Received more than I ordered

sjbrun

Are you trying to find every possiable way not to do the morrally correct thing?

Ste_C

Why are people no longer capable of just doing the right thing and instead obsessed with finding out what they have to do and what their rights are?

As consumers we are rightly protected against unfair and illegal practices, but the obsession with rights in this country now is a total !!!! take.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself.

unholyangel

Magicshab wrote: »

Fine, I know this may be a stupid question, but do I have to actively tell them I've been sent more than I ordered, or should I wait for them to realise this.
Also how long is "opportunity"?


Right so the gift thing was a custom fee avoidance. That means if they ask for it back, problems may ensure for them?
Oh and does it now carry the rights of a "gift"?
Sorry if it's already been answered.

Put it this way, as the goods were not unsolicited, the company have 6 years to claim the money from you. Excess goods that were sent in error are not unsolicited.

Answer your question?

System

I don't think the OP can be done for theft. Its not "dishonourably appropriating another persons property with the intent to steal it" as the goods were sent to the OP's house by mistake. Its a morale grey area but I don't believe you can be arrested for theft because a retailer has sent you something by mistake. There will never be 100% proof that the OP had received these products as no record of royal mail will say these parcels were delivered to that address. The OP could quite convincingly argue they only ever received one and it would be on the company concerned to prove that they not only sent 3 but that all 3 reached the OP's house.

Personally I would email the company and inform them you have received too many copies of the same game, however its up to you

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

I don't think the OP can be done for theft. Its not "dishonourably appropriating another persons property with the intent to steal it" as the goods were sent to the OP's house by mistake. Its a morale grey area but I don't believe you can be arrested for theft because a retailer has sent you something by mistake. There will never be 100% proof that the OP had received these products as no record of royal mail will say these parcels were delivered to that address. The OP could quite convincingly argue they only ever received one and it would be on the company concerned to prove that they not only sent 3 but that all 3 reached the OP's house.

Personally I would email the company and inform them you have received too many copies of the same game, however its up to you

Small claims they only have to prove what is likely to have happened. They do not need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, they have proof of postage? Its likely the parcel arrived.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

Small claims they only have to prove what is likely to have happened. They do not need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, they have proof of postage? Its likely the parcel arrived.

I don't think that they will take the OP to the small claims court because of their own mistake. Even if they did I believe the OP could quite convincingly argue that a parcel posted in Hong Kong never reached his house in the UK.

For 2 computer games at I imagine £30 a pop they are not going to chase it too strongly.

Morally the OP should own up, however I would be 95% certain they would get away with keeping them if they wished

System

arenaman wrote: »

There may be no proof of a theft to press charges but under these circumstances technically a theft will have occurred. Being sent something by mistake isn't the issue, what you do about that mistake is.

Technically its theft but really nobody obeys every aspect of the law. Driving at 71 MPH on the motorway is technically breaking the law but the police are never going to arrest you for that.

I can't forsee a situation where a company (based overseas by the sounds of it) is going to phone the police and report that the OP has stolen some games that they sent them by mistake.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

I don't think that they will take the OP to the small claims court because of their own mistake. Even if they did I believe the OP could quite convincingly argue that a parcel posted in Hong Kong never reached his house in the UK.

For 2 computer games at I imagine £30 a pop they are not going to chase it too strongly.

Morally the OP should own up, however I would be 95% certain they would get away with keeping them if they wished

Mail goes missing a whole let less than people claim it does. The seller might not realise for a while yet (when they go to file accounts or if they are audited).....but as i said, they have 6 years to chase the payment.

If the games are cheap, theres every possibility the seller will tell the OP to keep them, rather than the fee's of getting a company to collect.

Personally for the sake of a few quid, i'd rather be honest than take the chance i'll be charged/billed for them a few years down the line. Especially as all 3 are the same game.

tomwakefield

goater78 wrote: »

I don't think the OP can be done for theft. Its not "dishonourably appropriating another persons property with the intent to steal it" as the goods were sent to the OP's house by mistake.

Dishonestly, as defined by the theft act.

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.

The only marginally grey area is 1a. Other than that, the OP is bang to rights on all other points.

Appropriates: 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.
Property: Money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Belonging to Another: Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

goater78 wrote: »

Its a morale grey area

I don't think it's a grey area at all.

goater78 wrote: »

but I don't believe you can be arrested for theft because a retailer has sent you something by mistake. There will never be 100% proof that the OP had received these products as no record of royal mail will say these parcels were delivered to that address. The OP could quite convincingly argue they only ever received one and it would be on the company concerned to prove that they not only sent 3 but that all 3 reached the OP's house.

That's all to do with proof, rather than legality. I think the OP would be guilty of theft if he kept them, but it would be another thing to prove it.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

Technically its theft but really nobody obeys every aspect of the law. Driving at 71 MPH on the motorway is technically breaking the law but the police are never going to arrest you for that.
.

Probably because they allow a margin for error.