Signed for neighbour's parcel, then burgled

unholyangel

Gavin83 wrote: »

I don't agree, I don't think the OP is responsible. However this is a complicated case and would ultimately be up to a judge to decide should it go that far. Ultimately it would be up to the OP to prove they hadn't stolen it or acted in a negligent way. I think this would be easily done.

It's a really weird situation in that no one is technically at fault. I am curious in this case who'll be the party who will ultimately lose out as someone will have to pay for it.

Highlights a reason why taking in parcels for a neighbour is a bad idea!

No, it would be up to ASOS to prove the FIL had stolen it/acted in a negligent way. They're alleging breach of duty so its their burden to prove it.

Altarf

Undervalued wrote: »

Once the OP agreed to take in the parcel (and they didn't have to) they become responsible for its safe keeping. Yes, the neighbour has a claim against whoever sold the goods (not the courier as they have no contract with them) as they have failed to deliver (unless the terms and conditions allow delivery to a neighbour).

Yes

Undervalued wrote: »

The seller then has a claim against the courier (again unless the t&c allow delivery to a neighbour).

Possibly, but depends on the contract the seller and the courier have agreed.

Undervalued wrote: »

Finally though the courier has a claim against the OP as they failed to take care of the goods. By agreeing to take them in (which they didn't have to) they are taking on a legal responsibility for their safekeeping. Whether or not the OP's insurance covers the goods is irrelevant.

Good luck with that.

Theoretically you may have a point, but the practicalities would mean there is not a cat in hell's chance the courier would succeed with a claim.

The courier took a risk leaving the goods with a neighbour. They lost.

ljonski

Why on threads like this am i reminded that thousands of years ago the writer of ecclesiastes said that there is nothing new under the Sun. This question has been asked on numerous occasions in various guises and still they argue. bottom line Did courier fulfill contract. If no- courier responsible. If yes-responsibility lies with thief!

naedanger

Undervalued wrote: »

So, in effect you are saying if he had borrowed something from his neighbour, had it stolen in the burglary and it wasn't covered by his insurance then that is the neighbour's loss and he has no liability?

I don't think so!

The op's FIL was getting no reward for looking after the item. Therefore the standard of care they owed the item's owner was to take the same care of the item as a reasonable man would take of their own property.

A bailee for no re

ward must take the same care of the bailed property as a reasonable man would take of their own property.

So the op's FIL is only liable if they took less care of the item than a reasonable person would take care of their own property.

Had the op borrowed the item then, I think, they may have a higher standard of care since they are, I think, being rewarded for taking possession (the reward being they have temporary use of the possession). The information in the link states that a higher standard of care is required where the bailee is rewarded.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/bailment/

Gavin83

unholyangel wrote: »

No, it would be up to ASOS to prove the FIL had stolen it/acted in a negligent way. They're alleging breach of duty so its their burden to prove it.

Yep your correct, I worded it badly. However it wouldn't be up to ASOS to prove it but ultimately the courier.

I can see this case getting quite nasty as I can't see any of the parties willing to take responsibility for it. If the FIL is unwilling to give them the money (and why should he) then they'll have to pursue the retailer, who will have to pursue the courier who will have to pursue the FIL, should it get that far. If the purchaser informed them they could leave it at a neighbours house that'll muddy it further.

OP I'd expect relations with your neighbours to become somewhat frosty from now on.

ljonski

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5600517
as i said nothing new under the Sun!

boliston

naedanger wrote: »

.....

Had the op borrowed the item then, I think, they may have a higher standard of care since they are, I think, being rewarded for taking possession (the reward being they have temporary use of the possession). The information in the link states that a higher standard of care is required where the bailee is rewarded.......

If you borrow an item from someone then regardless of liability I would think there would be a moral duty to replace the borrowed item.

Altarf

Gavin83 wrote: »

I can see this case getting quite nasty as I can't see any of the parties willing to take responsibility for it.

Which is why I suggested s75 or chargeback.

OP's neighbour to bank "I ordered something from ASOS, it wasn't delivered"

Bank to ASOS "Have you got proof it was delivered to our cardholder"

ASOS "No, but..."

Bank to OP's neighnour "Here is your money back".