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

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: 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.

how does the law define what he has done as stealing?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: 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.

Again, incorrect.

The ONLY circumstances under which the OP could keep the TV is if it was sent to him out the of the blue. In this situation, a TV was solicited from the company. They fucked up and sent him the wrong one. That means, according to the laws I posted above and according to the USPS, the TV is not his to keep.

Most likely the company will turn him over to collections, which will kill his credit. If they get pissed enough, they'll press charges against him and, if he's unlucky, the feds could slap mail fraud charges on top of the whole thing.

Here are the outcomes if he keeps the TV:
1. He gets a "free" TV! (100% likely)
2. He gets turned over to collections and his credit gets ruined (100% likely)
3. The company comes after him in small claims court (80% likely)
4. He gets prosecuted under state laws for theft and goes to jail or receives a punishment of some sort (I'd say less than 50% chance)
5. He gets prosecuted under state AND federal laws and goes to jail for a long time (less than 10% chance)

1 good thing, four potentially horrible things, all of which result in losing the tv, fines, and / or jail time.

This isn't a very complicated situation.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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

Several of them have been posted throughout this thread.

seeing as how you hold a very strong opinion about the OP's innocence, one would think you'd be willing to "waste your time" to search through the thread and educate yourself with the work that others have already done?

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: 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+

Lives with parents or has not hit maturity of a 16+ y.o.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

exactly. you're wrong to think that is the case.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001
What part of "morality is irrelevent" do you not understand?

exactly. you're wrong to think that is the case.

He thinks laws don't include morals and can be neglected in a court case.

This is exactly why judges reduce fines and penalties because they go strictly by law. Genius.

 

[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

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.

Again, incorrect.

The ONLY circumstances under which the OP could keep the TV is if it was sent to him out the of the blue. In this situation, a TV was solicited from the company. They fucked up and sent him the wrong one. That means, according to the laws I posted above and according to the USPS, the TV is not his to keep.

Most likely the company will turn him over to collections, which will kill his credit. If they get pissed enough, they'll press charges against him and, if he's unlucky, the feds could slap mail fraud charges on top of the whole thing.

Here are the outcomes if he keeps the TV:
1. He gets a "free" TV! (100% likely)
2. He gets turned over to collections and his credit gets ruined (100% likely)
3. The company comes after him in small claims court (80% likely)
4. He gets prosecuted under state laws for theft and goes to jail or receives a punishment of some sort (I'd say less than 50% chance)
5. He gets prosecuted under state AND federal laws and goes to jail for a long time (less than 10% chance)

1 good thing, four potentially horrible things, all of which result in losing the tv, fines, and / or jail time.

This isn't a very complicated situation.

1)Agree
2) Debt verfication will take care of this. They don't have written agreement from that he agree to pay for 42inch tv. He as evidence that they actually refunded the money to him. So good luck with collection agency
3) Maybe, even if they win good luck collecting(pretty hard)
4) Much less then 50%, the cost of trial etc is not worth to da to even try such cases
5)Probably more like 0%

 

[zinfamous]

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.

because you haven't LOOKED. if you looked through this thread, you'd see the illegality explained clear as day. Especially regarding in CA, where this issue is 100% relevant.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

not according to every law that states otherwise.

guess what? THE PLANE TAKES OFF, TOO! There is no argument otherwise.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001
What part of "morality is irrelevent" do you not understand?

exactly. you're wrong to think that is the case.

He thinks laws don't include morals and can be neglected in a court case.

This is exactly why judges reduce fines and penalties because they go strictly by law. Genius.

Judges have latitude, and yes again morality is irrelevent as it's not a law.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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

AH, I had no idea that you were a valid authority on what the DA felt was a worthwhile use of his time. So, here you acknowledge the illegality of it, but then decide it doesn't matter b/c the DA won't care?

please stay off the streets, you have nothing of value to contribute to society.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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+

pathetic. Do you pay taxes? do you think it's "ethical" to do so?

I'm hoping English is your second language, at the very least.

 

[BeauJangles]

It's too bad, California's state criminal code website is down until December 1st. However, it is highly likely to mirror what I cited from VA, which would make what he's done illegal (grand larceny to be exact).

edit: Just because he didn't physically steal the television doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. He was aware of the fact that he had not paid in full for the goods he received and, much like receipt of stolen property, he can be charged with grand larceny in this case.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: 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.

how does the law define what he has done as stealing?

READ THE MOTHERFUCKING THREAD!

IT has been linked so many times it ain't even funny. I believe BoomerD posted the law in CA, which expressly defines this situation.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

not according to every law that states otherwise.

guess what? THE PLANE TAKES OFF, TOO! There is no argument otherwise.

Also, everyone is assuming that this was an honest mistake by the company. This could totally not be the case. A disgruntled employee could have caused all of this. So should the OP have to pay for a company that can't control their disgruntled employees?

What happens if the OP decides to ship this back and drops it on the way to the post office? Does he then have to pay the company for nothing in return?

What if someone robs him and steals the TV when he goes to make change for the parking meter for the USPS lot?

