UK Retailer Mistakenly Sends PS Vitas, Threatens Legal Action To Get Them Back 617
New submitter Retron writes "The BBC brings news that British retailer Zavvi mistakenly sent out PlayStation Vitas to people who had preordered a game called Tearaway. The company is now threatening legal action against those who have kept theirs despite a request to return them. It's unclear whether the Distance Selling Act protects consumers who have mistakenly been sent an expensive item, and forums such as Eurogamer seem divided on the issue."
Jackpot (Score:5)
I'd keep it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Interesting)
I ordered an e-ink ebook reader (for 200+ euros) as well as a cover (~20 euros) for the same. A few days later, package arrives: there were two ebook readers in it, no cover at all. I said to myself "lucky ! they made a mistake", did not tell the online store they did (it was a large, national one - I have no guilt over this), and proceeded to order two covers on the same store for the two readers I now possessed.
A few days later, package arrives, contains two other ebook readers. At that point I thought "what the hell", and ordered four covers, one for each of the readers, half expecting four new readers to arrive. This time however, they had fixed the mistake, and I received the product I ordered - the four covers. At that point, me and my flatmates (there were four of us) each had a reader and a cover to go with it anyway.
Frankly, I expected them to at least contact us or use legal action, but the only thing that happened is that we received a phone call with a weird guy asking us "did you order something online recently ?". We simply asked who he was and he answered "I can't tell you that", at which point we simply hung up. Never heard from them again.
This suggests to me that since they made the mistake, they weren't allowed to try and get the products back - I could be wrong though, and I was overseas from said online store at the time, so they may simply have considered that legal action in another country would simply cost them too much.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Interesting)
My best guess is that someone was stealing systems somehow.
Besides, I see no need to tempt karma.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing you returned them. It could have easily been a variant (albeit expensive) of the drop a thumbdrive outside a bank and see if they are dumb enough to plug it in attack.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)
If it seems like an honest mistake, I send it back. I've been sent the wrong order by amazon twice, and I contact them, arrange to get paid for shipping and send it back. My personal honesty and integrity are more important than a few dollars.
If I'm sent something out of the blue I did not order with an invoice I will keep it and ignore the invoice as this is a scam.
I was shocked that people would post in public that they are dishonest - and brag about it.
Cultivate virtue for a better life, and a better world.
Re: (Score:3)
That being said, the online store in question is very large (first or second largest in France I think), has a reputation for screwing customers when it comes to warranty/customer service, and has repeatedly been highlighted in the media for cutting their workforce while having record profits.
Given all that, I care little for their ~540 euros loss. Had it been a smaller store, I would certainly have pointed the mistake (but even then, I might not have se
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Insightful)
Virtue is not about their loss, it is about your morals, honesty and intehrity.
I do not know you so it doesn't matter to me. But you essentially just said as long as you can justify it. It makes a moving target so to speak. It sends the message that i can trust you as long as i do not leave anything valuable or important out. I'm sure you have an expectation of higher regard then that.
However, i am not sure i can disagree with your actions given the circumstances. I will bet quite a few others would do the same. So i have to ask, suppose you purchased something locally snd the clerk gave you to much change, what would you do?
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Insightful)
Look what your honor has gotten you, Ned Stark.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like the Internet psychologists are out and about.
I don't like what you say. Therefore, you need help.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)
Given all that, I care little for their ~540 euros loss. Had it been a smaller store, I would certainly have pointed the mistake (but even then, I might not have sent the product back, unless it was a very small shop).
See, there's your problem right there. Just because they have lots of money, doesn't mean it's okay for you to defraud them. I blame a basic misunderstanding of Robin Hood and the lessons it tried to put forward that a lot of people completely miss. You need to address your own internal biases. How would you feel if you accidentally gave a homeless man a hundred dollar bill instead of a dollar bill, and he decided to keep it because "he cares little for your $100 loss" due to him thinking you make more money than him. What if you had dropped it by accident, and he picked it up without telling you about it? These are all questions you need to ask yourself if you want to be a moral human being. Stealing is wrong, no matter how much you think the other guy deserves his possessions or not. If you can't have an absolute set of morals, then you're just an opportunistic jack ass, and what little morals you do have are worth nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I get what you are saying, but your analogy is flawed. The scale of income difference is why you are so far off, it is not their money a property of how much more they have than you, it is their ability to generate it and the quantity of it.
Example randomly from googles, in 2008 walmart was making $42,754,109 per HOUR... HOUR. If I were making that an hour, I could easily say that 100 dollars holds little value to them, because in 59 minutes they will have made more than I will probably ever see in my lifet
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Informative)
Under UK law if you receive something unexpected you are obligated to inform the sender, and then make the items available for collection if they want them back. Having done this, if they fail or refuse to collect the goods you are free to keep them.
In this case however the delivery was not unexpected, these users were expecting a delivery from zavvi and didn't receive what they ordered... Normally when this happens (ie every time it's happened to me) you get something massively inferior to what you ordered so you'd have no reason to keep it.
The seller is in breach of their contract by sending you something different to what you ordered, and should at the very least be compensating you for messing up your order.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with your action model is that it is a net negative for you, and a net positive for them. You give them $$ for free in the form of time and energy spent calling, arraging the return, and probably time getting to the place for the drop off. I value my time far to much to do this for the vast majority of companies. Especially large companies. MAYBE if it is a local or small business I have a relationship with I will.
If a company who makes such a mistake is willing to either credit me for my time or literally send someone to my house to pick it up and not have me fill out paperwork, then I would happily return it. Otherwise they are SoL. I am not their bitch, I am not their mommy to fix their mistakes. I will not expend effort to fix their mistakes. I will not notify them, fill out RMA forms, go to a FexEx or UPS store to send it, etc.
That is not an ethical issue, it is an economic one.
Examples:
If I see someone drop $20 on the street, I will pick it up and give it back to them.
If I am at my favorite bar or restaraunt and I find $20 on the ground I will give it to management (the owner might ask the management and if he/she does the place I like will stay open longer, thus value for me).
If I am walking down the street and there is $20 lying on the ground and noone is in the area, I am NOT going to go to a police station, report it lost, fill out the forms, and come back weeks later. If it was $20,000 I might but not for $20.
NOTE: I did once return a drivers license I found near my house, went out of my way for 30 minutes. I think the reason was simple empathy. It was super easy, I had an address, and I empathized with someone losing their license.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Insightful)
Just be a jerk about it : Offer to return it if they pay a $50 handling fee, given they inconvenienced you and no prior contract existed. Or they can come collect it if they can catch you at home during business hours. Or whatever. They'll probably just pay up if you only ask for a reasonable sum that's less than hassling you would cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn you, uncle Pennybags! You lied to me!
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with returning it. That's the spirit of the golden rule anyways.
I've had these issues before and while some actually expected me to pay for shipping, most were happy enough to provide a shipping label.
Takes 5 minutes to drop the package off the next time I'm at lunch.
Unless it really does place an undue burden upon you to return it, I don't even see how this is an ethics issue up for debate.
Re: (Score:3)
Some years back, I ordered 10 refurbished Logitech corded mice (518's, IIRC) and was sent 10 Logitech Presenters (cordless mice with laser pointers built in). On their web site, the refurbishment company sold the Presenters for about $40 more than the 518s.
I called the company and told them I wanted the 518s, they said that they would send the mice I ordered out after I sent the Presenters back. I pointed out that if I sent the Presenters back, I had no way to ensure they would actually send me the 518s,
Re: (Score:3)
If he had originally said "If you send me the correct items and a return shipping label, I'll return the wrong items" and they sent him the correct items without a shipping label, he's not a jerk for keeping them. But changing the deal after it's made makes him a jerk.
Is the sky brown on the planet of the assholes? You would never, ever pay return shipping on something you didn't order in exchange for something you did. Never. That is always the retailer's fault. They always have to provide return shipping. Unless you explicitly state otherwise, that is the default mode of operation. Further, this is ordinarily handled by including the return shipping slip in the top of box with the correct merchandise, so that the buyer can simply open the box, slap a self-adhesive labe
Re: (Score:3)
Under UK law you must inform the sender that you received an unsolicited item from them, and you must make it available for collection... You certainly never have to pay for the shipping yourself or suffer the inconvenience of having to take the package somewhere. You simply make it available to be collected from the same location it was shipped to, at a time which is convenient to you and everything else is down to the original sender.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US if a vendor sends you an unrequested product you are allowed to keep it. The law is to protect people from bogus sales scams. No idea what the law is in the EU though.
It looks very similar (you could have just RTFA yourself):
Re: (Score:3)
In cases like this you are required to make the goods available for return at the vendors expense. You could even ask them for compensation if you had any costs, such as having to wait in for the package or store it.
I expect many people have already torn open the packaging. That's fine, you don't need to return things like packaging by law, but the vendor probably won't be happy because the product is now "used".
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that a corporation cannot have a "state of mind".
If you gave a bank teller a rare coin accidentally when you were making a deposit from your change jar, do you think they'd give it back?
There are tens of thousands of people whose home loans have been foreclosed in error. Banks regularly ignore the law and lending regulations regarding the assignment of those loans, which ends up in a bank which doesn't even hold the mortgage foreclosing on a house, and most judges will uphold the foreclosure (there have been some notable exceptions).
If a company sent me a PS Vita by mistake, I'd send it back, not because of "right and wrong" but because there's some poor schmuck who will probably lose his job if he doesn't put the mistake right, or be required to make up the damages out of his own pocket.
How can you have a "free market transaction" when one party has a "mens rea element" regarding right and wrong but the other does not?
The corporate liability protection needs to be weakened. Until people who are in charge of these corporations bear some personal responsibility, they will continue to act with greater hostility toward customers.
Re: (Score:3)
If by accident transferred £2000 to buy something rather than £20.00 then would you expect the company to refund the difference? In the UK you'd be legally obligated to and society as a whole would consider your morally obligated to and I don't see either of those things as problems.
You didn't buy it, the company has explained the error and asked for it to b
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Informative)
"I'd keep it."
In the U.S., if you receive merchandise you did not order, there are several rules that apply. I believe these are probably the most relevant:
A) You can keep it, unless (or until) the provider requests that you return it.
B) If whoever sent it to you does request its return, they are liable for the shipping cost, and you can charge a "reasonable" storage and maintenance fees for the product while it was in your custody.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
" unless (or until) the provider requests that you return it. "
false.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Informative)
"You just contradicted yourself. It is unsolicited merchandise precisely because you solicited something else."
If you take it literally, yes. But you are being too literal.
The U.S. law about "unsolicited merchandise", is a law against somebody sending you something you hadn't asked for, then trying to force you to pay for it. It is considered to be a form of "unfair" trade practice.
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose. Mistakes are not "unfair trade practices". Sending you something other than what you DID ask for, if it is a mistake, is not an intent to defraud you and so the unsolicited merchandise law does not apply. You see?
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Informative)
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose.
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter [uspis.gov] that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise .
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Interesting)
"How do I know what their true intention was? I'm sure someone has tried to defraud people in this way."
The way you know it's true, is to tell the company about the mistake, and see if they try to charge you for it anyway.
That would put them square under this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Two situations similarly covered in the linked article.
and in the usa computer hacking laws can make you (Score:2)
In the USA under the very poorly written laws having some like that can fall under the Computer Hacking and Unauthorized Access Laws.
or even the The Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act
Re: (Score:3)
To combat this, in the US there are laws, as cited below,
Not a jackpot (Score:3)
my understanding is that there used to be a pretty prevalent scam in which a firm would send something of value unsolicited and then bill the recipient. When the recipient did not pay, the firm would harrasss the recipient and do whatever nasty thing they could to get the money. If you were someone that sold stuff like that from Fingerhut, i.e. marking up just 10000%, one could get a pretty penny if even 10% of the recipients were extorted to pay.
To combat this, in the US there are laws, as cited below, that pretty much give huge right to the recipient of unsolicited merchandise. There are two exceptions. Merchandise that is sent for inspection is to be returned. For instance I used to get calls from firms that would offer to send me stuff for free and if I liked it they would then bill the company. The assumption was that the purchasing department in a moderately sized organization would pay for stuff management wanted without too much checking or hassle. The law still provides a level of protection as the merchandise can be returned and the time frame is not set in stone.
My feeling is that, at least in the US, the recipient should be protected. Look at it this way. I order a box of pens from office depot. Instead of pens, the send me a printer. It could be that someone in my office steals it. Am I then liable for the printer?
Yes, you're liable. The difference is that this isn't unsolicited merchandise, this is incorrectly shipped merchandise in response to a solicitation. Rather than meeting the unsolicited merchandise law, this would fall squarely under the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in some form in every state. Specifically, this is a shipment by the seller of non-conforming goods, which the seller promptly identified. Under UCC 2-508 [cornell.edu], the seller can notify the buyer of his intention to cure and make a co
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd keep it.
But what is the *right* thing to do? Legal issues aside, if somebody sends me something by mistake, then asks for it back, they are getting it back because that's what I would want them to do if I sent them something by mistake.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I never understood people who exploit obvious bugs/mistakes and then get all indignant when a company refuses to "honor" their exploit. It's just a complete lack of some basic moral compass.
I'd imagine these sorts of people would also say "cool, I was owed $10 and accidentally got back $30 in change, my lucky day!" instead of "hey, looks like you gave me too much change, here, wouldn't want you to get in trouble!"
Then again, there is only so far one can go. I was once delivered a different dresser from one I ordered (one that cost about 3x and was much nicer in every way). I called and left two messages explaining this, but never got a response. Fine with me!
Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Interesting)
Gray area? Not in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not know what UK laws are in this area, but I do know that US laws specifically state that unsolicited merchandise is legally considered a gift [usps.com]. Think about it: if things didn't work this way, you could wind up being billed (and having your credit report dinged) for "debts" you never agreed to! Alternatively, if companies could get away with sending you more expensive merchandise than you actually ordered and then billing you for it (or demanding, after the fact, that you take the time and trouble to s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds to me like the retailer would not only be out of luck on the consoles, but would still owe people their games.
If I received a Vita in the mail from a retailer, this being the Holiday season, my first assumption would be that someone gave me a Vita, not that the retailer sent it to me accidentally. At that point, I'd probably buy some games for it and start using it. If the retailer then demanded it back, not only have I spent money buying games for it, I now have to spend the extra time packaging it to return it (and possibly the money, too). I don't owe them that inconvenience just because they sent me the wrong thing, and furthermore, they still owe me a game.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't give money to Sony, even if the Vita was free. But your point is taken :)
I think that what they sent out was a bundle which included the purchased game, so the retailer probably owes them nothing.
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Back around the dot-com boom, lots of really good deals (re: obvious mistakes, like a 17" monitor for $50) would show up on e-commerce sites. These deals would get passed around, orders would skyrocket, the company would void the orders, and people would whine and moan about the company not holding up their end of the bargain. Eventually, terms of use began including this reserved right to void orders due to pricing mistakes, even if that right needn't be explicitly reserved.
Now a company has made a mistake further into the interaction with their customer--a mistake in delivery. I wonder if we will start to see terms of use/purchase including an obligation to return erroneous deliveries.
I genuinely think that the demarcation of responsibility should be after the item is shipped. You shouldn't place an onus, however small, on a customer to correct your mistake. In a more perfect world, people would be willing to take on such a slight burden as shipping an item back. However, the world is an imperfect place. Screws fall out all the time. We don't always treat others as we would like to be treated, whether due to laziness or greed.
Re: (Score:2)
" I wonder if we will start to see terms of use/purchase including an obligation to return erroneous deliveries."
