Question about USPS

[BigJ]

Stemming from this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=1507102&enterthread=y

And these quotes by Broon:

"I know if someone sends you something you didn't order via USPS, it's a gift and yours to keep. You might check, but if they haven't fulfilled their end of the deal (shipping you the book you ordered), then they still owe you a book and you don't have to return the other book. Again, I'm not positive on this but might be worth looking into."

"The book was sent via USPS. Anything someone receives via USPS that the person didn't request (the OP didn't request the book that was sent) is considered a gift and the recipiant owes the sender nothing."

So basically, I'm finding it very hard to believe the following:

If a person (buyer) orders a product from the seller, and the seller makes a mistake and sends the incorrect product via USPS, thinking they've fulfilled their obligation to the buyer, that the buyer is legally entitled to keep both the erroneously sent product and receive the new product under this "gift" clause.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: BigJ
If a person (buyer) orders a product from the seller, and the seller makes a mistake and sends the incorrect product via USPS, thinking they've fulfilled their obligation to the seller, that the buyer is legally entitled to keep both the erroneously sent product and receive the new product under this "gift" clause.

I think this is a very loose interpretation of the code that I do not think would hold up if it were to go before a judge.

In the case of the thread you referenced, he should return the erroneous book, and the seller should refund ALL costs including both outbound and return shipping. If the seller doesn't have the correct book, there's not much else you can do.

 

[FoBoT]

that type of thing is at the discretion of the seller. a big Corp. will often let you keep it because the costs associated with getting it back and restocking it, etc, etc are more than the item is worth. so for "good will" , they let you keep it

a small seller is likely not going to see it that way and would want the product back

 

[Tom]

receiving the wrong item as part of a transaction isn't the same thing as receiving a gift where no tranaction is involved, no court would accept that argument.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom
receiving the wrong item as part of a transaction isn't the same thing as receiving a gift where no tranaction is involved, no court would accept that argument.

this is exactly my belief, but some people say otherwise

 

[kranky]

The people who believe otherwise are dishonest and greedy.

The purpose of that law was to prevent situations like this: BigBookCo finds your name in the phonebook, and sends you a $3,000 set of encyclopedias with a note that if you don't absolutely love them, simply return them and owe nothing. The problem is that it's going to cost you money to return them, and that's not fair.

That law has nothing to do with errors by a delivery service or errors in fulfilling an order someone placed.

 

[Tom]

I think this is the governing code..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-601.html

Which as I understand it means the buyer can reject the non-conforming goods, or accept them. But if he accepts them then he would still be responsible for his part of the contract, if he rejects them then the item must be returned, although the method and cost of the return is most likely the seller's responsibility.


edit- ah yes, here is the rest of the story..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-603.html