Slashdot Mirror
UK Retailer Mistakenly Sends PS Vitas, Threatens Legal Action To Get Them Back
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."
I'd keep it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
problem solved
The customer is always right.
I don't want to live in world where the end party is responsible for the errors of a company. Assuming the end party didn't intentionally commit fraud.
Otherwise we end up back to a point where companies would just send stuff out and demand payment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is all ready a law staying if its a genuine mistake then you have no right to keep it. Though you may have a case to say come and collect it within 6(?) months or else it mine through the unsolicated goods law
Good luck Zavvi proving to a court that these people have a Vita instead of the game :) Just your records yes?
"Nope I got what I ordered thanks, I've got my confirmation of order right here.
Oh proof? sorry, I sold it to a bloke in the pub. Yes of course I have a Vita, I ordered the game didn't I?"
Obviously it's totally immoral to do that, but that's exactly what many *will* do and there's nothing Zavvi can do about it, it's their word against the customer.
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. 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 send it back to them), then you'd be opening the door to merchants committing all kinds of bait-and-switch scams.
This seems to have been a genuine accident, and sucks for Zavvi, but they should not be allowed to threaten or instigate any legal action against the receivers. Even demanding the recipients mail it back with postage paid by the company is still requiring them to perform unpaid work (packaging, driving to the post office, etc.) for something they didn't do and aren't responsible for.
They should be legally required to take responsibility for their action.
They have accidentally transferred ownership of the devices.
They have no right to sue someone else for their own mistake.
Own up, deal with it, and learn from your mistakes instead of making the situation even worse.
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.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Huh, and here I am, an American, thinking that it was only Americans who think they're experts on stuff they know next to nothing about, or at least present next to no supporting case for.
Just kidding, I never thought this was restricted to any subset of the human population.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
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.
Who'd want a Vita anyway. If someone put a dog turd in my letterbox I'd throw it back at them.
However, if they aren't paying for postage I'd just toss it in the bin.
The right thing for the retailer to do is to say, "We are idiots, sorry, let us make this right with a discount." If they have not done so, they are clearly asshats.
The right thing for the customer to do is to send back the console in a prepaid box provided by the retailer and, if the retailer has offered them no compense, cancel their purchase of the game. Any customer who instead holds on to their ill-gotten gains, is clearly an asshat.
If you order something from a company, and they ship you the wrong thing, you AREN'T entitled to keep it. The company has to pay to ship it back to them, and, depending on their policies, either fully refund (including original shipping) the cost of your product, or ship (at their expense) the originally ordered product to you.
You're NOT entitled to something you didn't order and received solely as a result of a shipping mistake.
However, if a company intentionally ships to you something where there was no order (i.e. unsolicited receipt), it is considered a GIFT, and the company cannot ask for it back. Note that mistakes by the shipping companies don't fall into this category - it has to be the original company that shipped it specifically addressed to you. Mistakes by the shipping company fall into the first category - i.e. you are legally bound to return the item if asked.
That is:
1. You order A from a company. They send you B. You legally must return B to the company if they ask for it, but the company has to pay all shipping costs, and still owes you either a full refund for A, or must ship you A at their expense.
2. You don't order A from anyone, but some company ships you it anyway. It's yours, free of charge, and the company can't ask for it back, or demand payment.
3. You don't order A from anyone, but FedEx accidentally mis-ships it to you, instead of the addressee on the package. You can't keep it, and must give it back to FedEx when they come calling. Neither FedEx nor the original company can demand you to ship it back to them, though.
In this particular case, here in the US, the company would be entirely legally correct in demanding the merchandise back, as it fits case #1 above.
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.
Hmm, looks like to me that section (c) would apply. So, unless the customer said they were being returned, no legal obligation to do so.
You need sections (a), (b), AND (c) to apply.
See those semicolons and that period? They're functioning as commas, to increase clarity. That "and" at the end of (b) is a big hint that you need all three. Back to grammar school with you!
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"?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
"The DSRs do not require the customer to return the goods but if the contract says the customer must return them and they do not, you can charge them for the direct cost of recovery."
Pulled from the http://dshub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/Explained (Distance selling regulations)
If people weren't divided on 'factual' statements then we wouldn't have lawyers.
Company fucked up. And instead of trying to minimize the damage they've gone full retard into pissing people off and involving lawyers.
Theres now no way that company can come out ahead in this. They fucked up. And compounded that fuckup with being tools.
Would you want to do business with such a company? Selling a non unique product you can obtain plenty of other places?
Nope.
Way to go zawi. Jumped in with both feet.
Instead of just taking the loss and making sure that doesn't happen in the future..
You're now going to lose many times more than that loss now and in the future. Permenant damage for a temp mistake. WTG.
Idiots.
I've lived in Germany for a while now ... Overall America's system is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
Support the country you live in, or live in the country you support.
a prerelease unit not yet public was not what the customer ordered
the customer ordered a retail unit
they can just keep it
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
Personally, unless it was a crippling blow to the company, I would have made a big fuss about how anyone that received them could keep them as gifts. It would not only reflect well on the company, but depending on how well they advertised it, and how well news agencies covered it, it could create a massive boost to sales while people order tons of items while hoping for another error to happen.
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.
Here in the US, in order to be considered an "unconditional gift", the shipment must be unsolicited, not just incorrect. An solicited, but incorrect shipment can be recovered by the sender in the US.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
In the UK and Canada they now belong to buyer
No, they don't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Now how about (a) and (b) which would also have to be true since the word used is "and".
This is a business mistake that is being handled stupidly.
Instead of people like me reading this and feeling sick becuase it's the businessss fault not the consumers.
They should have spun it as a Merry Christmas to their customers. Who doenst want to shop at a site that makes mistakes, owns up to them, and always takes the customers side.
At $160/pop, depending on the scale of the mess up, this is the cheapest mass marketing they could ask for - so long as it's handled right. Unlike now where everyone reads it and will never shop there.
Rookie mistake in shipping, marketing and PR.
You have to sue them (seller) to prove that they were delivered the wrong item.
Until actual lawsuit, possession remains with the buyer.
You can send threatening lawyer letters, but they don't have to do anything until a court - not the seller - forces them to.
Which they won't.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Once merchandise is returned of course..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Europe or the Ivory Coast
You have no clue what you are talking about. German laws are mostly deeply rooted in universal human rights, enlightenment and the experiences of the 3rd Reich. They have their flaws, and some are ancient and outdated, but compared to the mess in the US, they are gold.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
That wouldn't be the nicest thing to do, per se, but I don't see how anyone has any more responsiblity for keeping an unrequested item safe. It could also be stolen in the mean time. What then?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
No UK solicitor would worry about returning the console- the claimable EXPENSE of dealing with Zavvi's negligence would allow the customer to claim far more in 'handling fees' than Zavvi could possibly hope to recover from the value of the hardware. Any interaction with Zavvi over the issue is legally billable (customer billing Zavvi for the use of their time, etc).
While there is no doubt that very large errors in value (sending an item worth thousands to a customer when you meant to send an item worth tens of pounds) would be seen by courts as reasonable to resolve mostly in the retailer's favour, this will not apply to tiny amounts like the value of individual Vita bundles. Companies are EXPECTED to run their business in a competent fashion, and not expect the legal system to pick up the pieces of their uselessness.
-customers are NOT required to do any work on behalf of Zavvi over the mistake. This includes responding to emails or phone calls.
-customers are NOT required to be out-of-pocket to even the slightest degree.
-customers are NOT required to be, to any degree, sympathetic to problems that occur because of Zavvi's gross incompetence
-customers are NOT required to recognise a mistake has been made, if the goods delivered are a 'reasonable' fit to the items ordered (which in this case, interestingly, they are).
Zavvi has a right, at its own expense, to make an attempt to rectify the mistake. This pretty much, in the worst case, means cold-calling the customer, and hoping to speak to the customer (rather than another householder who has ZERO connection to the sales contract) in order to ask for the parcel back.
However, if the customer thought the delivery was legitimate (and that would be very hard for Zavvi to disprove) and disposed of the goods (say as a gift to someone) before receiving notice from Zavvi that a mistake had been made, Zavvi essentially is stuffed even in the case of cold calling the customer.
For the customer, the safest legal play is to put the 'mistaken' product somewhere safe, ignore contact from Zavvi about the issue, and wait for Zavvi to give up (as their legal advisers will tell them they have no choice but to do). In this way, IF zavvi attempted any legal action, the customer merely has to state that Zavvi could, at any time, at THEIR expense, have turned up in person as many times as required, until they managed to speak directly with the customer, to reclaim their Vita. The customer can then add that under no circumstances were they prepared to use any aspect or amount of their own time to remedy Zavvi's mistake, without billing that time at far more than the Vita was worth.
Worse, for Zavvi, is that the customer can actually charge storage fees for safely looking after the mistaken parcel. This is why I said at the top that no solicitor- well versed in law and billing people for every action, would return a negligently sent item worth so little.
To my American readers, I should point out that no British computer/electronics retailer ever reaches anything approaching the size of the most successful in the USA, because of the horrendous "the customer is always wrong" attitudes held by people who run such businesses in the UK. British companies love to screw any customer naive enough not to understand their legal rights, especially over returns of non-functioning goods.
PS I have actually seen the usual vile shills telling people that even if the law is on their side, they have a MORAL duty to return the goods. This in a world where companies like Zavvi, Apple, Amazon etc state that they will happily pay as little tax as possible, because of loopholes in the law, regardless of how much money they make in profits. NOBODY has any moral duty to a corporation. The ONLY reason to treat a company nicely, or forgive their idiocy, is if you are grateful they exist, and fear that if they go down the alternatives will be worse for you. Enlightened self interest, in these circumstances, and nothing else.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Are lawyers wannabe poets?
b is trivially true. a was shown to be true when the company asked for payment rather than unconditionally arranging for the return of the items (assumes details in the article is accurate)
Nice when a state covers you like that... (as opposed to hurting consumers)
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 (they actually mailed me one) and drop the box on my porch.
Another time an eBay seller fucked up an order bad. They shipped some fairly cheap headphones I had purchased to a guy, and instead shipped me two McIntosh monoblock tube amplifiers worth about $10,000 each that he had purchased. I was a little perplexed by these massive 100 pound each boxes when I expected headphones
Well they were annoyed at me that I didn't refuse the delivery "like I should have" (I wasn't there, the apartment manager accepted packages for us) and wanted me to take them to UPS and ship them to the other buyer. They said they'd refund the shipping charge when he got the amps. I told them to fuck off, they could send me shipping labels and have them picked up, or go away. The were butthurt about that, but finally agreed.
So depends on how the company has acted. If they truly are making it no hassle on the part of the customer: As in willing to send them a shipping label (and if necessary a box) and schedule a pickup, then ok. However if they expect the customer to go out of their way to fix the fuckup, then no. Sometimes what they mean by "no inconvenience" is really "We want you to deal with the hassle of a return, then we'll refund you the money for shipping later, maybe."
When they are the ones that fuck up, it is their duty to make it right, with as little impact on you as possible.
vita is worth more than 30 bucks.
heck, not worth my time to ship it back for 30 bucks.
furthermore I'd reckon it's illegal for them to threaten with legal action(so that they wouldn't just ship wrong products allover just to sue people).
they still need to send the original(and charged for) order though.. what they send extra is their own business.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
You missed the part that they asked nicely after apoligizing and saying that the return would not cost the customer anything. The "legal threat" (actually only a statement that they reserved the right to pursue legal action, not that they were going to do so) came after being nice failed to work.
Recovering the merchandise aside, can the company claim this as a loss for tax/insurance purposes?
The law is intended to provide a fair and moral framework for humans to live by, it is not intended to be a game where you see what you can exploit for your benefit.
Unfortunately that is how people and many large corporations conduct themselves.
Can't see it ending well for anyone.
I've lived in Germany for a while now ... Overall America's system is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
Support the country you live in, or live in the country you support.
Or live in the country in which you wish to foment revolution.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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, the seller can notify the buyer of his intention to cure and make a conforming delivery or repudiate the contract. In such cases, the buyer may charge reasonable storage or disposal fees, but that's it.
Consider: the UCC, as well as contract law in general and dating back hundreds of years, was written to protect the ordinary dealings of merchants with each other and merchants with the public. Mistakes happen, everyone knows that... A business shouldn't be unreasonably punished because of a mistake, or else, out of fear of such mistakes, transactions grind to a snail's pace with everyone seeking reassurances in triplicate of every maneuver. This is actually one of the first things they drum into us in contract law that is different from the layman's expectation: normally, we think of breaching a contract as being a terrible thing that leaves you liable to all sorts of bad results; in reality, breaching a contract is merely an economic decision, and the courts will not bankrupt a company in punishment for making a sound business decision of terminating a losing contract, particularly if the other side knows that there's something inequitable. Essentially, tort or criminal law is all about "you wronged me"; contract law is all about "economic efficiency" - the concept of punitive damages only exist in very, very extreme cases.
Here, the merchant is entitled to their Vitas back and owes each buyer the game, any shipping costs, and potentially even reasonable storage fees - which, for a single Vita, are going to be negligible. And this is the way it should be, unless we want every purchase that's not an in-person exchange of goods to come with ten pages of contracts to sign.
To just PR spin it and be like Look how cool and generous we are!?
Who really cares what the law does or doesn't require?? Any decent person would return the item. And any reputable seller would obviously pay for the return shipment... And any good retailer would offer a token reward for complying with the request. End of story.
The tone of the article, and some of the quotes in it, make it sound like Zaavi went immediately to legal threats to get their product back. If you look at the letter in one of the articles, you can see that these items were ordered on May 10th, and the letters were sent December 10th.
This wasn't an unjustified threat, but a last resort to selfish pricks that think they deserve $180 more product than they paid for.
Kant: Q: If everyone did not return merchandise mistakenly mailed to them, what would happen [approx. categorical imperative]?
A: Probably the cost of shipping and retail would go up slightly to pay for more expensive insurance to account for the potential of sending the wrong item. Order processing and shipping would employer slightly higher paid people. Overall, we'd expect to see less shipping errors from all retail companies and shipment companies. Overall, a slight price increase on the cost of goods, less shipping mistakes, and not much else.
Jesus: Q: Would you like it if someone else did not send back a package to you that you mistakenly sent them [golden rule]?
A: No, that would suck.
Two different moral systems go in different directions here. Still, I think Kant would probably mail the Vita back. Nobody wants to be a dick.
--"You are your own God"--
It happened to me I ordered a accessory from an online music store, then they sent me a dozen of what I ordered. I emailed their Customer Service by (no phone # on thier site) of what happened and I'd be glad to return if they make shipping arrangements. A week goes by and no response so I send a second email and again no reply. After that I kept copies of the emails I send and kept the merchadise. I had no use for the extrass so couple years later I donated them to a local music program for kids.
If they want the item back then they need to provide postage and packaging.
And they can't expect it to be returned unopened or without scratches.
It may cost them more in handling to get the items returned than to call it a day and cut the losses.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It is very sad that so many people regard a clear mistake as an *opportunity* to profit.
Nobody would want to be on the other end of that mistake. Anyone who believes in fairness and reciprocity would make a reasonable effort to correct the mistake.
It's interesting to see the wide variety of responses to the story. I guess the only way we'll ever know the exact legal situation is if the case makes it to court, but I'd bet that Zavvi will try anything they can to settle out-of-court in order to save themselves the chance of receiving even more bad PR.
It's one of those situations where Zavvi can't win. If they let the person keep the Vita then those who sent them back will be annoyed. If they set the legal eagles loose then it'll just generate more bad PR for them. Zavvi itself had loads of bad PR a few years ago when the original company went bust; it was one of those situations where gift cards weren't honoured during the administration period and the media was full of people moaning about the company. That didn't bother The Hut, though, who bought the rights to the name and then set up a new online shop.
FWIW, my thoughts are that it'd be pretty obvious upon opening the packaging that a Vita+game had been sent rather than just a game. As such, I'd have felt pretty guilty if I'd tried to keep the Vita and I'd hope that I would do the obvious thing and send it back, although it wouldn't be at my expense (a pre-paid Special Delivery label would be my request, as that way the returned package would be insured - sod's law says that it'd go missing on the way back and then you'd have no Vita, no game and would still have the company hounding you for its return!)
The whole sorry mess could have been alleviated by giving a gift voucher upon the return of the Vita, or some other token to say "sorry for messing you around". Doing it the way they did just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth!
It's unclear whether the Distance Selling Act protects consumers
There is no such thing as the Distance Selling Act. I presume this refers to the Distance Selling Regulations 2000, which implement an EU directive from 1997. Anywhere, I don't see any lack of clarity. The law states that it applies when:
As there is no evidence here that the sender intended that the recipients should acquire the goods, the remaining provisions (i.e. that the recipient may do with the goods whatever he pleases without any liability to the sender) do not apply.
I think it's more of an issue if Zavvi charged the customer & never shipped the correct item.
Shipping the correct item (the tearaway game) directly upon noticing the error would have put them in a better position on all fronts.
They could have even shipped the correct item with a pre-labeled return shipping box for the erroneous package.
It is not theirs. As long as the company pays of the return, they must return it. The world owes you nothing. If these idiots made the same mistake they'll be whining and bitching about how unfair it all is and that they want their stuff back.
Pathetic little children.
... invoice them for storage fees, handling fees and a restocking fee.
I doubt it would stand up in court as "unsolicited merchandise" because you did order something from them, and the law of torts would likely find that you are obliged to send it back, but not at additional cost to yourself, so make sure that they pay for shipping, they collect at a time and from a place convenient to you, and that your extra time and effort for sending it back to them is appropriately compensated.
... because this was in the UK.
Furthermore, if I was selling a really expensive TV and a cheap DVD on eBay and got the addresses mixed up, I'd really hope the guy who mistakenly received the TV would be decent enough to send it back (at my expense) and not try to hide behind some "finder's keepers" law. The day everyone screws common decency and just follows the letter of the law as long as it benefits them, then we are truly lost as a society.
Send it back.
I'ld buy a Tearaway game in the store and send that back through registered mail.
Parent and GP, you are aware that this is a case in the UK, not Americaland that we're talking about?
The onus would be on the vendor to prove without access to the device that it was one of theirs. Once the statement the gp points out is made I can't see how the vendor could compel surrender of the device for inspection or anything other reason.
I cannot see any court in the land going along with such a request as it would be harassment. Not only that but once it is proven that the device is not the device the vendor states it is then the consignee could sue them, and also probably take the case up with the criminal justice system under regulations previously mentioned. Savvi is on very thin ice here.
Is that the companies making the mistakes do not reward your honesty in any way.
For example, I ordered a cheaper model FLEX polishing machine and recieved a more expensive one. I notified the company of their mistake and sent it back and recieved the right machine few days later.
Would of been nice to get a discount, a gift voucher or even a "thanks" at a very least. But I got nothing.
That was the last time I've been "fair" when recieving wrong products in my benefit.
Once I was waiting for a flight in the Atalanta airport. I was walking around and eventually sat down at my terminal, where I discovered a MAC notebook (this was in 2008 or 2009 I think). No one was there to claim it, and I assumed that if I took it to the lost and found, then someone would take it. I was faced with someone else's loss, regardless it appeared. So I figured it was mine for the taking, and it was. So I put it in my bag with my other laptop. Now at this point, I felt bad, as if I should do whatever was in my power to get this back to the unlucky fool. So I was going to look in the thing and see if I could get enough info to figure out who's it was. I looked a little bit right there, but didn't conclude anything reliable. I put it back in my bag and would simply look more in depth later. About 10 minutes later, a girl came out of the terminal exit, with a desperate look on her face, and looking around the area where I was. I asked her if she was looking for a mac notebook, and she said, "yes!" I opened my bag and handed it to her. She gave me a look of disgust and hurried back to her plane, no "thank-you", nothing. She likely felt that I was in the wrong for attempting to "steal" it. I didn't care. She got her stuff back and that was what I wanted to happen.
I sleep really good at night.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I'm starting to get a very strong insight into the effects of US education cuts from Reagan onwards. Thank you for your help.
We're getting our legal advice from internet forums now? What the fuck?
Just try to make an effort to return the merchandise, please.
My two reasons are: 1) it's the right thing to do, and 2) I have too much stuff already. My tech gets obsolete in an annual basis. Not only have I run out of room, but their functionality overlaps (iPad2, iPad Air, Kindle, and finally actual books). Lastly, if I fail at reselling them on ebay, I feel terrible throwing them away even if it's e-recycle. Bad for the environment, and a virtual slap in the face for all the engineers, designers, et al who worked on it.
Approximate translation into human English:
24-(1)(a)If you get something and (b) don't think it was part of a sale, and (c) didn't ask for it, then
(2) you can consider it a gift and
(3) it is no longer the shipper's property
So, the question is whether the recipient has any reason to believe the product was sent "with a view to their being acquired for the purposes of a business." ie, whether the shipment was clearly part of a business transaction. It seems to me like one should be able to recognize a mistaken product to the standard of "reasonable cause to believe," but it's clearly open to debate. I would be surprised if there isn't UK case law to clarify the point, and all of this lay-people arguing about the human interpretation of legal jargon is ridiculous.
Which part of:
do you interpret as asking for payment and not arranging for return?
In Finland if you receive item you did int order, its yours to keep. Its sellers responsibility to make sure they ship right stuff to customers. If they want it back well that up to negotiation. Want something i now own, well give me something i think is worth it in return.
I have no idea what half of you are talking about. This is a simple RMA thing.
You order 2x4GB of RAM and they send you 2x8GB of RAM, what do you do?
These guys didn't get a product out of the blue, their order was filled incorrectly.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
If you know something is not yours, regardless of whether you know the owner or not, it is theft to knowing take something that isn't yours.
It isn't just "That was the clerks mistake, oh well." If you see that he gives you change for a 20, and you know you gave him a 10, and you walk out the door it is theft.
If you see a bag of money, whether you saw it fall out of the bank truck or not, and take it, it is theft.
This is no different (except, you know, it isn't in the US). I know lots of Americans would say "Keep it, it was their mistake." but they are wrong, morally and legally.
I ordered something from ThinkGeek a while ago, and they sent me the whole package from their vendor, which had 5 pieces per. So I ordered one earing, and got 5. I sent the 4 back.
Operating on the concept of greed.
At least in the U.S. you get to keep things they accidentally send you.
Pay the consequences.
Wouldn't this more likely fall under contract law? Assuming that the seller had the buyer agree to some sort of terms and conditions, likely including a 'if we send you the wrong shit, give it back' sort of condition, and by giving them money, you agree to said terms and conditions?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Having gone through a similar experience in the 80s with money accidentally deposited into my account by the bank I know what the law in the UK is.
It's called an "unsolicited free gift" and the rule is this: It's up to the sender to discover their error. If they don't write to you and ask you to give it back before a year and a day has passed then it's yours.
The law isn't the issue here---and the way the law reads, it doesn't apply anyway. Someone sent something your way by accident. It's not much different than if a bank plopped $1,000,000 in your checking account by accident, or if the electric company accidentally charged you too little or too much one month. Mistakes suck, but they don't entitle you to exploit them over it. In the same way the bank would get its money back (somehow), they have a right to get back a Vita sent to you in error.
I'd expect the company to pay for shipping to get their hardware back---and they'd have to expect lots of opened boxes along the way, but assuming that's no problem, anyone who kept the Vita is being selfish and asking for trouble. Mistakes happen...maybe one day when our computer overlords manage all purchasing, orders, and shipments, errors will be eliminated from society and this will never happen again. Maybe.
That part where, apparently, the initial contact offered a choice of keeping it and paying or sending it back.
I once knew a person like you, a most entitled little piece of shit who never did anything for anyone ever. And he couldn't figure why he couldn't hang on to a good job. Because NOBODY liked him, so at the first opportunity he got fired not because of cost cutting but simply because nobody wanted his odious ass around.
Enjoy your dead end life.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Elsewhere in the thread, the example was used of a delivery of a medium shirt instead of a large, to show the absurdity of the idea of keeping the medium *and* demanding the originally ordered large, or keeping the medium *and* disputing the credit card charge. Yes, that would be absurd, but it would also be absurd for the shirt company to contact the buyer afterward and *insist* that the medium be returned for exchange for a large, even if it turned out the medium was acceptable.
In UK Law you have an absolute right to keep unsolicited Goods and are under no legal obligation to return them.
I say screw Zawi. If I received the wrong item in the mail, and a subsequent threatening letter, here's what I would do:
I'd ask Zawi for a REFUND to return their mis-shipped product. Then I would go to my local video game store, buy the Tearaway game for $20, send the brand new sealed game back to them in their return shipping box... Then I get my money back, they get their "product" back, and they feel like fools because when they open the box there is no PS Vita like they expect, but a brand new shiny unopened game like the one I purchased from Zawi in the first place...
In the end, I still end up with a new Vita for only $20... And everything looks transparent according to the law and the return of their item...
Screw Zawi...
-reply to their demand with: "Thank you for your message, I am very happy to hear from you, please allow 30 days for responding" /n/n/n/n/n/n/n *terms and conditions apply"
-after that something like "sure i can help you arrange the shipment of your goods and cancellation of order*
-use imagination for terms and conditions, remember to respect 30 days response time
- ???
- profit
I would say it is ready for collection where the courier company left it - on the front door step, lobbed over the hedge, or safely hidden in the garbage wheeliebin
So you like dishing it out even when undeserved but are not willing to follow through? So you do not wish to take responsibility for your actions?
Id just say i never received one in the mail