I was thinking about it but then I came to my sencesMajago said:I'm surprised that no-one has started a parody thread entitled 'Received a free graphic card in the post, should I give it back?'
This is indeed a great thread. A number of posters seem to think that you can keep anything that is given to you by mistake and that the Unsolicited Goods Act allows this. I guess that's why there is so much debate and serves to illustrate how open to mis-interpretation the law is.Robbie G said:What a fascinating thread. From all the arguments posted I believe Hyper to be in the right. As someone said earlier in this thread, remote trade would be carnage if every Tom Dick and Harry could keep any goods sent to them by mistake. If money drops into your bank account in a banking error you still have to pay it back even though it was unsolicited. These are not unsolicited goods, they are goods sent in error. "Matthew" must remedy your loss.
Good luck.
Darg said:Sweet! I believe I have the lawful right to take this car.. *yoink*.
Sorry officer but I believed I was allowed to!
Oh okay then.. on your way now..
wesley said:Explicit, fantastic post
Legoman said:This is indeed a great thread. A number of posters seem to think that you can keep anything that is given to you by mistake and that the Unsolicited Goods Act allows this. I guess that's why there is so much debate and serves to illustrate how open to mis-interpretation the law is.
divine_madness said:I think the interpretation of the act (ie. being allowed to keep unsolicited goods) is generally fairly well understood, albeit with small confusion over the older 1 month / 3 month clause, versus the new instant terms.
Where the confusion comes in is where the unsolicited goods act applies, I know this is where i was getting confused. Everything I could find online (and thus I am guessing what most people would find) mentioned nothing about what actually constituted unsolicited goods versus mistakenly delivered goods and so it's no wonder so many people are of the opinion they can keep such items etc.
I wasn't aware that the OP had posted a copy of the letter he'd sent. How could it turn sour?Benjarghmin said:I'm in the same boat as the second paragraph ^_^ I'm hoping to be proved wrong, though. Wouldn't be nice if this turns out sour, especially after the letter that has been sent.
Good luck, OP.
Legoman said:I wasn't aware that the OP had posted a copy of the letter he'd sent. How could it turn sour?
Is there a problem with my alias?Benjarghmin said:Note the word in bold, here The receiver has given us notice of the UGA, and so most likely will have read what we've all read, and so will have most likely read about the offences under the UGA. IF these do turn out to be unsolicited goods, I sincerely hope he doesn't want to fight back, as threatening legal action over unsolicited goods is a Level 5 Fine - £5,000.
My fears of course, all depend on whether or not these are deemed to be unsolicited.
Hyper said:Morning lads,
This topic seems to have caused a bit of a stir, just keep it clean as I dont want it getting locked.
I sent off a letter this morning via Royal Mail 1st Class Recorded so he should receive it tomorrow and he has 14 days from when he receives it to either return the item or pay up the full amount it was sold for on ebay.
If not, off to the small claims court I go
Will keep you all updated
Benjarghmin said:threatening legal action over unsolicited goods is a Level 5 Fine - £5,000.
Explicit said:If, and only if, done in the course of a business.
The OP is a private seller.
You keep saying that they might be unsolicted goods when numerous posters have quoted law that clearly state that goods sent in error are not unsolicited. There is no "maybe" about it.Benjarghmin said:For the fifteenth time I'm not saying that he has sent unsolicited goods. I'm saying that it will be used against him if this is taken to court, and then it's up to the law to say what happens. I'm quite clearly stating that it could go either way, and have explicitly stated that I hope they aren't unsolicited goods. So if you could stop quoting parts of my posts and repeating the same points which rely on the grounds of me saying they're unsolicited and he's in big trouble, which is not the case, I'd appreciate it.
Legoman said:You keep saying that they might be unsolicted goods when numerous posters have quoted law that clearly state that goods sent in error are not unsolicited. There is no "maybe" about it.
You assume. You don't know do you?Benjarghmin said:Both of those parts of the letter break the law, if these are to be deemed unsolicited goods. If not, then Hyper gets his money back. And even if so, we can still hope Matthew doesn't know the amount of money at stake if they are unsolicited.
Edit: I assume he included those parts in the letter in some form, maybe not the SCC part though.