Sigh. This is already covered in the law. I will repeat it for everybody's benefit.
First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").
Second, even though it is not a "gift", you you are not required to pay for it, and you can keep it... unless the company specifically requests that you return it.
Third, if they do request it back, they are responsible for the shipping and you can charge them a "reasonabl
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh
Oh how horrible for you.
First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").
Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It does not seem to differentiate mistakes. That is, none of these people ordered a Vita bundle--they ordered something different. Therefore the merchandise of a Vita bundle was mailed without prior request or consent. What was requested was a particular game.
Unless there is prior case law, I don't think anyone can really say whether the particular order (or an identical one taking place in the US) would qualify as "mailed without prior expressed request."
I'm referencing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm [gpo.gov] which doesn't have any obligation to the recipient--and expressly says so: "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"
Nothing in this code indicates that you can charge for storage should you return the item, either.
Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?
Re: (Score:3)
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
But just to clarify: since this was a mistake, and the company did not try to insist that people pay for the unordered merchandise (subsection c), it isn't "unfair competition" and this law simply would not apply here in the U.S.
The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:5, Funny)
Anything you didn't ask for is unsolicited by definition.
dumb ass.
This is literally why I come to Slashdot. Nothing warms my heart like an unsolicited insult. I'm all smiling inside.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is literally why I come to Slashdot. Nothing warms my heart like an unsolicited insult."
Especially when it is delivered to the wrong person (cymbal crash).
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Keeping something you know belongs to someone else is theft.
Re:Gray area? Not in the US (Score:4, Informative)
"Anything you didn't ask for is unsolicited by definition.
dumb ass."
Nope. Wrong. DrXym's comment is correct.
There is a difference between "unsolicited merchandise", and a mistake on a legitimate order. Unsolicited merchandise (regardless of the literal meaning of "unsolicited") is something that was sent to you out of the blue, i.e., you had no contact with the sender and weren't expecting anything at all.
Mistakes on legitimate merchandise orders are something entirely different. You DID order something. You DID expect something to be delivered. It was just the wrong thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you 100%. I think the receiver has every legal right to keep it but common sense should also come into play. The spirit of the rule is to keep people form getting scammed. Since this is an obvious goof the don't-be-a-dick rule should prevail. The company should cover shipping obviously and provide some reasonable compensation for your trouble but sending it back is the right thing to do.
Just another case where "legal" is not always == to "moral".
Re: (Score:2)
Living in the US I may or may not keep the Vita depending on how much future business I wanted to do with the company and probably some other vague emotion I happened to be feeling at that particular moment. I would look at my returning the product about the same as returning too much change given to me at a cash register - I generally return that stuff. If the company threatened legal action then they could just fuck off. I don't take to kindly to a company screwing up and then threatening me because of
Keep it (Score:2)
In the US, you are allowed to keep anything you are sent as an "unsolicited gift".
Don't know about the UK.
(The reason for this is that before the law, companies would send people stuff they didn't order and then demand payment... often many times more than the stuff was worth... just another scummy business practice.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except there was nothing unsolicited about this incident. The customers initiated the transaction by ordering a game. The company screwed up filling those orders. It has no relation to the "scummy business practice" example you provide.
Re:Keep it (Score:4, Insightful)
Customer ordered one thing, company sent another thing and is now threatening them with legal action and fines... sounds scummy to me.
The company should just admit they made a mistake and politely request a return... however, if the customer doesn't want to return it, they don't have to. Company made a mistake and is now acting scummy. Company made a mistake and it will cost them... consequences.
People are always saying the consumers need to be responsible and suffer consequences... this should apply to companies also.
Re:Keep it (Score:5, Insightful)
The company should just admit they made a mistake and politely request a return...
They did try that first. The customer (singular, that we know of, so far) failed to respond.
[Games blog Dark Zero] published a "final notice" letter sent to one [emphasis mine] Zavvi customer who had originally ordered a copy of the platform game Tearaway.
