Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses United Kingdom Games

UK Retailer Mistakenly Sends PS Vitas, Threatens Legal Action To Get Them Back 617

Posted by Soulskill
from the ethics-vs-free-stuff dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Retailer Mistakenly Sends PS Vitas, Threatens Legal Action To Get Them Back

Comments Filter:
  • by Dan541 (1032000) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:13PM (#45665335) Homepage

    I'd keep it.

    • by melikamp (631205)
      IANAL, but I think if one doesn't sign for it, and there are no witnesses to receiving, then saying "I don't recall getting any playstations" should provide a solid defense.
      • Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Informative)

        by symbolset (646467) * on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:00PM (#45665847) Journal
        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.
        • Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Solozerk (1003785) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:31PM (#45666175)
          No idea either - however, something close happened to me a few years ago.
          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)

            by dead_user (1989356) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @10:54PM (#45667545)
            Several years ago the company I worked for ordered 2 Dell workstations. A few days later they both came in, but the service tags didn't match the ones we ordered. In fact, they were just numbers. Weird. Whatever. The next day two identical workstations showed up with the original correct service tags. I called our service rep and explained that they had over-shipped the machines, plus the weirdness with the Service Tags that didn't actually look like legit numbers. It took me nearly two weeks to return 2 PC's that Dell insisted couldn't exist because the service tags weren't valid. Since the tags weren't valid their system couldn't issue an RGA.

            My best guess is that someone was stealing systems somehow.

            Besides, I see no need to tempt karma.
            • 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.

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          The item wasn't "unrequested". The recipient started a business transaction and a mistake was made. I expect it could go either way in court, but I agree the court would lean towards "unrequested items belong to the recipient". Other commonwealth countries have a duty to act reasonably. If there's a bank error in your favor, you don't get to keep the money. If you are sent something unsoliscited "by mistake" you must return it, or make it available for return. In the US, you can keep more gains throug
          • Re:Jackpot (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @08:28PM (#45666667)

            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.

          • If there's a bank error in your favor, you don't get to keep the money.

            Damn you, uncle Pennybags! You lied to me!

          • Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Insightful)

            by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @10:11PM (#45667303)

            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.

            • by QQBoss (2527196)

              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,

            • by Bert64 (520050)

              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.

        • 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):

          The Hut Group based its threat of legal action on its understanding of the UK's distance selling regulations.

          Although they state that "unsolicited goods" can be treated as unconditional gifts that do not need to be returned, and that it is illegal for the sender to threaten legal action - the legislation they are based on adds the qualification that this only applies if there was no "prior request made by or on behalf of the recipient".

          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            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:5, Informative)

      by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:43PM (#45665671)

      "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)

        by geekoid (135745)

        " unless (or until) the provider requests that you return it. "
        false.

      • by BronsCon (927697)
        Wrong on so many levels, but I do know which law you are referring to. It doesn't apply in cases where you've actually ordered something and was written to put a stop to a once popular practice of sending unordered merchandise, then sending a bill weeks later; it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
        • 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.

    • 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

    • by fermion (181285)
      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,

      • 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)

      by bobbied (2522392) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:35PM (#45666217)

      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)

        by Dahamma (304068) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @08:29PM (#45666675)

        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)

        by tompaulco (629533) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @08:53PM (#45666845) Homepage Journal
        The right thing to do is to return it, after they have sent you the correct item, discounted for the lateness of the correct item, fully paid the return postage and compensated you for the time and effort of return mailing it.
  • 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)

      by DrXym (126579)
      Thing is these, things were not "unsolicited". The person ordered one thing (a game called Tearaway) and through an obvious database mistake received something of higher value (a PS Vita Tearaway bundle). It's not like the consoles just turned up out of the blue. I expect the retailer is well within their rights to demand the item to be returned even if they are responsible for paying the postage to have them returned.
      • by Lendrick (314723) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:49PM (#45665725) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by Sancho (17056)

          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.

      • by Sancho (17056) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:52PM (#45665763) Homepage

        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.

        • " 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

          • by Sancho (17056) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:19PM (#45666059) Homepage

            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?

            • "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

    • 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

  • 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)

      by Ralph Wiggam (22354)

      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)

        by mspohr (589790) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:51PM (#45665745)

        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)

          by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:07PM (#45665899) Homepage

          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.

  • by Dega704 (1454673) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:28PM (#45665517)
    Mistakes happen. They weren't expecting them so it shouldn't be too heartbreaking to return them. I'll probably get flamed for this, but you have to be one self-entitled little twerp to expect to be able to keep it. As long as Zawi pays for shipping they have every right to want them back. If you mistakenly shipped something expensive to the wrong address, would you be miffed if they refused to return it? Who wouldn't?
    • by Sancho (17056)

      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.

    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:40PM (#45665655)

      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?

    • by Lendrick (314723)

      What if they (reasonably) believed it was a gift from someone else and have already purchased games for it?

  • by enoz (1181117) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:29PM (#45665525)

    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.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      no, The would be fighting to get what they ordered. It's the companies responsibility not the consumers.

    • by purplie (610402) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @07:35PM (#45666213)
      No. I bill my time at $200 per hour. Someone wants me to spend half an hour fixing their logistics error, for free? And involuntarily?
    • 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

  • by DM9290 (797337) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:30PM (#45665531) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • 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.
    • Re:The way to go. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:36PM (#45665601) Homepage

      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?

  • 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)

    by timmyf2371 (586051) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @06:45PM (#45665691)

    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"?

    • by geekoid (135745)

      "UK law is clear in that ownership has not transferred to the recipients and that the items should be returned."

      Citation?

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @08:21PM (#45666601) Homepage

    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.

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...