Computers x2 when I ordered 1

chocoholic123

unholyangel wrote: »

For them to be unsolicited goods they must have been sent to you with the view of you using them (ie not sent by mistake) without any prior request by you or someone on your behalf.

You have made a request, just not for that particular item. Ergo there has been a request and the goods are not unsolicited. Goods sent in error remain property of the sender.

You see my view would be that I have NEVER requested the second computer - and therefore I've never made any prior request for the second computer. They DID expect me to use them and they even charged me for them (Although now refunded).

I know I'm wrong on this - I'm just trying to explain why I thought I was wrong.

Finally
Could anyone tell me which law the six years thing comes from?
The original link seems to be about goods a trader has left behind - and I can't see which law it relates too.
And thanks everyone for their advice - it is appreciated. It is a confusing area!

wealdroam

chocoholic123 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me which law the six years thing comes from?

You'll wish you never asked that.

It's The Limitations Act 1980.

chocoholic123

Ah section 9 - I see that.

You know when I was at school I quite fancied Law as a career - but wow, I'm not sure I could ever learn the secret language, it all seems deliberately complicated!!

The softened down pages, aimed at people like me, just confuse the matter further by contradicting one another.

EG This page The Guardian implies they are unsolicited, because the company charged me for something I didn't order and it states thats why the act was put in place in the first place.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2005/sep/29/yourrights.legal3

Anyway my head is close to exploding, I've finished tidying up the house, I'll email the company again tomorrow and put that box neatly away for now.

[Deleted User]

Why are you continuing to E-Mail them when you should be putting your correspondence in writing and posting it to them? It makes sense to to do this as then you'll have a proper audit trail of evidence that you've informed them of their mistake.

LondonGal

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Why are you continuing to E-Mail them when you should be putting your correspondence in writing and posting it to them? It makes sense to to do this as then you'll have a proper audit trail of evidence that you've informed them of their mistake.

You have anyway - email is a perfectly acceptable method of communication.

bluenoseam

LondonGal wrote: »

You have anyway - email is a perfectly acceptable method of communication.

Problem is that some companies may automatically filter it as spam where as a signed for letter is massively more likely to be read & acknowledged.

arcon5

Why should op have to fork out to send a recorded letter?
They've already replied to op previously so can hardly claim they know nothing about it .

Personally I'd put it to one side for at least a year and see if they get in touch. If they don't then sod 'em. After a year they would have likely done year end stock takes and reconciliations - which would likely be the time it comes to light and is imvestigated

bod1467

You don't need to send recorded. 1st class post with a (free) certificate of posting is perfectly fine.

Interpretation Act 1978, section 7.

cookie365

bluenoseam wrote: »

Problem is that some companies may automatically filter it as spam where as a signed for letter is massively more likely to be read & acknowledged.

That's their problem, not the OP's.

LondonGal

bod1467 wrote: »

You don't need to send recorded. 1st class post with a (free) certificate of posting is perfectly fine.

Interpretation Act 1978, section 7.

Yes - delivery is assumed to have taken place.