Goods delivered twice but only paid for once

legallyconfused

I bought some equipment from an online retailer who shall remain nameless to the tune of about £800 just after Christmas. I picked said goods up having paid by debit card when I ordered over the phone. Imagine my surprise when the same goods were delivered to my home address a week ago with an invoice in there saying that the goods were paid for on the original purchase date. My account has not been debited twice (yet - its only been a week since delivery).

Other than the moral issues here, what is the legal position? Am I obliged to return the goods? If I don't return them are they liable to come and demand them back or debit my card in future? As I said, I seem to have a paid invoice for the goods.

I would be most grateful for any advice.

fwor

Someone trying to make a case to keep the item(s) might be tempted to consider them as "unsolicited goods".

However, they are clearly not, and come under the definition of "goods sent in error". You have no right to keep them, but it is the responsibility of the sender to arrange collection, at no cost to you, within a reasonable time.

One approach would be to write to the sender advising them of the error and stating your conditions for their recovery - for example that if they do not arrange for collection within 30 days then you will consider them to be abandoned by the sender, and that you will then dispose of them as you see fit.

legallyconfused

Thanks for the reply, is there any period in which they have to claim them from a legal standpoint (if they haven't noticed after 6 months do they become mine for instance)? If they don't know that they sent them in error (as I said the invoice states that payment has been recieved and the invoice itself was only produced a week ago) am I still obliged to tell them and return the goods?

Thanks.

legallyconfused

I ahve just seen this in the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000:

"...Goods sent in error are thus not unsolicited, but remain the property of the sender unless they are actually used. Title passes if the sender fails to recover them within three months..."

Does this three months start from when I tell them or from when they were delivered?

Tozer

If it were me - I'd keep quiet for 6 years. After which they lose the right to claim them back.

Tozer

legallyconfused wrote: »

I ahve just seen this in the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000:

"...Goods sent in error are thus not unsolicited, but remain the property of the sender unless they are actually used. Title passes if the sender fails to recover them within three months..."

Does this three months start from when I tell them or from when they were delivered?

New one on me. Do you have the full statutory provision? You need to read in full - not extract.

4743hudsonj

that question has pretty much been answered, its up to you whether you tell them but heres the issue, if you dont tell them and use or sell them and they later claim the goods, you need to pay them again as you do not have the goods unused, or they might just forget completely and your in the money.

on the other hand, you can wrote and tell them and like already posted they will either claim them back at cost to them or not bother, for good of that value, i would say they would claim them back, the goods will not be "yours" untill they for fit title of them by not claiming them when they know that you have them.

Tozer

4743hudsonj wrote: »

that question has pretty much been answered, its up to you whether you tell them but heres the issue, if you dont tell them and use or sell them and they later claim the goods, you need to pay them again as you do not have the goods unused, or they might just forget completely and your in the money.

on the other hand, you can wrote and tell them and like already posted they will either claim them back at cost to them or not bother, for good of that value, i would say they would claim them back, the goods will not be "yours" untill they for fit title of them by not claiming them when they know that you have them.

Sorry, is it me or did that make no sense whatsoever?

legallyconfused

Tozer wrote: »

New one on me. Do you have the full statutory provision? You need to read in full - not extract.

More fool me - it was from Wikipaedia and I cant find it on the OPSI website so we can safely assume its BS

So... having established that the goods are not unsolicited, how would they be able to prove that I hadn't paid for them because the invoice is to me and has my card details on it and there is a transaction to them on the date specified for the right amount?

I just want to establish how they could prove that it was an error?

Thanks for your help!

Tozer

legallyconfused wrote: »

More fool me - it was from Wikipaedia and I cant find it on the OPSI website so we can safely assume its BS

So... having established that the goods are not unsolicited, how would they be able to prove that I hadn't paid for them because the invoice is to me and has my card details on it and there is a transaction to them on the date specified for the right amount?

I just want to establish how they could prove that it was an error?

Thanks for your help!

Wikipedia. Half the barrack-room lawyers on here use it as their only source.

They can prove it as an error by the mere facts of the case. You know the goods are not yours and thus you are a "bailee" of the goods.

As I said, keep schtum for 6 years, then they are yours.

fwor

legallyconfused wrote: »

I ahve just seen this in the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000:

"...Goods sent in error are thus not unsolicited, but remain the property of the sender unless they are actually used. Title passes if the sender fails to recover them within three months..."

Does this three months start from when I tell them or from when they were delivered?

As you say, this looks to be wishful thinking on the part of a Wiki contributor - the phrase does not appear in the actual Regulation, nor in the 2005 Amendment.

If the invoices are two different ones then they can prove that there was an error, because you only paid once. If you just have two identical invoices then there was obviously an error, as you have two lots of items.

No intention to be holier than thou, but deliberately benefiting from the errors of others is considered to be theft. It's down to you to decide where you stand morally.