Sent Item To Wrong Address

[Hyper]

There is no proof that he does, but even if he does, there is nothing he can do to stop the law from speaking its opinion

 

[El Gringo]

There was a mention in one of the emails that there was a link given implying slander, could be to here.

 

[Majago]

I thought the OP responded to that by saying that he hadn't linked the other guy to this thread.

Even so as the OP says the court (if it comes to that) will ultimately decide who's in the right and it shouldn't matter whether each party knows what the other is going to do (if they both prepare properly then they should already anticipate each other moves). Like I say this dispute may be resolved before that stage anyway.

 

[tom_e]

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?'

I was thinking about it but then I came to my sences

 

[Participant]

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.

 

[Legoman]

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.

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.

 

[Explicit]

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..

If only it was that simple

You can only rely on s.2(1)(a) is you believe you have a legal right to deal with the property. A belief in itself is not enough.

If the defendant cannot rely on s.2, the courts go on to consider the common law test for dishonesty. This test relies upon the notion of what reasonable and honest people would regard as dishonest. So this is objective (based on the view of others) rather than subjective (what you believe you are allowed to do). Objectively, your conduct would be regarded as dishonest and you almost certainly will be convicted of theft.

 

[molar]

Explicit, fantastic post

One of the best threads I have read on these forums.
Going to make a cup of tea and read it all again

 

[divine`]

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.

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.

 

[Nebzor]

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'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]

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.

I wasn't aware that the OP had posted a copy of the letter he'd sent. How could it turn sour?

 

[Anders0n]

Very interesting thread. Good luck to the OP, although you shouldn't need it, you are definitely in the right.

 

[Nebzor]

I wasn't aware that the OP had posted a copy of the letter he'd sent. How could it turn sour?

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.

 

[Legoman]

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.

Is there a problem with my alias?

Where has the OP threatened legal action over unsolicited goods?

 

[Nebzor]

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

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.

 

[Explicit]

threatening legal action over unsolicited goods is a Level 5 Fine - £5,000.

If, and only if, done in the course of a business. Same applies for demanding payment.

The OP is a private seller.

 

[Nebzor]

If, and only if, done in the course of a business.

The OP is a private seller.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Nebzor]

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.

There obviously is a maybe, or I would've been told by the CAB or ConsumerDirect that it is definitely not a possibility, as that is their job. However, they haven't, and they've said it's not a clear cut case and that I now have to speak to Trading Standards. So, it isn't clear cut, as you claim it to be.

 

[Legoman]

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.

You assume. You don't know do you?

Exactly what law has he broken if he has requested his item back within a time limit?