Sent Item To Wrong Address

Status
Not open for further replies.
Benjarghmin said:
Lovely way to start the morning. Laughing at someone who messed up and demands someone else to fix it for them.
Click to expand...
Lovely way to start the evening, laughing at a know-it-all on an Internet forum who is making a 'tard of himself.

You have changed what you are saying about this a lot from when you started to post:

Benjarghmin said:
No, they wouldn't. If I shot you 'on accident', would they favour me because it was an accident? The law is the law.

The definition of unsolicited goods, is really, really simple. They have not been requested. Therefore it doesn't matter if you've dealt with the person before. You did NOT request the item, making it unsolicited.
Click to expand...
Etc..

Until now:
Benjarghmin said:
For the fifteenth time I'm not saying that he has sent unsolicited goods.
Click to expand...
Hmm! Doesn't match with what you were originally saying :p

Just curious, what is your experience with law? You seem to be pretty sure of yourself, do you work in a solicitors or study law or something? (serious question).

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that this is not a case of unsolicited goods. Unsolicited goods is where a company send out items to people on purpose, with the intention to bully them into paying for them, NOT when somebody accidently sends an item to the wrong address. Hell, the OP even offered this guy a tenner to send it onto the intended recipient when it only costs 7 quid!

Any court would easily see this.

Good luck OP, wait the 14 days and see what happens. I am pretty sure the law will be on your side here though :)
 
Last edited:
Had another reply from him tonight saying...

HI Sam,

I am not going to enter in to the legalities(needless to say I was already aware of the below) of who is wrong and right as If required I will leave this to my solicitors, as opposed to information obtained from the internet which is not quoted in its entirety and could potentially be the wrong laws/acts altogether.

After reviewing the below I do have one question that you could ask your contact, purely out of curiosity: (a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person (the recipient) with a view to his acquiring them. how was I to know that this wasn't the intention?,.. another point is that this is 1 of roughly 6 acts that apply to this situation all in differing degrees of specificness, I would ask him to look further than looking on goggle and drawing conclusions as I feel that that is what may have happened.

Please be careful of the legal advice you take from non-qualified individuals - as you can see from the below, the law is open to interpretation in many ways, you just need to make sure it is interpreted in the correct way which is the confusing part, for example it could be deemed using an additional part of the below act, and probably the key part that protects the recipient, is that you may be liable to pay a large fine of up to £5000 for pursuing payment/the item back - however this specific part of the act is aimed at business, there is a completely different section of the law governing liabilities for private parties/members of the general public, which, at a guess no one on the net is aware of, as when I searched for several hours i didn't find it.

Also on a different note, have you posted any details about this on the web as I am getting some rather strange mails through EBAY contact seller refering to returning the card?.

I am offering you this as I agreed to it, and as far as I can see it is morally, not legally, the correct thing to do. I require a simple yes or no as to whether you require this money or not, please let me know how you wish to proceed.

Regards

Mr Green
Click to expand...

Should I reply or not :confused:
 
I'd say the best reply to send (if you feel you must send one, i'm not sure, i don't know if it would go against you if you were to be seen as ignoring him) would be to say you are perfectly confident in any legal advice you have recieved and will be expecting the money/card as you stated in your letter. (assuming of course that you are :p)

I really hope for your sake, some dumbass numpties off here haven't started sending the bloke messages though, as that really won't help you :( It wouldn't be the first time some less than bright soul has tried to be 'helpful' on here.
 
Did you reply to his last email then?

If I was in your situation i'd feel the urge to reply constantly as I'd want my money. But trust me, keep him waiting, he'll break eventually. Don't reply.
 
Don't reply. I know it's tempting to but don't. You cause him anxiety by doing nothing.

Let him sweat.

In the meantime get some proper advice and if they suggest you are in the right then take him to the SCC.. Small claims court is a piece of cake. I don't just mean the forms (which can be done online) but the actual claim. It's like sitting in a room with an unbias individual who passes judgement.

Anyone reasonable would see you are right, subject of course to the inns and outs of the law as people have bickered around in this thread.
 
As said a million times, ignore him!

He just used the "how did I know" argument, but you have proof it was unintentional. It seems to me he is grasping at straws and trying to make you unsure about any advice you are receiving. I strongly suspect he is reading this thread as he always seems to email after some revelation in here!

Just keep biding your time. In just a few hours he has gone from "the matter is closed" to "I have 55 quid here".

Good luck :)
 
Amoeba said:
snip
Click to expand...

I do not claim to have a background in law. Yes, my posts are a little muddled, and yes, my views changed between the last and the first post, as I took in things others were saying. Surely that's the point of debate, not a crime?

And to someone else who posted, I originally didn't want to reply as I saw I was getting nowhere, but then felt the need to attempt to clarify my points, as they were being misinterpreted.