"As you are aware, as a result of a technical error, you were not sent Tearaway (priced at approximately £19.99) and instead were sent a PS Vita (priced at approximately £169.99). This was an error on our part and we apologise for any inconvenience this has caused you," it said.
Tearaway Affected customers had only expected to receive the game Tearaway
"We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions [emphasis mine] to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself), but to date you have refused to do so.
At this point I'd say the company are reasonable in assuming this guy just wants to keep the Vita despite having no claim to it.
Send them back and get over it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It even sounds like the company was willing arrange to collect the item from the recipient--unless that terminology is slang that could mean "we'll collect it after you've sent it."
I really hate having to mail packages, and the idea that some company can put such an item on my to-do list (mistakenly or not) bothers me. I'd probably do it, but I'd be grumpy about it, and I sure as hell wouldn't make it a priority.
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think Zawi should have to compensate the people for their time, gas and other expenses to ship the product back?
What if they have to drive 4 miles and spend an hour of their time to drop it off for shipping? Or conversely they have to take a day off work to wait for the delivery truck to pick it up?
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:5, Funny)
It warms my heart to know that you spend your precious free time posting on Slashdot.
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be a perfectly reasonable response to tell them "it is too inconvenient for me to ship it back to you; you come pick it up." What is not reasonable is to try to profit from somebody else's honest mistake -- a mistake that doesn't harm you -- at their expense. That's what this is really about, and the arguments over legality, or inconvenience, are just an attempt at avoiding that.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they (reasonably) believed it was a gift from someone else and have already purchased games for it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it would be reasonable to believe that.
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send them back and get over it. (Score:4, Interesting)
You're still wrong, because this is UK law, not US law. In the UK, they DO have a right to demand them back, unless three specific conditions are all met at the same time. Look up in the comments for the law.
Just a reminder: In a similar but not identical situation, someone found to his surprise that £100,000 had appeared in his bank account. He withdrew the money and started spending it. The guy now has a conviction for theft. The reminder would be: If you are in a situation like theft, you better make damn sure where you stand legally. And you better ask yourself whether they gain is worth the risk if you are not 100% sure. Some guys posted about there being no witnesses and lying that they never received the item... That would quite possibly make it fraud. Very high risk strategy.
On the positive side, on MacRumors some guy posted that he had ordered a Mac and received a better model than he paid for, and he asked what to do. He took the advice to contact Apple and was told by them to keep it, so now he has good karma, a nice bargain, _and_ everything totally legal.
Greed, pure and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
If the situation was reserved, say the customers received £19.99 Tearaway after ordering a £169.99 PS Vita, they would be fighting to return it.
The customers received an item that was worth more than what they paid, and are simply being greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
no, The would be fighting to get what they ordered. It's the companies responsibility not the consumers.
Re:Greed, pure and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on how the company handled it (Score:3)
I've had something like this happen twice. The first time a company shipped me something I ordered, and then a few days later something I didn't. I let them know, and they sent me a prepaid return sticker, and scheduled for UPS to come pick it up, they told me to just leave it on my porch.
No problem there, I was happy to get them their stuff back because it wasn't any issue for me. I didn't have to expend any real time and effort fixing their mistake. A quick e-mail to them, and then slap a label on it (the
It is not your property. (Score:5, Informative)
As a general rule you are not the owner of property sent to you in error.
If someone _deliberately_ sends unsolicited property to you, then the usual rule is this is presumptively a gift.
If someone _accidentally_ sends property to you then the usual rule is that ownership is not transferred automatically.
However if you reasonably assumed it was a gift then you might have lost it or sold it thinking it was your own, and since the error was not yours, you would not be liable. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think a store would send you a video game system for no reason. And a reasonable person who orders something from a store, and recieves the wrong product would first suspect an error on the stores part. If you contact the store and they say "nope it is a gift!" then you can keep it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A person receiving unsolicited goods they know to have received by mistake has a duty to care for them and make arrangements to return them, and only then is their duty disposed of. The same law covers when something is considered a gift:
24.—(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if—
(a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person (“the recipient”) with a view to his acquiring them;
(b) the recipient has no reasonable cause to believe that they were sent with a view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business; and
(c) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them.