What about the shitty time and pain in the ass the OP has to go through because of the company's retarded screw up?

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001
What part of "morality is irrelevent" do you not understand?

exactly. you're wrong to think that is the case.

He thinks laws don't include morals and can be neglected in a court case.

This is exactly why judges reduce fines and penalties because they go strictly by law. Genius.

Judges have latitude, and yes again morality is irrelevent as it's not a law.

Speaking of morality...

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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+

pathetic. Do you pay taxes? do you think it's "ethical" to do so?

I'm hoping English is your second language, at the very least.

Two things are certain in life, death and paying taxes. Yes i pay taxes and it's not relevant if i think paying taxes is ethical or not as i don't have a choice. English is my first language but i am sitting and relaxing on the couch so i am not really watching my spelling/grammar

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's too bad, California's state criminal code website is down until December 1st. However, it is highly likely to mirror what I cited from VA, which would make what he's done illegal (grand larceny to be exact).

edit: Just because he didn't physically steal the television doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. He was aware of the fact that he had not paid in full for the goods he received and, much like receipt of stolen property, he can be charged with grand larceny in this case.

well, I'll go ahead and link this for the new batch of idiots that have arrived. (not you Mr Fried Chicken man ) Here is Boomer's post a few pages back.

Holy Hell! I clicked a page over to find it! It took me 2 seconds!!!!!

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The OP's profile shows him in Kahleeforneeya.

The Kahleeforneeya Department of Consumer Affairs sez:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/mail.shtml

"It is illegal for a business to try to sell you something by sending you merchandise that you have not ordered or consented to receive. A business cannot send you unordered merchandise unless the merchandise is:

a free sample which is clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or
mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contribution and is marked as a gift.
If a business sends you something in the mail that you did not order or consent to receive, and has done so with the intention of selling it or another product or service to you, you have no obligation to either return the unordered item or pay for it. It is illegal for a company that sends unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or a demand for payment. (This rule does not apply where you have agreed with a business in advance to receive merchandise on a periodic basis, and it also does not apply to a good faith error on the part of the business that sent the merchandise.)"


Send it back. They appear to have bent over backwards to correct their error.
I'd probably try for some form of compensation, perhaps a percentage off the TV you ordered, for your "trouble," but otherwise, you are legally obligated to return the product.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

not according to every law that states otherwise.

guess what? THE PLANE TAKES OFF, TOO! There is no argument otherwise.

Also, everyone is assuming that this was an honest mistake by the company. This could totally not be the case.

1 - A disgruntled employee could have caused all of this. So should the OP have to pay for a company that can't control their disgruntled employees?

2 - What happens if the OP decides to ship this back and drops it on the way to the post office? Does he then have to pay the company for nothing in return?

3 - What if someone robs him and steals the TV when he goes to make change for the parking meter for the USPS lot?

4 - What about the shitty time and pain in the ass the OP has to go through because of the company's retarded screw up?

Numbered for simplicity:

1 - What is he "paying"? A free TV?
2 - Most likely not his responsibility...
3 - Not his resonsibility
4 - Because he opened the box? Otherwise "pain in the ass" is very minimal.

Lets keep making up stuff that doesn't apply!

What if he kills himself???
What if his mom doesn't like the color of his shirt???
What if the TV has a problem and he needs it repaired???

All irrelevant. Who cares? Until it happens, it doesn't apply.

EDIT:

And even if any of that happens, doesn't change the fact he shouldn't have kept the TV in the first place.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's too bad, California's state criminal code website is down until December 1st. However, it is highly likely to mirror what I cited from VA, which would make what he's done illegal (grand larceny to be exact).

edit: Just because he didn't physically steal the television doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. He was aware of the fact that he had not paid in full for the goods he received and, much like receipt of stolen property, he can be charged with grand larceny in this case.

well, I'll go ahead and link this for the new batch of idiots that have arrived. (not you Mr Fried Chicken man ) Here is Boomer's post a few pages back.

Holy Hell! I clicked a page over to find it! It took me 2 seconds!!!!!

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The OP's profile shows him in Kahleeforneeya.

The Kahleeforneeya Department of Consumer Affairs sez:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/mail.shtml

"It is illegal for a business to try to sell you something by sending you merchandise that you have not ordered or consented to receive. A business cannot send you unordered merchandise unless the merchandise is:

a free sample which is clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or
mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contribution and is marked as a gift.
If a business sends you something in the mail that you did not order or consent to receive, and has done so with the intention of selling it or another product or service to you, you have no obligation to either return the unordered item or pay for it. It is illegal for a company that sends unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or a demand for payment. (This rule does not apply where you have agreed with a business in advance to receive merchandise on a periodic basis, and it also does not apply to a good faith error on the part of the business that sent the merchandise.)"


Send it back. They appear to have bent over backwards to correct their error.
I'd probably try for some form of compensation, perhaps a percentage off the TV you ordered, for your "trouble," but otherwise, you are legally obligated to return the product.

Gracias senor,

This argument is pretty much over. The company made a good-faith error, he must return the TV.

End.

Of.

Story.

