any laws on the topic? I was sent the wrong item from a business via mail, do I have to ship it back?

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

How is it so hard to understand that when you have something you didn't pay for, it's theft? He stole from them, basically the same way those people from Walmart were trying to scam big TVs out of the store by swapping barcodes.

Sure he paid for it. He paid for merchandise and company sent him the wrong one. He did paid for it but company decided to refund the money(it was their option). How did he steal the tv, did he carry/drive it out from the warehouse with out paying, or did he hold gun to their heads?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Xylitol

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

How is it so hard to understand that when you have something you didn't pay for, it's theft? He stole from them, basically the same way those people from Walmart were trying to scam big TVs out of the store by swapping barcodes.

those people from walmart were trying to steal from the start. Again, if the company did EVERYTHING to get the TV back (send someone over to package it, etc.), I could see the OP as a theft. Right now, I only see him as someone who doesn't want to be bothered by anything.

Those thieves you're talking about in your post were GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to steal

Agreed. There was nothing premeditated about the OP's actions. However, once the chips fell his way, he acted the exact same way these guys did at Walmart.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

How is it so hard to understand that when you have something you didn't pay for, it's theft? He stole from them, basically the same way those people from Walmart were trying to scam big TVs out of the store by swapping barcodes.

Sure he paid for it. He paid for merchandise and company sent him the wrong one. He did paid for it but company decided to refund the money(it was their option). How did he steal the tv, did he carry/drive it out from the warehouse with out paying, or did he hold gun to their heads?

Again, you clearly do not understand the law. The law says the TV isn't his, he's holding stolen merchandise at this point and his ONLY recourse is to return it.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

You know you've convinced me.. screw it man I'm gonna shoot up some H steal a car break some windows and rob a liquor store, muthafuckin cops can deal with it

There is big difference between op situation and what you talking about.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

How is it so hard to understand that when you have something you didn't pay for, it's theft? He stole from them, basically the same way those people from Walmart were trying to scam big TVs out of the store by swapping barcodes.

Sure he paid for it. He paid for merchandise and company sent him the wrong one. He did paid for it but company decided to refund the money(it was their option). How did he steal the tv, did he carry/drive it out from the warehouse with out paying, or did he hold gun to their heads?

Again, you clearly do not understand the law. The law says the TV isn't his, he's holding stolen merchandise at this point and his ONLY recourse is to I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP


edit:Quote got screwed up somehow..post the law that says he is violating the law

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

You know you've convinced me.. screw it man I'm gonna shoot up some H steal a car break some windows and rob a liquor store, muthafuckin cops can deal with it

There is big difference between op situation and what you talking about.

Both morally wrong actions to take for no other reason than personal greed with a dismissal of victims to "deal with it"

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

Right and for that he paid the money. The tv company decided to send him the higher model of tv and that is their choice. It was also choice of the tv company to refund him all the money and to make the product totally free for him. I hope OP enjoys the free t.v. this christmas

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

You know you've convinced me.. screw it man I'm gonna shoot up some H steal a car break some windows and rob a liquor store, muthafuckin cops can deal with it

There is big difference between op situation and what you talking about.

Both morally wrong actions to take for no other reason than personal greed with a dismissal of victims to "deal with it"

What part of "morality is irrelevent" do you not understand?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

Right and for that he paid the money. The tv company decided to send him the higher model of tv and that is their choice. It was also choice of the tv company to refund him all the money and to make the product totally free for him. I hope OP enjoys the free t.v. this christmas

There is a difference between choice and mistake, one the law recognizes.

Instead of just spewing your crap about what you THINK is legal, why don't you try and find any law that says the OP is entitled to keep the TV? Go ahead. Trust me, you won't find anything because it's illegal.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

Right and for that he paid the money. The tv company decided to send him the higher model of tv and that is their choice. It was also choice of the tv company to refund him all the money and to make the product totally free for him. I hope OP enjoys the free t.v. this christmas

There is a difference between choice and mistake, one the law recognizes.

Instead of just spewing your crap about what you THINK is legal, why don't you try and find any law that says the OP is entitled to keep the TV? Go ahead. Trust me, you won't find anything because it's illegal.

The way i see it is this, it's legal till proven illegal. I have yet to see law posted that says it's illegal. Till that happens, it's legal for OP to keep tv.

 

[Tweak155]

This thread delivers.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

The merchandise he received was unsolicited. There is no argument otherwise. The only other view is that it was an honest mistake and therefor the company maintains some rights. I have no idea what law supports that claim.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's probably been said, but hey, here it is anyway:
If the company had sent a 22" LCD by accident, and they didn't want to correct their mistake, the OP would probably still be a dick to the CSRs at the company, but instead would be complaining about how they'd ripped him off for not wanting to send him the correct model.

Yes he probabably would and and he also has right in this case to keep tv. Again screw the ethics and screw doing right and wrong. OP should keep t.v. and tell the company to deal with it.

You know you've convinced me.. screw it man I'm gonna shoot up some H steal a car break some windows and rob a liquor store, muthafuckin cops can deal with it

There is big difference between op situation and what you talking about.

Both morally wrong actions to take for no other reason than personal greed with a dismissal of victims to "deal with it"

What part of "morality is irrelevent" do you not understand?

I understand it completely, so much so that I've been convinced I will live by that code and apply it to all situations. Like my drug-fueled armed robbery tonight.

 

[Onita]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

The merchandise he received was unsolicited. There is no argument otherwise. The only other view is that it was an honest mistake and therefor the company maintains some rights. I have no idea what law supports that claim.

There's plenty argument otherwise. Read the damn thread, moran

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

Right and for that he paid the money. The tv company decided to send him the higher model of tv and that is their choice. It was also choice of the tv company to refund him all the money and to make the product totally free for him. I hope OP enjoys the free t.v. this christmas

There is a difference between choice and mistake, one the law recognizes.

Instead of just spewing your crap about what you THINK is legal, why don't you try and find any law that says the OP is entitled to keep the TV? Go ahead. Trust me, you won't find anything because it's illegal.

The way i see it is this, it's legal till proven illegal. I have yet to see law posted that says it's illegal. Till that happens, it's legal for OP to keep tv.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov...s/1996Term/96-1167.htm

"The mistaken delivery of property to an individual who realizes the
mistake and simultaneously forms the intent to steal the property at
the moment of receipt constitutes larceny at common law. W. LaFave &
A. Scott, 2 Substantive Criminal Law 8.2(g) at 342-43 (1986).
Furthermore, where the individual does not realize the mistake at the
time of receipt but realizes it later and then forms the requisite
intent, there is a larceny as well."

Not to mention the subsequent charges of mail fraud and any other local statutes that might apply. States such as VA have laws explicit in prohibiting what the OP is doing:

Whoever, without authority, with the intention of converting goods or
merchandise to his own or another's use without having paid the full
purchase price thereof, or of defrauding the owner of the value of the
goods or merchandise, (i) willfully conceals or takes possession of
the goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile
establishment, or (ii) alters the price tag or other price marking on
such goods or merchandise, or transfers the goods from one container
to another, or (iii) counsels, assists, aids or abets another in the
performance of any of the above acts, when the value of the goods or
merchandise involved in the offense is less than $200, shall be guilty
of petit larceny and, when the value of the goods or merchandise
involved in the offense is $200 or more, shall be guilty of grand
larceny. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store
or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises
thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and
defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or
merchandise."

 

[Red Squirrel]

Here's what I would do. Ask them what the price of that one is, see if you can get a discount, and just pay for the 42. This way at least it saves you from the trouble of shipping it back.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Here's what I would do. Ask them what the price of that one is, see if you can get a discount, and just pay for the 42. This way at least it saves you from the trouble of shipping it back.

He tried that and balked when they wouldn't give it to him for 10% less the Black Friday price.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: GoSharks
Why is it unsolicited? He didn't order it.

I'm not saying that it is ethically right to keep it, I'm just wondering about the law in this case.

I think there is a difference (legally, judging by what people posted here) in just having something show up at your door, and having the wrong item show up on your door because of a mistake by the company.

exactly. lots reading comprehension failure throughout.

In every single law that people have posted regarding "unsolicited material," the caveat is including regarding "incorrect material shipped based on the receiver's order." falls under good-faith laws or some such. Considering that the OP actually opened the box, he's even more screwed.

