that you're rejecting anything I've said as instantly wrong. Obviously it isn't instantly wrong, or I would've been told it was by ConsumerDirect. Will let you know when the call comes through.

Naffa · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:06

Fantastic post Explicit. I think you've cleared that up for the majority of people. Me being one of them.

Thanks for taking to time to post.

Explicit · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:07

naffa said:
Fantastic post Explicit. I think you've cleared that up for the majority of people. Me being one of them.

Thanks for taking to time to post.

You're welcome

wesley · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:07

Explicit, fantastic post

a question to OP, is it really worth it? mite as well accept £30 from matthew which he offered and move on

Shadez · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:10

goto

www.5ive-o.com

Post the problem on there, you will get some very good advice as the forum is full of coppers, judges and lawers.

div0 · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:11

Benjarghmin said:
You're all so certain he's in the right that you're rejecting anything I've said as instantly wrong. Obviously it isn't instantly wrong, or I would've been told it was by ConsumerDirect. Will let you know when the call comes through.

No-one (well not me at least) is instantly dismissing you as wrong. In fact I think that there is a pretty reasonable chance you are right.

The point is that there are arguments you can make where the OP MAY actually have a valid legal case.

It seems to be you that is unable to see that perhaps your argument isn't instantly right, otherwise CD would have told you you were.

Will be interesting to see what they get back to you with. I'm not having a go at you. I'm completely in the middle on this and I don't claim to know enough about the law to try and argue one way or the other. A point I've tried to stress numerous times.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:11

Great post Explicit. Thanks for taking the time to quote the relevant parts of the legislation. You've confirmed what I have been saying all along.

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:15

Benjarghmin said:
I'm not even going to bother replying anymore until I've got this phone call from Trading Standards. You're all so certain he's in the right that you're rejecting anything I've said as instantly wrong. Obviously it isn't instantly wrong, or I would've been told it was by ConsumerDirect. Will let you know when the call comes through.

Not being funny Benjarghmin but you've rejected things that others have said as wrong.

I think Explicit's detailed post is the best information we've had so far.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:15

div0 said:
No-one (well not me at least) is instantly dismissing you as wrong. In fact I think that there is a pretty reasonable chance you are right.

The point is that there are arguments you can make where the OP MAY actually have a valid legal case.

It seems to be you that is unable to see that perhaps your argument isn't instantly right, otherwise CD would have told you you were.

Will be interesting to see what they get back to you with. I'm not having a go at you. I'm completely in the middle on this and I don't claim to know enough about the law to try and argue one way or the other. A point I've tried to stress numerous times.

I've made my point multiple times, that I'm awaiting evidence to prove that accidental delivery voids the fact it's unsolicited. I am obviously not claiming I'm instantly right.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:16

Legoman said:
Not being funny Benjarghmin but you've rejected things that others have said as wrong.

I think Explicit's detailed post is the best information we've had so far.

Yes, it has. I've said that irritating suggestions just to argue for the sake of it are wrong, because they are completely irrelevant to Hyper's situation.

Explicit · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:16

wesley said:
Explicit, fantastic post

Legoman said:
Great post Explicit. Thanks for taking the time to quote the relevant parts of the legislation. You've confirmed what I have been saying all along.

No worries guys, I quite enjoy reading these legal threads.

mrk · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:16

Hyper said:
It goes from bad to worse, I got this reply today:

Where do I stand because surely he should have returned it to the return address.

Massive apologies?

This sounds like the guy has had a brain storm (sorry, thought shower) and has decided to make a little bit of side money. I do not think he had it sold at a car boot, how many people sell such things at a car boot and how many people who go to car boots on a sunday at 7am know what this item actually is?

Precisely

Unlucky dude :/

Legoman · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:25

Benjarghmin said:
Yes, it has. I've said that irritating suggestions just to argue for the sake of it are wrong, because they are completely irrelevant to Hyper's situation.

I haven't argued for the sake of it. All I've said is that I don't believe that the UGA covers items there are sent in error. This is very relevant to Hyper's situation because the recipient is claiming that it does.

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:28

Legoman said:
I haven't argued for the sake of it. All I've said is that I don't believe that the UGA covers items there are sent in error. This is very relevant to Hyper's situation because the recipient is claiming that it does.

For at least the 5th time, I'm saying that's a very real possibility, and that I'd love it if someone could show that this is the case.

And if I'm being argumentative or rude I apologise, I'm merely trying to show why I fear the worst. (Edit: And after that letter, the worst got a lot worse.. if you get me

)

laissez-faire · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:38

To the OP:

Looking back over when you posted the last email from him he wrote something along the lines 'and judging by what was posted on that internet link you gave me...'

You didn't give him the link to this thread did you?

Explicit · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:38

Legoman said:
All I've said is that I don't believe that the UGA covers items there are sent in error.

Precisely.

If that were not the case, imagine the repercussions it would have upon business and trade. Every single mistaken delivery would be treated as an unconditional gift to the consumer. Does that sound right? Nope.

Humans make errors, deliveries and addresses can get muddled up once in a while. The law accommodates for this fact by having an intention requirement.

There is a big difference between intentionally sending unsolicited goods to a person and mistakenly sending unrequested goods to a person. Only the former is intended to be caught by the legislation.

Dave M · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:41

Benjarghmin said:
Thanks for the post. Still wondering why this is continuing when we're getting an official voice on the matter

Because it's a discussion forum?

Besides, I'm perfectly happy with accepting Explicit's answer - he may not be official but he sounds like he knows a lot more than anyone in trading standards I've spoken to (don't trading standards only concern themselves with companies anyway?).

Nebzor · 19 Jul 2007 at 12:45

Telescopi said:
Because it's a discussion forum?

Besides, I'm perfectly happy with accepting Explicit's answer - he may not be official but he sounds like he knows a lot more than anyone in trading standards I've spoken to (don't trading standards only concern themselves with companies anyway?).

It is a discussion forum, yes. But if you read through the posts, we're just rephrasing the same points over and over again.

The way it goes basically depends on whether they're classed as unsolicited goods, it seems. And Explicit's answer is very detailed, and may very well be true, but I personally (and I don't expect anyone else to) want to hear from Trading Standards, as it's obviously not as clear cut as each of us wants to make it.