Real Life MMD: Should we keep the wine?

gunslinger13401

Reality123 wrote: »

Sorry Gunslinger. Here is a link which bursts your balloon:

bis.gov.uk/policies/consumer-issues/buying-and-selling/unsolicited-items

So where exactly does it burst my bubble ??
"Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

Someone who receives goods in these circumstances may retain them as an unconditional gift, and does not have to pay for or return any unwanted goods. Anyone who receives a demand for payment for unsolicited goods should report the matter to their local Trading Standards Department.

However, in the case of unsolicited goods received before 1 November 2000, the recipient is required to give notice to the sender to collect them within 30 days, or otherwise to wait for 6 months, before being able to treat the goods as their own property".

Whether I am a lawyer or not is irrelevant,whatever I am or may be I do have access to legal information. You can choose to believe whatever you wish. But I can assure you that retaining goods that have been delivered unsolicited to your door is NOT theft nor has anyone ever been charged with such in this scenario.
Antonia # the time scale if 30 days for them to collect the items from you but you have no direct responsibility to alert them,you can in fact say nothing and if they are not reclaimed for 6 months they are yours anyway.
Reality 123 # please could you reference the section in the 1968 theft act relevant to unsolicited gifts. Perhaps you should be more familiar with said act before quoting it on an open forum.
Also I can only quote Tesco but the driver does not get penalised for the error and it is normally written off.

Gunslinger

walkman50

Reality123 wrote: »

I find it almost laughable that one person posting claims he/she spots 20p errors in the supermarket bill. That sounds like a complete exaggeration to me and devalues their opinion to worthlessness.

I got home from Asda recently, looked at the receipt, and found they had charged me 30p more than listed on the shelf for an item - which I found extremely annoying, and not worth chasing.

I have been to Asda and found the item price higher at the till than the shelf before, and when complaining been told it had just been increase within the previous minutes, and they would honour the price I had seen on the shelf when I picked up the item. Had I not spotted it at the till I would have been overcharged again.

Errors no matter how small are still errors and should not happen. Stating that in your opinion they are exaggerated (based on what?) and that their opinion is rendered worthless (again, based on what!) is rude and is more likely to result in more people ignoring your opinions than the one you have criticised.

Reality123

You are relying on too close an interpretation of the Unsolicited Goods act. The goods need to have been sent in an unsolicited way and payment demanded before that legislation works. Payment has not been demanded. The legislation is not in point.

I refer you to the Theft Act 1968, section 1(1) (I have underlined the appropriate bits):

1. Basic definition of theft
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’
shall be construed accordingly.

I refer you to section 2(1)(b) below:

2. ‘Dishonestly’
(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as
dishonest-
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s
consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative)
if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest
notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

I refer you to section 3(1) below:

3. ‘Appropriates’
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,
and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it,
any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

I refer you to section 5(4) below;

5. ‘Belonging to another’
(4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to
make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof,
then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against
him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make
restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the
property or proceeds.


Shall we continue?

Reality123

Walkman, please see my later posts for a fuller explanation of my point. Thanks

noodle

Tandra wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned the farmers that all supermarket chains "steal" from on a daily basis. Paying a pittance for produce that takes so much time and effort to grow, just to enable their own pockets to be lined. I don't believe the pious rhetoric that has spewed forth on this subject. KEEP THE WINE, DRINK IT & MOST OF ALL ENJOY IT!!

they're lining the pockets of their customers as much as they are lining their own pockets. and, of course, most of what lines tesco pockets ends up benefitting 'our' pension funds or state tax reciepts.

if the people of britain wanted a fair deal for farmers then they wouldn't shop in places like tesco... but they do, because they want ten burgers for a pound and don't want to ask themselves how that is possible. the real beneficiaries of supermarkets screwing suppliers are the people who buy the cheap food.

JoP1

No - it's theft. If you notice you've been overcharged on your bill would you claim it back? Works both ways. Just email them,

Toreador

To all the people claiming that somebody will be disciplined (docked wages, the sack, etc) because of the mistake:

How can this be so? How can they know whether the mistake was made by the person who took the items off the shelves, or the person who put the bags into the delivery van, or the person who drove the van?

As for returning it - have you ever tried exchanging any food items if you buy the wrong thing? They won't allow it for H&S reasons - don't know if it's the law, or just self-preservation to prevent problems caused by tampering. So even if you do manage to inform them, you'll always be allowed to keep it. The main reason for telling them is that they'll sometimes give you something else on top, as compensation for their mistake

funandfrugal

JoP1 wrote: »

No - it's theft. If you notice you've been overcharged on your bill would you claim it back? Works both ways. Just email them,

It really is this simple. Black and white, right and wrong. Good karma x

Shepherdess

My OH works for one of the big supermarkets in the online shopping department, he tells me that generally if you get something delivered that you didn't order as long as you let them know they will usually let you keep it as they will already have replaced or refunded the customer who the goods should have gone to and it is more bother than it's worth to collect from you and then do all the paperwork involved.
I'm pretty sure that in law if something is delivered to you that you didn't order you can treat it as a gift, however for peace of mind you really should tell the company involved, if they let you keep it then it will taste so much better knowing it really does belong to you.

Yorkshire_Belle_2

The Merlot does not belong to you so I think the best way forward, considering the time you spent on the telephone, is to write to the company's chief executive officer (CEO), explaining what has happened and asking him/her to deal with the matter and ask for your out of pocket expenses. You may be lucky and be given the Merlot. I bought a box of Shiraz and was charged for one single bottle, at a well known wholesaler, and I did not realise it until I got home when I checked through my receipt. I brought it to their attention and was given a bottle for my honesty, paying for five instead of six; I was very satisfied and my integrity was intact. Irrespective of conflict with any faith you may have, keeping the Merlot is not a price worth paying for the loss to your integrity and self worth. Is that how much you value it, a case of wine? Surely your honour is worth more.