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

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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.

which he gave when ordered. which he further gave when he signed for the package. (seeing as how you like assumptions, perhaps you would attempt assuming whether or not you can tell the difference between packaging on a 32" vs a 46" TV?). which he indeed gave when he opened the package and refused to return it.

Honestly, I don't care how you define it. The law is what matters. You choose to operate outside of that law. Fine, just don't try to redefine it to suit your purpose.

You've been proven a bone-headed moron several times in previous threads, so I really don't see what credibility you have to contributing a worthwhile argument in here.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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."

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! read the goddamn CA law that has been posted here SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES!

 

[Cattlegod]

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?

What did it say on the invoice? If it said the product was a 32" TV, then he is fine when he signed for it.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Cliffs:

The OP ordered a TV - entering a contract for the delivery of a TV - the company shipped a TV. It turned out to be the wrong TV...

The delivery arrived at the OPs door and he was asked to sign for it - he could have looked at it and said "this isn't what I ordered" and refused delivery, and contacted the company to get the situation fixed. He didn't, he consented to receiving the TV. The company found out and asked for it back. They offered to pay for shipping.

The OP offered them a Black Friday price less 10% as it had been opened (by him) to keep it. They said no and sent a prepaid shipping label.

The OP said he couldn't ship it back because he had destroyed the packaging and didn't want to go to a post office with it.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: 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.

Where does it stop then? Can anyone ship someone anything if they ordered any product from them? What if I order a new razor and they ship me a refrigerator? Am I then responsible for shipping the refrigerator back and possibly throwing out my back?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Tell the seller that you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after the specified time has passed.

You are missing the important part. The seller has requested the item to be returned, and provided a means to return it.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: 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.

Where does it stop then? Can anyone ship someone anything if they ordered any product from them? What if I order a new razor and they ship me a refrigerator? Am I then responsible for shipping the refrigerator back and possibly throwing out my back?

Why does ATOT have such trouble with a concept as simple as not signing for the delivery if it is incorrect?

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: 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.

Where does it stop then? Can anyone ship someone anything if they ordered any product from them? What if I order a new razor and they ship me a refrigerator? Am I then responsible for shipping the refrigerator back and possibly throwing out my back?

Why does ATOT have such trouble with a concept as simple as not signing for the delivery if it is incorrect?

Since when is a signature required for a razor?

What if the seller packed the razor (or TV in this case) in a refrigerator box?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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."

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! read the goddamn CA law that has been posted here SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES!

Again no has linked to any CA law that mentions "good-faith error" and second it doesn't mater because the federal law is what is at issue here.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: 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.

Where does it stop then? Can anyone ship someone anything if they ordered any product from them? What if I order a new razor and they ship me a refrigerator? Am I then responsible for shipping the refrigerator back and possibly throwing out my back?

No.

Read the California UCC (or any other UCC because they're basically all the same). Buyer and seller in this case formed a contract over the delivery of a specific item. This precludes any law about being sent unsolicited goods, because the contract explicitly stated that a certain good (television) was demanded and was to be supplied.

The UCC states that the seller has recourse.

(1) A breach of contract by the buyer includes the buyer's wrongful rejection or wrongful attempt to revoke acceptance of goods, wrongful failure to perform a contractual obligation, failure to make a payment when due, and repudiation.
(2) If the buyer is in breach of contract the seller, to the extent provided for by this Act or other law, may:

(a) withhold delivery of such goods;

(b) stop delivery of the goods under Section 2-705;

(c) proceed under Section 2-704 with respect to goods unidentified to the contract or unfinished;

(d) reclaim the goods under Section 2-507(2) or 2-702(2);

(e) require payment directly from the buyer under Section 2-325(c);

(f) cancel;

(g) resell and recover damages under Section 2-706;

(h) recover damages for non-acceptance or repudiation under (Section 2-708(1) or in a proper case the price (Section 2-709);

(j) recover the price under Section 2-709;

(k) obtain specific performance under Section 2-716;

(l) recover liquidated damages under Section 2-718;

(m) in other cases, recover damages in any manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.

(3) If the buyer becomes insolvent, the seller may:

(a) withhold delivery under Section 2-702(1);

(b) stop delivery of the goods under Section 2-705;

(c) reclaim the goods under Section 2-702(2).

The UCC also defines "good faith" errors. In your example, sending me a mobile home when I ordered a television wouldn't constitute a "good faith" error and would covered under different laws. In the OP's case, I think an incorrect TV can, should, and would be covered as a "good faith" error.

 

[looker001]

OP just keep the tv and forget about this issue. Nothing will happen to you, this is such a small value that no prosecutor will care about this case(regardless if you violate the law or not), the company will just do bad debt write off and will also forget about you. You will never be able to shop from that store again as you will be black listed.

Enjoy your new tv

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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."

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! read the goddamn CA law that has been posted here SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES!

Again no has linked to any CA law that mentions "good-faith error" and second it doesn't mater because the federal law is what is at issue here.

Incorrect again.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: looker001
OP just keep the tv and forget about this issue. Nothing will happen to you, this is such a small value that no prosecutor will care about this case(regardless if you violate the law or not), the company will just do bad debt write off and will also forget about you. You will never be able to shop from that store again as you will be black listed.

Enjoy your new tv

Yeah, that's what a good scumbag does.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: looker001
OP just keep the tv and forget about this issue. Nothing will happen to you, this is such a small value that no prosecutor will care about this case(regardless if you violate the law or not), the company will just do bad debt write off and will also forget about you. You will never be able to shop from that store again as you will be black listed.

Enjoy your new tv

Yeah, that's what a good scumbag does.

Survival of the fittest

 

[herrjimbo]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: looker001
OP just keep the tv and forget about this issue. Nothing will happen to you, this is such a small value that no prosecutor will care about this case(regardless if you violate the law or not), the company will just do bad debt write off and will also forget about you. You will never be able to shop from that store again as you will be black listed.

Enjoy your new tv

Yeah, that's what a good scumbag does.

Survival of the fittest

you, sir, are a bigger asshat than the op.

and that's saying a mouthful.

 

[mageslayer]

NICE PARODY ROFL LMAO

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: rudeguy

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: josh0099
All the company had to do was say hey we will agree to ship you a 32" via a courier service and set it up for you and they will pick up the 42" while they are there, in this instance the OP wouldn't of been inconvenienced in the slightest manor and both parities would win but the company played a little hard ball and the op did too so one will lose. Probably in this case the company since they shipped it USPS.

Oh, it was sent USPS then thank them for the gift and ask when the TV you ordered is going to show up.

Why does it being shipped USPS matter?

http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/merch.htm

this company is wasting his time and doing shady sh*t like doing unauthorized refunds.
screw em. being around for delivery of higher priced items can be a big inconvenience as deliveries aren't really scheduled. its not a small thing.

when shipping things its like you've already walked out the store with the item and was undercharged. they can't drag you back in the store because they screwed up.

the box should have been thrown away. tell them its been recycled. let them deal with that if they wish. they should have sold it to him for 800 because they wasted his time with their mistake. it was their error. not his that caused this mess and they should eat a loss for it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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."

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! read the goddamn CA law that has been posted here SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES!

Again no has linked to any CA law that mentions "good-faith error" and second it doesn't mater because the federal law is what is at issue here.

Incorrect again.

Good argument. Do you know what the US in USPS stands for?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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."

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! read the goddamn CA law that has been posted here SEVERAL FUCKING TIMES!

Again no has linked to any CA law that mentions "good-faith error" and second it doesn't mater because the federal law is what is at issue here.

Incorrect again.

Good argument. Do you know what the US in USPS stands for?

When did the USPS get into the retail electronics business? Still think the plane doesn't take off?

 

[DrPizza]

smackdown & looker, perhaps it'll help if you understand the intent of the law, as it relates to the post office. The intention of that law is that it prevents companies from just sending stuff to people out of the blue, then charging them for the items, else insisting they send them back. That is NOT the case this time. It's been explained numerous times & the actual laws that relate to this case have been posted.

At this point, I can't figure out if you two are dumb as rocks, or if you're just trolling.

edit: now that it's been mentioned, smack down was one of those who insisted the plane wouldn't take off. I guess that answers my question.

Also, I can't recall if it's really been mentioned, but I question that it was actually sent through USPS in the first place, or if the OP is just lying. (he's already been caught contradicting himself in this thread.)

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
smackdown & looker, perhaps it'll help if you understand the intent of the law, as it relates to the post office. The intention of that law is that it prevents companies from just sending stuff to people out of the blue, then charging them for the items, else insisting they send them back. That is NOT the case this time. It's been explained numerous times & the actual laws that relate to this case have been posted.

At this point, I can't figure out if you two are dumb as rocks, or if you're just trolling.

edit: now that it's been mentioned, smack down was one of those who insisted the plane wouldn't take off. I guess that answers my question.

Also, I can't recall if it's really been mentioned, but I question that it was actually sent through USPS in the first place, or if the OP is just lying. (he's already been caught contradicting himself in this thread.)

for all anybody knows, the OP could have just made the whole thing up.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: looker001
OP just keep the tv and forget about this issue. Nothing will happen to you, this is such a small value that no prosecutor will care about this case(regardless if you violate the law or not), the company will just do bad debt write off and will also forget about you. You will never be able to shop from that store again as you will be black listed.

Enjoy your new tv

Linky

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: DrPizza
smackdown & looker, perhaps it'll help if you understand the intent of the law, as it relates to the post office. The intention of that law is that it prevents companies from just sending stuff to people out of the blue, then charging them for the items, else insisting they send them back. That is NOT the case this time. It's been explained numerous times & the actual laws that relate to this case have been posted.

At this point, I can't figure out if you two are dumb as rocks, or if you're just trolling.

edit: now that it's been mentioned, smack down was one of those who insisted the plane wouldn't take off. I guess that answers my question.

Also, I can't recall if it's really been mentioned, but I question that it was actually sent through USPS in the first place, or if the OP is just lying. (he's already been caught contradicting himself in this thread.)

for all anybody knows, the OP could have just made the whole thing up.

Or he's playing the majority of the clan here getting emotional by doing one thing and saying another

 

[Born2bwire]

smackdown is just bitter about the fact that the plane takes off.

 

[Steve]

https://www.tipsubmit.com/WebTips.aspx?AgencyID=365