Refund conditional upon return of unsolicited goods?

Agent_Rothbard

I ordered and paid for a book from an Amazon Marketplace seller.
Six days later a parcel arrived containing a completely different random book. Initially the seller wanted me to pay for return postage but has now agreed to send a courier for the item. However they say they can hang onto my money until they process the return.
From my POV they are in breach of contract with regard to my order. They did not and cannot supply the book I ordered so an immediate refund is due. The random book they sent me is unsolicited goods and they cannot make the refund contingent upon getting it back. Am I right legally speaking? I will of course send the book back - I just don't see why I should wait for my refund any longer. They have had my cash for all this time for no purpose and I want it back!

halibut2209

Its not unsolicited goods. It's an error. They've agreed to send a courier and to refund you. A mild inconvenience at most.

tykesi

It's not unsolicited goods.

Oops, cross posted.

macman

Why would any sane company send a courier to pick up a book? The courier cost must far outweigh the value of the book, unless it's an expensive art book or similar.

Agent_Rothbard

They are sending a courier because they have to make arrangements for its return. I am not obliged to incur any costs returning the item. If they don't collect it they still have to refund me, which is my point - I cannot see any legal basis upon which the refund is contingent upon the item's return. If you guys know different, can you point me at the relevant statute please? Cheers

unholyangel

To explain the above posts saying the goods are not unsolicited....

Unsolicited goods are goods which have been sent - with no prior request being made by you or someone on your behalf - with a view to you acquiring them.

The reason for the unsolicited goods & services act was to stop companies sending people goods they didnt ask for with the intentions of forcing them to pay for it later.

It was not intended to let people benefit from companies mistakes.

Agent_Rothbard

As things stand, this company is benefiting from it's mistake by having taken and retained possession of my cash whilst expecting me to incur time and monetary cost to return an item I never asked them to send me. They are accruing interest on my payment and they are not even able to supply the item I ordered because they never had it in stock. This feels like a scam to me and I cannot see any basis in law that says they get to keep my money until they collect and process the return. If there is such a law, please point me at it!!

unholyangel

Agent_Rothbard wrote: »

They are sending a courier because they have to make arrangements for its return. I am not obliged to incur any costs returning the item. If they don't collect it they still have to refund me, which is my point - I cannot see any legal basis upon which the refund is contingent upon the item's return. If you guys know different, can you point me at the relevant statute please? Cheers

The right to set-off.

Involuntary bailment.

unholyangel

Although I would take pics of the item undamaged just before you hand it over to the courier.

Your liability for its care ends when their agent (the courier) takes possession of it.

Agent_Rothbard

With the benefit of hindsight I should just have filed a claim for the non-receipt of my order. The other book came with no paperwork, nothing to link it to the Amazon order at all. I buy a lot of books so it took me almost a day to go through my orders and track down which order the delivery was supposed to relate to anyway. Next time I won't be so conscientious. If there's no paperwork that ties the book back to the order I'll just file a claim for non-receipt of my goods, get my refund and then tell the seller to collect the unsolicited item.

Agent_Rothbard

unholyangel wrote: »

The right to set-off.

Involuntary bailment.

I cannot find anything to support the idea that this applies to goods sent to my address.