We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Vent about MSE
Comments
-
Stugib - I think you have that right when to say
"That's the group that should be educated in a friendly way, and not jumped upon by the people who think everyone's on the grab."
Even if people are on the make or trying to get something out of a company, there's no need for rudeness. What's the matter with telling them politely that you disagree.
The original post wasn't so much about that type anyway but more about the arrogant condescending types who answer in such a way that it makes the person asking the question feel ridiculous. We all started from a state of ignorance however many years ago - some are still finding their way. Many of us are ignorant about some financial matters at least. I know nothing about investing - never had that much spare cash, but I'm working on it. Maybe I'll need some very basic advice someday. Let's support people rather humiliate them.0 -
My own view is the major problem comes from those who comment from a moral standpoint.
If someone asks how to fiddle benefits, surely the correct response is to say that it is illegal and leave it there. Instead we have people get on their high horse and proclaim that they never put a foot wrong, and their view of the morality of a question is the only one to be tolerated.
This is fine where someone contemplates law breaking, but what of those actions that are not illegal, but morally wrong. For example parking in a disabled space in a private car park is not against the law, and the errant motorist cannot be fined.Immoral - yes - but as this is a money saving forum to respond by critizing the action is not what this forum is about.
We are here to help each other and not to slate what we are/are not doing.0 -
For this to apply, play.com would have to:
a) have sent you the second one deliberately,
b) demanded payment from you for the second one.
Unsolicited goods does not mean goods sent by mistake.
Firstly I'm not a lawyer and apart from an A-Level in Law a very long time ago I have no legal training. I also haven't ever read the full text of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act (1971). However the link I added to the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) website states that unsolicited goods are (quote) 'sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf'. It doesn't say that the goods have to have been sent deliberately, merely that they are sent without prior request.
I do accept that the law will have been drafted to prevent companies deliberately sending unsolicited goods but unless there's something buried deep in the text of the law it looks to me like it applies to items sent by mistake as well. As I said before it all depends on the morals of the person concerned what they would do in such a case but I believe that any reasonable person who read the advice from BERR (a Government department) would believe this includes items sent in error.
If any reasonable people would like to express an opinion read this -http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/buying-selling/unsolicited/index.html
- All comments welcomed!
p.s. Still no Playstation from Play.comThe fridge is empty, the walls are damp, there's no hot water
And I look like a tramp and tramps like us
Baby we were born to walk0 -
Firstly I'm not a lawyer and apart from an A-Level in Law a very long time ago I have no legal training. I also haven't ever read the full text of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act (1971). However the link I added to the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) website states that unsolicited goods are (quote) 'sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf'. It doesn't say that the goods have to have been sent deliberately, merely that they are sent without prior request.
I do accept that the law will have been drafted to prevent companies deliberately sending unsolicited goods but unless there's something buried deep in the text of the law it looks to me like it applies to items sent by mistake as well. As I said before it all depends on the morals of the person concerned what they would do in such a case but I believe that any reasonable person who read the advice from BERR (a Government department) would believe this includes items sent in error.
If any reasonable people would like to express an opinion read this -http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/buying-selling/unsolicited/index.html
- All comments welcomed!
p.s. Still no Playstation from Play.com
stugib is correct. When considering the relevant legislation you need to take into account the thinking behind the legislation (to stop innocent consumers being scammed). The Act applies to truly unsolicited goods, not those that were genuinely sent in error.Gone ... or have I?0 -
stugib is correct. When considering the relevant legislation you need to take into account the thinking behind the legislation (to stop innocent consumers being scammed). The Act applies to truly unsolicited goods, not those that were genuinely sent in error.
Personally I agree with this (although if Play.com ever do send me some Playstations I might change my mind). My point is that if a reasonable person read the Government's advice they could reasonably believe that they are well within their rights to keep the item(s).
One thing I do remember from my A-Level Law studies is that law makers do make mistakes when drafting laws and these invariably get taken advantage of by barristers and solicitors and as a consequence there are no doubt people walking the streets today who shouldn't be. If Joe Bloggs takes advantage of a faulty law to get a free Playstation I can understand why he'd do it although I wouldn't condone it.The fridge is empty, the walls are damp, there's no hot water
And I look like a tramp and tramps like us
Baby we were born to walk0 -
I agree with you I have had people being rude to me. But you have to try to let it go over your head, although I am quite sensitive so I find it hard. But on the other hand I was also accused of being "spiteful" I think that was the word they used because I said they are liable for paying tax on ebay profits. So I obviously offended someone - without meaning to.
It's like text messages isn't you could read it in a different way to how they mean it.
And then some people are just big fat meanies
To avoid the potential of upsetting people it's always a good idea to carefully read your post first...and then again...and then again. Some people could get upset by your last comment for example.0 -
I'd agree the BERR summary is, let's say, open to interpretation! From source:My point is that if a reasonable person read the Government's advice they could reasonably believe that they are well within their rights to keep the item(s).
Demands and threats regarding payment.
2:-- (1) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent after the commencement of this Act to another person with a view to his acquiring them for the purposes of his trade or business, shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,
(2) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business and with a view to obtaining any payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent as aforesaid:- (a) threatens to bring any legal proceedings; or
- (b) places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaulters or debtors or threatens to do so; or
- (c) invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
'unsolicited' means, in relation to goods sent to any person, that they are sent without any prior request made by him or on his behalf.
That's my rule of thumb! Even with the scope for loopholes, the intent would be considered - why would Parliament create a law that meant you could take ownership of something because someone made a genuine mistake? Say if the postman delivered to the wrong address - that's mine!dmg24 wrote:When considering the relevant legislation you need to take into account the thinking behind the legislation0 - (1) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent after the commencement of this Act to another person with a view to his acquiring them for the purposes of his trade or business, shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,
-
Personally I agree with this (although if Play.com ever do send me some Playstations I might change my mind). My point is that if a reasonable person read the Government's advice they could reasonably believe that they are well within their rights to keep the item(s).
One thing I do remember from my A-Level Law studies is that law makers do make mistakes when drafting laws and these invariably get taken advantage of by barristers and solicitors and as a consequence there are no doubt people walking the streets today who shouldn't be. If Joe Bloggs takes advantage of a faulty law to get a free Playstation I can understand why he'd do it although I wouldn't condone it.
Also remember that an Act should rarely be read on its own. General legal principles should also be taken into account. In this case, the Law will not allow an absurdity.Gone ... or have I?0 -
Personally I agree with this (although if Play.com ever do send me some Playstations I might change my mind). My point is that if a reasonable person read the Government's advice they could reasonably believe that they are well within their rights to keep the item(s).
One thing I do remember from my A-Level Law studies is that law makers do make mistakes when drafting laws and these invariably get taken advantage of by barristers and solicitors and as a consequence there are no doubt people walking the streets today who shouldn't be. If Joe Bloggs takes advantage of a faulty law to get a free Playstation I can understand why he'd do it although I wouldn't condone it.
It is not the government's advice.
Very few 'mistakes' are made in drafting legislation. Legislation is open to interpretation by judges and, as Stugib and DMG24 rightly say one of the key methods is to understand the reason the legislation was brought in. Its called the "Mischief Rule".0 -
I'd agree the BERR summary is, let's say, open to interpretation! From source:
That's my rule of thumb! Even with the scope for loopholes, the intent would be considered - why would Parliament create a law that meant you could take ownership of something because someone made a genuine mistake? Say if the postman delivered to the wrong address - that's mine!
I wouldn't say that Parliament have created a law that meant you could take ownership of something because someone made a genuine mistake - instead I'd argue that they've neglected to create a law to prevent this happening (subtle difference).
I think the problem is that this law was originally drafted about 40 years ago, long before anyone had heard of Play.com. It probably needs repealing and replacing with legislation more suited to the age of online retailing.
I not sure though about expecting the man in the street to understand Parliament's intentions, I'm sure most people have enough confusion in their lives already!
p.s. I anyone from Play.com is reading this I'm still waiting for my Playstations!!!The fridge is empty, the walls are damp, there's no hot water
And I look like a tramp and tramps like us
Baby we were born to walk0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards