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

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Dear lord no.

The guy lives in CA. CA law applies to him in this case because that's where the crime was committed. Federal, which prohibits the exact same thing could easily come into play if the Feds wanted to be bothered. They won't, but they could charge him with mail fraud and all sorts of other wonderful things.

We cannot link to the CA law directly because the website for them is down until December 1st. Instead, there is a handy-dandy Department of Consumer Affairs that states the following: (it even cites the civil code!)

If You Receive Unsolicited Merchandise (Civil Code section 1584.5)

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.)

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

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

You don't understand. He ordered a TV. He accepted the TV when it came. He is now legally liable to return the TV.

You don't understand go read the FTC page on unordered merchandise. Accepting unordered merchandise does not place ANY burden on the receiver.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: rpkelly

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

Right lots of idiots with no argument. Maybe you should try reading the law. It states "For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient. " There was no expressed consent to receive the merchandise that was shipped.

Wrong. He expressed consent when he opened the box and telling the company no when they asked for it back.

Also if he signed for it, that is also expressing consent.

So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

what the hell? HE ORDERED THE FUCKING TV! the company's mistake falls under "the good faith error," expressly defined in CA law, where the OP claims to live.

THERE is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY to interpret the legality of this issue. How obtuse must you be to continue arguing irrelevant details?

CA clearly defines the OP as a thief under CA LAW.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

You don't understand. He ordered a TV. He accepted the TV when it came. He is now legally liable to return the TV.

You don't understand go read the FTC page on unordered merchandise. Accepting unordered merchandise does not place ANY burden on the receiver.

Wrong.

This individual had a contract with the company to send him a television. They made a good-faith error in executing that order and sent him something else. That something else doesn't suddenly become "unsolicited merchandise" or "unordered merchandise" because the buyer had a contract with the seller to deliver a television.

I linked to a federal case earlier which declared the following:

"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."

Whether you pick Federal law or State (CA) law, it's larceny. Theft. He's stealing.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: rpkelly

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

Right lots of idiots with no argument. Maybe you should try reading the law. It states "For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient. " There was no expressed consent to receive the merchandise that was shipped.

Wrong. He expressed consent when he opened the box and telling the company no when they asked for it back.

Also if he signed for it, that is also expressing consent.

So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

You are expressing consent to receive the item. Yes. I don't get why that is a hard concept? If you didn't want the item you wouldn't sign for it...

yes, this is the legal premise to define consent. I'm fascinated by the abilities of others to assume or define their own precedents for legal consent, how a DA will interpret the law in their favor, etc.

It would boggle me more, if I didn't already know that they are simply making excuses for thievery.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

What part of "The OP ordered a TV" don't you understand?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Dear lord no.

The guy lives in CA. CA law applies to him in this case because that's where the crime was committed. Federal, which prohibits the exact same thing could easily come into play if the Feds wanted to be bothered. They won't, but they could charge him with mail fraud and all sorts of other wonderful things.

We cannot link to the CA law directly because the website for them is down until December 1st. Instead, there is a handy-dandy Department of Consumer Affairs that states the following: (it even cites the civil code!)

If You Receive Unsolicited Merchandise (Civil Code section 1584.5)

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.)

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

In this case the Federal law trumps state laws. Here is the federal law:

§ 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
How Current is This?
(a) Except for
(1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and
(2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un­ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45 (a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Notice the complete lack of anything about mistakes? Want more here is a quote from the FTC webpage about the law.

Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without paying for it?

A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller.

and

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Notice it says should and reserve the right. So it is saying you have the right to keep the merchandise, but the moral thing to do is what is listed above.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

You don't understand. He ordered a TV. He accepted the TV when it came. He is now legally liable to return the TV.

You don't understand go read the FTC page on unordered merchandise. Accepting unordered merchandise does not place ANY burden on the receiver.

Wrong.

This individual had a contract with the company to send him a television. They made a good-faith error in executing that order and sent him something else. That something else doesn't suddenly become "unsolicited merchandise" or "unordered merchandise" because the buyer had a contract with the seller to deliver a television.

I linked to a federal case earlier which declared the following:

"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."

Whether you pick Federal law or State (CA) law, it's larceny. Theft. He's stealing.

You linked to a case about military pay. That doesn't fit into the unordered merchandise special rule.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

again, you further show your ignorance regarding reality. How do you think this affects merchandise prices for other consumers?

what does "writing it off" mean? I'm asking for you to define the terms that you keep tossing out there, as you have such a clear and thorough knowledge of this process.

 

[Farang]

smack down unless you're a lawyer I'm not sure you're right.. I think non-lawyers are in over their heads. Why would federal law trump state law when state law in this case? The state law is just being more specific

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Dear lord no.

The guy lives in CA. CA law applies to him in this case because that's where the crime was committed. Federal, which prohibits the exact same thing could easily come into play if the Feds wanted to be bothered. They won't, but they could charge him with mail fraud and all sorts of other wonderful things.