(2) The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him.
(3) The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished.
Re: (Score:3)
A) This is UK, Not USA.
B) It was not an unsolicited action.
Re: (Score:3)
~~~~~~~~ http://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_tech_021.htm [usps.com] A company sends you a gift in the mail — a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didn’t order the gift. What do you do? Many people will feel guilty and pay for the gift. But you don’t have to. What you do with the merchandise is entirely up to you.
If you have not opened the package, mark it “Return to Sender.” The Postal Service will send it back at no charge to you. If you open the package and don’t like what you find, throw it away. If you open the package and like what you find, keep it — free. This is a rare instance where “finders, keepers” applies unconditionally. Whatever you do, don’t pay for it — and don’t get conned if the sender follows up with a phone call or visit. By law, unsolicited merchandise is yours to keep. ~~~~~~~~~ Gift - something bestowed or acquired without being sought or earned by the receiver.
There's a difference between an unsolicited shipment and a solicited, but erroneous, shipment:
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.
Also:
Gifts don't have to be intentional
This is entirely incorrect. By definition, a gift must be intentional [wikipedia.org]:
In order for a gift to be legally effective, the donor must have intended to give the gift to the donee (donative intent), and the gift must actually be delivered to and accepted by the donee.
The way to go. (Score:2)
Re:The way to go. (Score:4, Insightful)
The best thing for Zawi to do is probably just call it a loss. They have done the chest thumping and legal threats and probably have gotten most units back. Going to court would probably cost more time and money than the value of the PS. Offer anyone that did send their units back a gift card to reward honesty for a decent amount so no one would think that they would have been better off keeping the PS. The next step is getting your shit together so that it doesn't happen again.
Well, gosh, that'd just make me feel like an idiot if I was one of those that hadn't returned the items. At this point, I think they're past the point of no return - best course would have been to silent about the missing units, show due diligence in re-acquiring product, and move on, but now that they've complained about it won't people wonder what happened?
Used to work like this... (Score:2)
The law used to be that you couldn't refuse to return mistaken deliveries BUT you didn't need to actively do it. It was sufficient to say 'come collect it', give a reasonable deadline and wait. If they missed the deadline and you didn't play hide&seek you got to keep it.
I doubt distance selling regs has changed that.
UK Law is clear (Score:4, Insightful)
UK law is clear in that ownership has not transferred to the recipients and that the items should be returned.
I think in this type of situation, it's a reasonable expectation that the recipient should return the PS Vita too. They paid £19.99 and got sent a completely different item; it isn't as if the PS Vita was priced at £19.99 in error and the company mistakenly fulfilled the order.
Sadly, I see similar situations happen all the time. Companies make a mistake with their pricing online and don't fulfil the order and the people who thought they were getting a 40" TV for £50 start talking about their "right" to buy it for that price.
It's an obvious mistake by the retailer and if their customers are being uncooperative then they have every right to pursue the legal avenue. Let's turn it around a bit: if the customers had asked to return the game they bought and accidentally sent a PS Vita to the company, would the customers be arguing that their mistake represented an "unsolicited gift"?
Re: (Score:2)
"UK law is clear in that ownership has not transferred to the recipients and that the items should be returned."
Citation?
How did they want it returned? What did they say? (Score:3)
The story stays Zavvi says "We have tried to contact you on numerous occasions to give you the opportunity to return this item to us (at our cost and no inconvenience to yourself)."
So let's use some common sense here. Assuming they were telling the truth... if a company called me and explained the error, apologized, issued no threats, but ASKED me to send it back, offered to send me a prepaid return sticker, and offered to schedule a pickup if I didn't want to take it to a dropbox, I wouldn't fuss. To me, it would all be about the amount of work I'd have to do to return it. Make it easy for me to do, sure I'd do it.
The legal threats are stupid. Their percentage of returns acting nice will be as large or larger as the results of acting nasty. And if they take legal action they'll not only occur expenses, they'll turn every one of those customers into enthusiastic broadcasters of ill-will.
Re:A US perspective (Score:4, Informative)
In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it.
I don't know if a shipping error counts as being unsolicited, but I don't think the company would have any recourse. IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I know. I remember when the US post office used to advertise that, with an Eskimo getting a oscillating fan.
And this would count.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"In the United States getting stuff in the mail unsolicited is considered a gift and is not required to be returned...for the exact reason you specified; I can mail everyone on my block an Ubuntu cd and then claim they owe me $10 for accepting it."
That's not quite true. You are not required to pay for un-ordered merchandise, but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. However, they are responsible for the shipping cost, and you can charge them a "reasonable" storage and maintenance feel for the period of time the product was in your custody.
For that reason, companies do not usually request their products back. It's just not worth their while. And what constitutes a "reasonable" fee can only be determined on a case-by-case
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"but you are required by law to return the product if they request it. "
no, you are not.
from USPS( http://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_tech_021.htm [usps.com] ) bolding done by me:
A company sends you a gift in the mail — a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didn’t order the gift. What do you do? Many people will feel guilty and pay for the gift. But you don’t have to. What you do with the merchandise is entirely up to you.
If you have not opened the package, mark it “Retu
Re: (Score:3)
"A company sends you a gift in the mail â" a tie, a good luck charm, or a key chain. You didnâ(TM)t order the gift."
That is a DIFFERENT thing. This wasn't a "gift" sent in the mail (what the law calls "unsolicited merchandise"). This was a mistake on a legitimate order (solicited merchandise).
Because it isn't "unsolicited" (something sent to you out of the blue), different laws apply. The law you cite simply does not apply to the situation here. (As long as we're talking about U.S. law... I won't speak for the laws in other countries.)
Re:A US perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry Mr. Smith, we mistakenly sent you the $99.99 WHITE cheddar cheese log by mistake instead of the $6.99 YELLOW cheddar cheese log. Please return it immediately. Oh, it was eaten at your Christmas party? Just give us your credit card number and we can charge the extra $93.00 to your card.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you live in such a world, whether you like it or not.
If the recipient honestly believes they were the victim of the company trying to get them to pay for something they did not order, they have a chance to keep the item. How many of the recipients believe that?
Re:Letter o' the Law (Score:5, Informative)
If you'd read the law, you'd see that this isn't the case. From the relevant law, which is linked to in TFA:
24.—(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if—
(a) unsolicited goods are sent to a person (“the recipient”) with a view to his acquiring them;
(b) the recipient has no reasonable cause to believe that they were sent with a view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business; and
(c) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them.
(2) The recipient may, as between himself and the sender, use, deal with or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him.
(3) The rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Letter o' the Law (Score:4, Informative)
Now how about (a) and (b) which would also have to be true since the word used is "and".
Re:Letter o' the Law (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Err - no.
Money was accepted for an item to be sent to the buyer.
A different item was sent to the buyer.
The first contract has not yet been fulfilled, and the item actually delivered was a delivery in error.
As the delivery in error was not an intended delivery (the law specifically regulates spamming random products to addresses that diddn't order them - in that case they get to keep it) they have to return it.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK and Canada they now belong to buyer
No, they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
That's referring to the recovery/return of customer-cancelled orders.
Re: (Score:3)
The law is intended to provide a fair and moral framework for humans to live by
Considering the state of the world, I don't think that's working out too well.
Re: (Score:3)
She likely felt that I was in the wrong for attempting to "steal" it.
Since a similar event involving a prototype iPhone was heavily discussed, I read up a bit on it. In Californian law, it would have been theft if you kept the Mac. In New York law, it would have been theft if you kept it for six months. In many countries, if a place like an airport, or a shop, or a taxi is owned and controlled by someone, then any property at that place is by definition not lost, and taking it when it's not yours is theft. It's like a restaurant storing away my coat while I have lunch and yo