Please.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's too bad, California's state criminal code website is down until December 1st. However, it is highly likely to mirror what I cited from VA, which would make what he's done illegal (grand larceny to be exact).

edit: Just because he didn't physically steal the television doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. He was aware of the fact that he had not paid in full for the goods he received and, much like receipt of stolen property, he can be charged with grand larceny in this case.

well, I'll go ahead and link this for the new batch of idiots that have arrived. (not you Mr Fried Chicken man ) Here is Boomer's post a few pages back.

Holy Hell! I clicked a page over to find it! It took me 2 seconds!!!!!

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The OP's profile shows him in Kahleeforneeya.

The Kahleeforneeya Department of Consumer Affairs sez:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/mail.shtml

"It is illegal for a business to try to sell you something by sending you merchandise that you have not ordered or consented to receive. A business cannot send you unordered merchandise unless the merchandise is:

a free sample which is clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or
mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contribution and is marked as a gift.
If a business sends you something in the mail that you did not order or consent to receive, and has done so with the intention of selling it or another product or service to you, you have no obligation to either return the unordered item or pay for it. It is illegal for a company that sends unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or a demand for payment. (This rule does not apply where you have agreed with a business in advance to receive merchandise on a periodic basis, and it also does not apply to a good faith error on the part of the business that sent the merchandise.)"


Send it back. They appear to have bent over backwards to correct their error.
I'd probably try for some form of compensation, perhaps a percentage off the TV you ordered, for your "trouble," but otherwise, you are legally obligated to return the product.

Gracias senor,

This argument is pretty much over. The company made a good-faith error, he must return the TV.

End.

Of.

Story.

Please.

Fine, the company can come to his house and take the tv out. If they don't want to do that, op will keep tv.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's too bad, California's state criminal code website is down until December 1st. However, it is highly likely to mirror what I cited from VA, which would make what he's done illegal (grand larceny to be exact).

edit: Just because he didn't physically steal the television doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. He was aware of the fact that he had not paid in full for the goods he received and, much like receipt of stolen property, he can be charged with grand larceny in this case.

well, I'll go ahead and link this for the new batch of idiots that have arrived. (not you Mr Fried Chicken man ) Here is Boomer's post a few pages back.

Holy Hell! I clicked a page over to find it! It took me 2 seconds!!!!!

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The OP's profile shows him in Kahleeforneeya.

The Kahleeforneeya Department of Consumer Affairs sez:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/mail.shtml

"It is illegal for a business to try to sell you something by sending you merchandise that you have not ordered or consented to receive. A business cannot send you unordered merchandise unless the merchandise is:

a free sample which is clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or
mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contribution and is marked as a gift.
If a business sends you something in the mail that you did not order or consent to receive, and has done so with the intention of selling it or another product or service to you, you have no obligation to either return the unordered item or pay for it. It is illegal for a company that sends unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or a demand for payment. (This rule does not apply where you have agreed with a business in advance to receive merchandise on a periodic basis, and it also does not apply to a good faith error on the part of the business that sent the merchandise.)"


Send it back. They appear to have bent over backwards to correct their error.
I'd probably try for some form of compensation, perhaps a percentage off the TV you ordered, for your "trouble," but otherwise, you are legally obligated to return the product.

Gracias senor,

This argument is pretty much over. The company made a good-faith error, he must return the TV.

End.

Of.

Story.

Please.

Fine, the company can come to his house and take the tv out. If they don't want to do that, op will keep tv.

palmface

edit: He has property he didn't pay for. They've made a good-faith effort to try and get the TV back, he has been uncooperative. At this point, he needs to get the TV back them because it's (a) not his, (b) in his possession, and (c) the company has the full weight of the law on their side.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

not according to every law that states otherwise.

guess what? THE PLANE TAKES OFF, TOO! There is no argument otherwise.

Also, everyone is assuming that this was an honest mistake by the company. This could totally not be the case. A disgruntled employee could have caused all of this. So should the OP have to pay for a company that can't control their disgruntled employees?

What happens if the OP decides to ship this back and drops it on the way to the post office? Does he then have to pay the company for nothing in return?

What if someone robs him and steals the TV when he goes to make change for the parking meter for the USPS lot?

What about the shitty time and pain in the ass the OP has to go through because of the company's retarded screw up?

Wow, the logical fallacy bomb strikes again. Never fails when trying to make excuses.

How about this, rather than make assumptions regarding issues outside the OP vs Company, we stick to the relevant issues, such as legality?

Again, anything regarding the OP "troubling" himself by returning the package are completely irrelevant considering that he OPENED AND DESTROYED THE BOX upon receiving it, knowing full well it was not what he ordered.

Here's an assumption for you: Do you think you would be able to spot the difference in a box housing a 32" TV vs one housing a 46" TV with a quick glance? How about the big fat label on the front of the box?

 

[smack Down]

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."

Wow you fail at reading see the text after (i) to be guilty of the described crime the person has to have committed one of the 3 acts outlined.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: smack Down

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."

Wow you fail at reading see the text after (i) to be guilty of the described crime the person has to have committed one of the 3 acts outlined.

Wow you're right...i also missed that..thanks!