Believe what you will :)
 
That last email makes it very obvious that our good friend, Mr M Green, is now reading this thread and indirectly asking us questions.

Mr M Green said:
After reviewing the below I do have one question that you could ask your contact, purely out of curiosity: (a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person (the recipient) with a view to his acquiring them. how was I to know that this wasn't the intention?,.. another point is that this is 1 of roughly 6 acts that apply to this situation all in differing degrees of specificness,
Click to expand...
Here's my question for you, Mr Green. Why are you asking us for clarification on the law? What happened to your solicitor? You're paying him so surely you ought to make use of him? :confused: :confused:

Anyway, I'll answer your question this time, but ask your "solicitor" in the future.

When deciding whether or not this is a case of unsolicited goods, the court considers the intention of the sender. It is not decided by reference to how the recipient interprets the goods. So, your question "how was I to know" is not even the issue. Again, step back and look at the bigger picture. Every recipient of a mistaken delivery could simply use the "how was I supposed to know" argument as a loophole to acquiring ownership rights to goods that they were never intended to receive in the first place. That is the reason why it is the sender's intention that is relevant and not the recipient's interpretation.

Regarding your next point, there are not "roughly" six Acts that apply to this situation. Acts, Regulations and Directives are completely different things. As I have already said, the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 was amended by the Consumer Protection (Distant Selling) Regulations 2000. These are the pieces of legislation that are relevant to this case. Anything else is either an EC Directive, a proposed reform Bill or irrelevant. Remember, Directives must be implemented before they have full binding force in the UK. Until so, they are merely of persuasive authority.

Mr M Green said:
I would ask him to look further than looking on goggle and drawing conclusions as I feel that that is what may have happened.
Click to expand...
Assumption is the mother of all mistakes. Not everybody uses google. All sorts of people with legal experience use the internet. Even judges use the internet, so don't always assume that everybody is a keyboard basher searching for answers.

Mr M Green said:
Please feel free to send a court summons as I have already recearched and found examples of case law where this type of situation has occoured and on all occasions been found in favour of the recipient, as you are no doubt aware - case law stipulates that if a case of the same nature is raised it must be handled the same way as a previous case - its what all the top lawyers use - hence why they are so expensive.
Click to expand...

This is an earlier quote from one of your emails. It speaks volumes about your legal knowledge. I suggest that you consult a real solicitor because you will, in due course, need to prepare a defence to this case. And don't ask me either! ;)

Good night :)
 
Why would someone who sells and has sold items on ebay want to take a graphics card to a car boot sale where it will probably sell for a lot less than it's worth?

I think that's a reasonable question.

Hyper - did you include an invoice with the buyers ebay details in the package?
 
Mr Joshua said:
Hyper - did you include an invoice with the buyers ebay details in the package?
Click to expand...

no he didnt but it had the origonal from january, he did however mention one for sale on ebay to sam (hyper) and said how much it was going for.


the fact he is saying how was i to know it wasnt unsolicited goods. well abit of waiting time to see??
 
dbmzk1 said:
I still don't see how this can be anything but unsolicited mail. It will be interesting to hear what trading standards have to say about it.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read previous posts in this thread - more specifically Explicit's epicly-awesome posts. :p

Anyway, it's taken me hours to read, but it's been worth it. Best of luck OP I'm sure you'll get something out of this - if not the cash or the card you'll get a fountain of legal experience.

Edit: Reading Benjauhman's posts reminds me of what I was like when I was 16 :)
 
toosepin said:
I think you need to re-read previous posts in this thread - more specifically Explicit's epicly-awesome posts. :p

Anyway, it's taken me hours to read, but it's been worth it. Best of luck OP I'm sure you'll get something out of this - if not the cash or the card you'll get a fountain of legal experience.

Edit: Reading Benjauhman's posts reminds me of what I was like when I was 16 :)
Click to expand...

I fail to see what is "epicly-awesome" about his posts. He is relying on his opinion as much as myself or Benjarghmin. The fact is none of us know what the true legal outcome of this will be. We are all merely voicing our opinion. :)
 
dbmzk1 said:
I fail to see what is "epicly-awesome" about his posts. He is relying on his opinion as much as myself or Benjarghmin. The fact is none of us know what the true legal outcome of this will be. We are all merely voicing our opinion. :)
Click to expand...

Wahey, someone finally realises what I meant. I love you.
 
dbmzk1 said:
I still don't see how this can be anything but unsolicited mail. It will be interesting to hear what trading standards have to say about it.
Click to expand...

I think you're taking 'unsolicited mail' too literally and stamping it on this case. Please tell me you can see that there's a difference between the nature of this 'unsolicited' graphics card i.e. accidental, and unsolicited mail whereby someone is intentionally sent an unrequested item, i.e. deliberate. It would be a pretty rubbish set of regulations/legal system if such a difference was not able to be distinguished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom