SC Wants $25, Gets Charged $400

[Record Store Tough Guy]

As regards the rules stated earlier about gift and unsolicited packages, neither of those cases apply to this.

Those regulations are specifically in place to prevent a company from sending unsolicited merchandise and then attempting to collect from the recipient of the merchandise.

This is a case of a shipping error on behalf of the seller with no intent to attempt collection of the value of the merchandise from the recipient. In a case such as this where it is obvious that the items were sent in error, and the recipient acknowledged that error and originally agreed to return the merchandise to the seller, it becomes much less cut and dried.

At this point, the recipient is attempting extortion.

^-.-^

Did she order it? If not, it was sent unsolicited, whether in error or not. Therefore the regulations regarding unsolicited packages apply.

[trunks2k]

Did she order it? If not, it was sent unsolicited, whether in error or not. Therefore the regulations regarding unsolicited packages apply.

But I believe the fact that she contacted the company that sent her the item and agreed to send it back to them because it was a shipping error might make it less cut and dry.

The purpose of the USPS rule/law was specifically to keep people from purposely shipping unsolicited merchandise and trying to charge for it. In this case there was no such intent, in fact the company wants the merchandise back and was willing to compensate the woman to send it back.

I'm not familiar with the wording of the actual law, but in this case the spirit of the law in question doesn't apply to this situation.

[Cyphr]

I'm not familiar with the wording of the actual law, but in this case the spirit of the law in question doesn't apply to this situation.

That law relates to sending a freebie to someone and then trying to get them to pay for it. A good example is the way razor companies send freebies of a razor and their shaving cream. This law prevents them from sending a bill saying you owe $xx.xx.
however i understand it as that if it was addressed to:

Joe Somebody
1234 SC Lane

and your

Jane Sucky
1235 SC ROAD

then it is considered theft and is illegal

[Peppergirl]

I guess I'm confused as to why she even bothered to report it, and then turned around and is acting like an SC and wants to keep it.

Why bother to report it in the first place, then?

Perhaps she had a qualm of conscience for a moment and thought that if she reported it they'd just tell her to keep it? Then she got pissed when they didn't?

I don't get it.

Or am I just using logic again?

[ClovenMusic]

You, the consumer, may only legally be sent two types of merchandise through the mail without your consent or agreement:

* Free samples which are clearly and conspicuously marked as such.
* Merchandise mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contributions.

And in these two cases, you can consider the merchandise a gift if you wish. In all other situations, it is illegal to send merchandise to someone, unless that person has previously purchased or requested it.

If you do not wish to pay for unsolicited merchandise or make a donation to a charity sending such an item, you may do one of three things (in each case, by law, you have no obligation to the sender):

* If you have not opened the mailpiece, you may mark it "Return to Sender," and the United States Postal Service will return it with no additional charge to you.
* If you open the mailpiece and don't like what you find, you may throw it away.
* If you open the mailpiece and like what you find, you may keep it for free. In this instance, "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally.

Now, I'm just a 27 year old peon, so by no means am I a lawyer, but I am judging that by the wording of this, the law of keeping stuff applies ONLY to free samples or merchandise sent to you BY A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LOOKING FOR DONATIONS. This does not mean you get to keep something that was mis-mailed to you, and was meant for someone else.

I know the wording of "if you do not wish to pay for unsolicited merchandise or make a donation to a charity sending such an item" may seem as though it's describing two different scenarios, but I am pretty sure it's still describing something sent to you by a charitable organization. In the first part of "unsolicited merchandise", the paying for the merchandise would be considered the donation, in which case you're still paying a charitable organization that sent you merchandise, and not just some company that sent the wrong merchandise to the wrong residence.

In any case, I also don't think it matters if the lady is able to bend the wording of the law in her favor, as the moment she tried to return the merchandise, she was legally recognizing herself as being NOT THE OWNER of it, as well as her NOT WANTING the merchandise. She was offered compensation for her troubles, and then turned around and wanted MORE compensation, and decided to hold the package hostage for it, after already waiving her right to keep it.

Personally, I think any lawyer worth their salt would be able to conceivably argue that once she decided to take the box hostage, she should be liable to compensate the company for not being able to set things right with the rightful customer with immediacy. And I also think any lawyer that she went to with a case to keep it, would probably look at her like she's nuts.

Then again, this IS America, and...


~ Chris

[Cyphr]

yea america tends to get a little stupid in the justice department at times but i think any judge/jury worth their weight in dirt would understand it is theft. there are precedents for this sort of thing... i just dont know the case numbers or details off my head.. if you want to find one just look for something like <mail/phone order company> v. <average citizen>

[Xieg]

Couple of clarifications.

It was sent by UPS, not that this really matters at this point.

By some quirk of the system it was labeled with her name and address, and according to her, not real ready to believe this at this point, it was without a packing list.

As it is, the fact that she contacted us and we have her voice stating she would send it back and was happy with the previous compensation, which she had suggested in the first place, would likely be enough for a verbal contract.

And we aren't directly charging her, that would be trouble. We are sending her a bill, which she can choose not to pay, and which will have collections calling her occasionally.

If it wasn't addressed to her, why not just give it back to the carrier and tell them it has the wrong address? It would just get sent back to your company then. Also, why open it?.

Our stuff is clearly labeled with our name. Its on the box, the tape, the label. Anyone not having ordered would have noticed, told UPS its not theirs, and it would have come back to us. Happens more often than not in these cases. It is clear now she just wanted free stuff, and if she could have used the majority of the order she would not have called. Most people don't have uses for a few shock collars when they have one dog.

[Ironclad Alibi]

Now, I'm just a 27 year old peon, so by no means am I a lawyer, but I am judging that by the wording of this, the law of keeping stuff applies ONLY to free samples or merchandise sent to you BY A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LOOKING FOR DONATIONS. This does not mean you get to keep something that was mis-mailed to you, and was meant for someone else.

This not restricted to products sent by charitable organizations. I have in the past received collectible stamps in the mail from companies selling stamp collections. They send a sample with the hope of getting me to buy it and subscribe to future issues in the collection. They ask that I buy it or return it, providing a postage page envelope to do so, but also say they I'm under no obligation to do either.

The US Post Office web site describes their policy regarding the receipt of unsolicited merchandise. No mention is made of erroneously sent merchandise.

[StevieJD]

I am a relatively small business. Nitche market and all that.

One day I got a call. Just by chance I answered the telephone because it was a funky call and would have been confusing to most employees, and even harder for them to explain to the chain of command.


A woman, let's call her Sally Sqwiertier live at 101011 Swit St in Springfield was calling us.

We had shipped an 8 box, 400 lb UPS shipment to Sally Sqiwertier who lived at 101077 Mwit St in Fairfield.

UPS had re-routed the packages to the caller.


Stuff happens. It was just one of those really weird things. Really weird.


Of course I am in panic mode. Did one of my employees F***up the name and addy. Nope. UPS had done a consignee moved re-routing. Their computer messed it up.


Sally Sqwiertier was nice enough. Understanding. UPS picked up the packages within the hour which was quite remarkable. But something about the entire conversation was "what are you going to do for me".

Hey, all she did was call the shipper's telephone number. Took 5, 10 minutes tops. She don't need or want my products, so there is nothing I can offer her. Oh sure I could have given her $$, but why and how much. Besides, if I give her $, UPS is not going to compensate me for their screwup.

So I left the situation with a thankyou and hope somebody looks out for you was well as you did for Sally Sqiwertier.


I guess in a manner of speaking I was "poor customer service".

[Andara Bledin]

The US Post Office web site describes their policy regarding the receipt of unsolicited merchandise. No mention is made of erroneously sent merchandise.

Mis-delivery does not equal unsolicited merchandise.

Unfortunately, the FTC site is completely unresponsive to it's own search feature, and every page I've found includes a quote from an FTC page that no longer exists. While it may contain the same text at a different URL, it's possible that they've changed some of the text.

As it currently stands, there are many consumer protection laws that protect against practices that involve the sending of merchandise followed by the sending of a bill for said merchandise. And other than a note of advice quoted from the old FTC page, there is nothing mentioned about what is legally required when there is an honest and recognizable shipping error.

There are a lot of opinions, and most of them support that it is ethically proper for the merchant to be allowed to collect the merchandise. But there is nothing defined regarding the legality.

I'm military law, any time a person receives something as the result of an honest error and they are aware of that error, the failure to make some effort to alert the sender of the error is tantamount to theft.

^-.-^

[Ironclad Alibi]

Since we can find no guidance from either the Post Office of the FTC regarding mis-sent merchandise, we shall have to make inquiries to a higher authority, Miss Manners. Especially since Dear Abby has recently disgraced herself.

[Rine]

I think it is just sad that people expect to be rewarded for doing the right thing. You should simply do the right thing and if you get a reward in return, well, that's nice, but it's never necessary. People can be so greedy.

[Sliceanddice]

heres why i think she can be held liable for the charges.
She knew it wasn't hers, made the moves to return to the company, and was even compensated for her time. She then deiside instead of returning the products she would keep them instead, there for she is saying she wants the porducts and there for can be billed for them, like for a free trail of a product, since she was informed she was being billed its perfectly legal (not a lawyer just giving an opinion) also she is also saying until her demands are made shes keeping the products. Which can be consue as a treat and of holding private proper hostage.
I think the company is going whats right.