We cannot link to the CA law directly because the website for them is down until December 1st. Instead, there is a handy-dandy Department of Consumer Affairs that states the following: (it even cites the civil code!)

If You Receive Unsolicited Merchandise (Civil Code section 1584.5)

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.)

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

In this case the Federal law trumps state laws. Here is the federal law:

§ 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
How Current is This?
(a) Except for
(1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and
(2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un­ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45 (a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Notice the complete lack of anything about mistakes? Want more here is a quote from the FTC webpage about the law.

Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without paying for it?

A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller.

and

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Notice it says should and reserve the right. So it is saying you have the right to keep the merchandise, but the moral thing to do is what is listed above.

Your last bit about "honest shipping errors" refers to receiving items out of the blue, not receiving an item from a company you have a contract with. If you receive something randomly out of the blue, yeah, you can keep it. If you order something and get the wrong thing, you can't keep it. It's pretty darn simple.

Federal law doesn't trump anything in this case, if anything it would applicable on top of state charges.

(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Ask any lawyer, but ordering a TV from the company constitutes a prior expressed request and then accepting the tv on delivery constitutes "consent of recipient."

Again, it would be unlawful for him to keep the TV under federal or state laws. They both are very clear that if you request an item and have an open contract for its delivery, then it is NOT unsolicited. It says so in what you quoted.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

What part of "The OP ordered a TV" don't you understand?

Well then if it is what the OP ordered why is the company trying to take it back? Get it the OP ordered a 32 inch TV. Making one order with the company doesn't give them the right to send any and all junk to the OP and demand payment.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Oh? care to link the law that states this? How is this a federal issue? the laws were linked, even one page ago.

Many at AT already know that you reject the fundamental laws of physics and mechanical engineering; so I suppose it's not a stretch that you would openly reject the laws governing consumer exchanges.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

You don't understand. He ordered a TV. He accepted the TV when it came. He is now legally liable to return the TV.

You don't understand go read the FTC page on unordered merchandise. Accepting unordered merchandise does not place ANY burden on the receiver.

he ordered the MOTHERFUCKING MERCHANDISE! please try to prove that he did not order the fucking TV!!!!!!!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down


You linked to a case about military pay. That doesn't fit into the unordered merchandise special rule.

For the last time, he opened a contract with the company for a television. He ORDERED with prior expressed consent a television to be delivered to his home from a company. That means he wanted them to send him a television.

The company fucked up and sent him the wrong TV. They were trying to fulfill a contract established between themselves and the buyer. They were not sending goods "unsolicited" because they had that contract and payment for the TV.

Therefore, this case doesn't fall under the "unordered merchandise laws."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Dear lord no.

The guy lives in CA. CA law applies to him in this case because that's where the crime was committed. Federal, which prohibits the exact same thing could easily come into play if the Feds wanted to be bothered. They won't, but they could charge him with mail fraud and all sorts of other wonderful things.

We cannot link to the CA law directly because the website for them is down until December 1st. Instead, there is a handy-dandy Department of Consumer Affairs that states the following: (it even cites the civil code!)

If You Receive Unsolicited Merchandise (Civil Code section 1584.5)

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.)

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

In this case the Federal law trumps state laws. Here is the federal law:

§ 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
How Current is This?
(a) Except for
(1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and
(2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un­ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45 (a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Notice the complete lack of anything about mistakes? Want more here is a quote from the FTC webpage about the law.

Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without paying for it?

A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller.

and

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

Notice it says should and reserve the right. So it is saying you have the right to keep the merchandise, but the moral thing to do is what is listed above.

Your last bit about "honest shipping errors" refers to receiving items out of the blue, not receiving an item from a company you have a contract with. If you receive something randomly out of the blue, yeah, you can keep it. If you order something and get the wrong thing, you can't keep it. It's pretty darn simple.

Federal law doesn't trump anything in this case, if anything it would applicable on top of state charges.

(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Ask any lawyer, but ordering a TV from the company constitutes a prior expressed request and then accepting the tv on delivery constitutes "consent of recipient."

Again, it would be unlawful for him to keep the TV under federal or state laws. They both are very clear that if you request an item and have an open contract for its delivery, then it is NOT unsolicited. It says so in what you quoted.

Right the op consented to the TV he ordered he didn't consent to the TV that was mailed.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: herrjimbo

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

now you're just nitpicking. why don't you start your own thread about hypothetical situations?

Yes i am. The fact is pretty simple, this type of things happens all the time and 99.9% of them do not get posted on anandtech. Most of such issue get resolved by company writting it off as bad debt expense and forget about it. It's to much hassle to try and get your money back and most people will not return the product back to the merchant.

again, you further show your ignorance regarding reality. How do you think this affects merchandise prices for other consumers?

what does "writing it off" mean? I'm asking for you to define the terms that you keep tossing out there, as you have such a clear and thorough knowledge of this process.

writen off means that the company don't expect to be paid. Company uses bad debt expense to write off their taxes
Bad Debt Expense Account shown in the income statement representing estimated uncollectible credit sales for the current accounting period.

 

[Iron Woode]

give it up guys.

smack down and looker001 are just trolling.

stop feeding the trolls and they will go away.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

What part of "The OP ordered a TV" don't you understand?

Well then if it is what the OP ordered why is the company trying to take it back? Get it the OP ordered a 32 inch TV. Making one order with the company doesn't give them the right to send any and all junk to the OP and demand payment.

They tried to work out a deal for the OP to keep the wrong set, he gave an asinine offer of 60% off the price, which they rejected.

Hell, you can even throw out the "error of faith issue" because:
1-The OP signed for it
2-The OP opened the fucking box

in any world, he legally consented to the merchandise. They could have sent him the pope in a box without a contract and him signing for it, he legally consents to owning it.

Why is any of this so difficult to accept? What is so hard about your life that you must go around making excuse for a greedy, thieving personality?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where in the law does it make any exception to good faith errors? And what evidence do you have to concluded it was good faith error?

It was already brought up earlier in the thread that the law is very clear on good faith errors. By law, he must return the TV.

Page 18 even quotes a link to the CA law that applies to the OP's case.

They sent the wrong TV and offered to pay to have it shipped back. That's practically the definition of a good faith error. Furthermore, they even refunded the other TV! I don't see how this can get any more clear. For a good faith error (which this case clearly is), the OP must send the product back. That is the law.

First of all you didn't link to a law. Second CA law is irrelevant all that maters is federal law in this case.

Oh? care to link the law that states this? How is this a federal issue? the laws were linked, even one page ago.

Many at AT already know that you reject the fundamental laws of physics and mechanical engineering; so I suppose it's not a stretch that you would openly reject the laws governing consumer exchanges.

It is a federal issue because the seller used the USPS.

As for a link here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[theblackbox]

i would like to know the name of each and every business each one of you that agree with the OP keeping it work for, and i would like to do business with each and every one of you. I especially hope that the said business is your business so when i screw you, you'll feel the loss. college kids and kiddies living in mamas basement need not apply.

there is no justification for keeping it, and it in no way was unsolicitied, or a sample.

i find the lack of humanity and ethics here amazing, but then what would one expect. having no responsibility but to post on a forum will do that to you.
for those that stand for returning it, feel good that you are part of the society that makes the world worth living in, i commend you and such.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Right the op consented to the TV he ordered he didn't consent to the TV that was mailed.

Again, he had an open contract with them for the delivery of a television. This establishes a "prior business relationship" and this means that he was consenting to the delivery of the television.

The contract, however, was not fulfilled properly by the seller in this case. Just because they sent him the wrong item does not mean that item constitutes something "unsolicited."

the laws you're citing were written and apply to a very small set of rules. They were written to prevent companies from sending things to you and billing you later or otherwise trying to rip you off. They were not written, intended, or applicable to the OP's case because he had a prior business relationship and ordered the television.

It constitutes a good-faith error on the part of the company and no judge in America would side with the OP if this ever went to trial (which of course it won't).

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: looker001
So when i get something sent to me in the mail that i didn't order and i sign and open it, i am given consent to that company?

I've bolded the important part. Have you ever read what you're signing? It explicitly states that you consent to receive the package by signing.

What part of "didn't order" didn't you understand?

What part of "The OP ordered a TV" don't you understand?

Well then if it is what the OP ordered why is the company trying to take it back? Get it the OP ordered a 32 inch TV. Making one order with the company doesn't give them the right to send any and all junk to the OP and demand payment.

They tried to work out a deal for the OP to keep the wrong set, he gave an asinine offer of 60% off the price, which they rejected.

Hell, you can even throw out the "error of faith issue" because:
1-The OP signed for it
2-The OP opened the fucking box

in any world, he legally consented to the merchandise. They could have sent him the pope in a box without a contract and him signing for it, he legally consents to owning it.

Why is any of this so difficult to accept? What is so hard about your life that you must go around making excuse for a greedy, thieving personality?

Clearly you're an idiot if you think opening the box somehow creates consent for the seller to have mailed the box. I will give you a hint consent is required BEFORE mailing the package.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: smack Down

Right the op consented to the TV he ordered he didn't consent to the TV that was mailed.

Again, he had an open contract with them for the delivery of a television. This establishes a "prior business relationship" and this means that he was consenting to the delivery of the television.

The contract, however, was not fulfilled properly by the seller in this case. Just because they sent him the wrong item does not mean that item constitutes something "unsolicited."

the laws you're citing were written and apply to a very small set of rules. They were written to prevent companies from sending things to you and billing you later or otherwise trying to rip you off. They were not written, intended, or applicable to the OP's case because he had a prior business relationship and ordered the television.

It constitutes a good-faith error on the part of the company and no judge in America would side with the OP if this ever went to trial (which of course it won't).

Except that the law makes no mention of the terms "prior business relationship" or "good-faith error."

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Except that the law makes no mention of the terms "prior business relationship" or "good-faith error."

(d) For the purposes of this section, ?un­ordered merchandise? means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

Ordering a TV is "prior expressed request," even though the correct TV was not delivered.