Basically, those trying to find legal arguments for the OP to keep the TV (there are none), are simply trying to find an excuse for what is legally considered theft. This was not some giant TV randomly shipped to the OP without his approval. HE ORDERED A TV; THEY SHIPPED HIM THE WRONG TV. This is NOT THE SAME as having a random, un-ordered TV sent to your house.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

Right and for that he paid the money. The tv company decided to send him the higher model of tv and that is their choice. It was also choice of the tv company to refund him all the money and to make the product totally free for him. I hope OP enjoys the free t.v. this christmas

There is a difference between choice and mistake, one the law recognizes.

Instead of just spewing your crap about what you THINK is legal, why don't you try and find any law that says the OP is entitled to keep the TV? Go ahead. Trust me, you won't find anything because it's illegal.

The way i see it is this, it's legal till proven illegal. I have yet to see law posted that says it's illegal. Till that happens, it's legal for OP to keep tv.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov...s/1996Term/96-1167.htm

"The mistaken delivery of property to an individual who realizes the
mistake and simultaneously forms the intent to steal the property at
the moment of receipt constitutes larceny at common law. W. LaFave &
A. Scott, 2 Substantive Criminal Law 8.2(g) at 342-43 (1986).
Furthermore, where the individual does not realize the mistake at the
time of receipt but realizes it later and then forms the requisite
intent, there is a larceny as well."

Not to mention the subsequent charges of mail fraud and any other local statutes that might apply. States such as VA have laws explicit in prohibiting what the OP is doing:

Whoever, without authority, with the intention of converting goods or
merchandise to his own or another's use without having paid the full
purchase price thereof, or of defrauding the owner of the value of the
goods or merchandise, (i) willfully conceals or takes possession of
the goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile
establishment, or (ii) alters the price tag or other price marking on
such goods or merchandise, or transfers the goods from one container
to another, or (iii) counsels, assists, aids or abets another in the
performance of any of the above acts, when the value of the goods or
merchandise involved in the offense is less than $200, shall be guilty
of petit larceny and, when the value of the goods or merchandise
involved in the offense is $200 or more, shall be guilty of grand
larceny. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store
or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises
thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and
defraud the owner thereof out of the value of the goods or
merchandise."

It was not mistaken delivery, op paid for the tv. OP didn't defraud anyone, he paid for tv and it was company choice to refund the money. Basically i hope op just tell this company to take a hike and enjoys his new tv. Nothing will happen to him. I know if this happened to me, that is exactly what i would do.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: GoSharks
Why is it unsolicited? He didn't order it.

I'm not saying that it is ethically right to keep it, I'm just wondering about the law in this case.

I think there is a difference (legally, judging by what people posted here) in just having something show up at your door, and having the wrong item show up on your door because of a mistake by the company.

exactly. lots reading comprehension failure throughout.

In every single law that people have posted regarding "unsolicited material," the caveat is including regarding "incorrect material shipped based on the receiver's order." falls under good-faith laws or some such. Considering that the OP actually opened the box, he's even more screwed.

Basically, those trying to find legal arguments for the OP to keep the TV (there are none), are simply trying to find an excuse for what is legally considered theft. This was not some giant TV randomly shipped to the OP without his approval. HE ORDERED A TV; THEY SHIPPED HIM THE WRONG TV. This is NOT THE SAME as having a random, un-ordered TV sent to your house.

Lets say he is technically guilty. Is DA going to arrest him/prosecute him for this? NO, DA got much more thing to do. However, i do not believe he is guilty of anything and should enjoy the tv

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

I am still not seeing how he got shipper company to steal tv for OP

If Dell shows up at my doorstep and delivers a pallet of computers, I'm entitled to keep them if I didn't order them. In this case, the OP did order something from this company, so the merchandise was NOT unsolicited -- unsolicited receipt being the only way he could legally keep it.

The merchandise he received was unsolicited. There is no argument otherwise. The only other view is that it was an honest mistake and therefor the company maintains some rights. I have no idea what law supports that claim.

this is where your problem lies.

A TV was solicited, just not the 46" one. It was a mistake by the Company.

If he was sitting around one day and never ordered anything and then someone drops off a 46" TV at his doorstep, then that would be unsolicited.

as for the law just google unjust enrichment

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001
Haven't found what you decided to do but I hope you keep it the t.v. and tell the company to go pound the sand.

Well, considering the company could (and should) press charges against him if he does that, I'd say it's an absolutely terrible idea. Not to mention the fact that it is completely unethical.

Well ethics are irrelevent in this case. Now regarding pressing charges, for what? Did he go in to the warehouse and illegally drive out with this t.v.? Did he hold gun to their head ,to force them to send him ths t.v? Basically no to both of those question as such he didn't do anything criminal. Next time this company should not make such big mistake and learn from this error.

Again I hope he keeps the .t.v. and tells the company to go pound the sand.

Ethics should never be irrelevant, and anyone who says they are is just an unethical person trying to excuse themselves.

edit: and its illegal. So morally and practically you are wrong.

Fine i am unethical person, i can live with that.

edit:As for practically, he didn't force them to send the tv so can't do anything about it. If they try to charge his card, it would be unauthorizerd charge which he can easily dispute with cc. They could have kept the money for 32 inch instead of refunding the money.

lemme guess, you have yet to step foot into the real world? I'm sensing low cognitive ability in terms of how you are able to process the value of ethics, understandings of legality, and separating self-importance from an objective perspective in a 2-party dispute.

this leads me to conclude that you are between 10-15 years old, and are better off not weighing in on a situation that by law, would invariably see the OP in jail were he to follow your childish advice.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001
Haven't found what you decided to do but I hope you keep it the t.v. and tell the company to go pound the sand.

Well, considering the company could (and should) press charges against him if he does that, I'd say it's an absolutely terrible idea. Not to mention the fact that it is completely unethical.

Well ethics are irrelevent in this case. Now regarding pressing charges, for what? Did he go in to the warehouse and illegally drive out with this t.v.? Did he hold gun to their head ,to force them to send him ths t.v? Basically no to both of those question as such he didn't do anything criminal. Next time this company should not make such big mistake and learn from this error.

Again I hope he keeps the .t.v. and tells the company to go pound the sand.

Ethics should never be irrelevant, and anyone who says they are is just an unethical person trying to excuse themselves.

edit: and its illegal. So morally and practically you are wrong.

Fine i am unethical person, i can live with that.

edit:As for practically, he didn't force them to send the tv so can't do anything about it. If they try to charge his card, it would be unauthorizerd charge which he can easily dispute with cc. They could have kept the money for 32 inch instead of refunding the money.

lemme guess, you have yet to step foot into the real world? I'm sensing low cognitive ability in terms of how you are able to process the value of ethics, understandings of legality, and separating self-importance from an objective perspective in a 2-party dispute.

this leads me to conclude that you are between 10-15 years old, and are better off not weighing in on a situation that by law, would invariably see the OP in jail were he to follow your childish advice.

More like 25+

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001
Haven't found what you decided to do but I hope you keep it the t.v. and tell the company to go pound the sand.

Well, considering the company could (and should) press charges against him if he does that, I'd say it's an absolutely terrible idea. Not to mention the fact that it is completely unethical.

Well ethics are irrelevent in this case. Now regarding pressing charges, for what? Did he go in to the warehouse and illegally drive out with this t.v.? Did he hold gun to their head ,to force them to send him ths t.v? Basically no to both of those question as such he didn't do anything criminal. Next time this company should not make such big mistake and learn from this error.

Again I hope he keeps the .t.v. and tells the company to go pound the sand.

Ethics should never be irrelevant, and anyone who says they are is just an unethical person trying to excuse themselves.

edit: and its illegal. So morally and practically you are wrong.

Fine i am unethical person, i can live with that.

edit:As for practically, he didn't force them to send the tv so can't do anything about it. If they try to charge his card, it would be unauthorizerd charge which he can easily dispute with cc. They could have kept the money for 32 inch instead of refunding the money.

You're missing the part where it is illegal. It is unpractical because he will not be able to keep the TV and will face legal consequences for trying to, so it is practical for him to return it.

What would be the criminal charge?

stealing the TV, which is how the law defines what he has done.