Incorrect delivery addresses...

Major_Clanger_2

I'm not suspicious - the person at the old address e-mailed the retailer to explain that he had received the parcel in error and the e-mail reply he recived (which he shared with me) states that he could dispose of the item.

I'm just frustrated that the retailers customer service worked sufficiently well to send an e-mail to me explaining what had happened, but then refused to pass on my contact details (due to GDPR - although I'm not certain this is relavent as I was giving express permission for my data to be used in that way) and then advised the person at the old address that they could dispose of it before I had a chance to get in contact to arrange collection/redelivery.

unholyangel

Gavin83 said:

I disagree with most of the answers here. There are a lot of variables though....

If the retailer is considered as having successfully delivered the package then it ceases to be their property and it becomes yours. Therefore they’ve no right to offer any advice on what to do with the package no more than I would have done, it’s not their property. If they still own the item (and therefore can offer the advice) then they should be refunding you as it was never considered as having been delivered.

Personally the way I see it is they did what you asked them to and delivered the package. Therefore it’s yours and they shouldn’t be giving out any recommendations on the package.

However I’m not sure who’d you take to court. Either the retailer is still considered as owning the item, in which case you’d sue them or they’d be considered as having completed the contract and therefore you’d probably take the person to court who it was delivered to. They should have kept the parcel safe, it wasn’t their property and it certainly wasn’t unsolicited goods.

Given how difficult this’ll be to pursue and the low value of the item I’d chalk it up to experience. If it was a more expensive item I’d definitely be recommending a solicitor in this case as it’s far from clear cut but I suspect you’d ultimately be suing whoever lives in the house.

Regardless this is not an easy question to answer.

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

The fact the retailer outsources the delivery obligations to a company that only deliver to an address, doesn't have any impact on the trader's obligations. They remain liable as the courier is their agent. 

Which is also why if you arrange a courier yourself, risk passes when your courier collects goods. Because the courier is your agent in that scenario and you have liability for them. 

nyermen

Major_Clanger_2 said:

refused to pass on my contact details (due to GDPR - although I'm not certain this is relavent as I was giving express permission for my data to be used in that way) 

Indeed, they're making an excuse there.  You can give permission for your details to be passed on, what you can't do is request the other persons details.  It's a common question in our annual GDPR training - X's boyfriend phones asking for his mobile number, should you give it to them?  Answer is no, but it's allowed to take their contact details, and pass them on to X.

DiddyDavies

unholyangel said:

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

Although that is what the wording that consumer legislation uses, I wouldn't be surprised if a court gave more leeway when interpreting it.
If it was always the case, it would mean that I could order something from a retailer whilst on holiday, have it delivered to my house at a time when I was fully aware that I wouldn't be there to accept the delivery knowing that the package would be accepted and signed for by someone else living at the property.
As I hadn't specifically identified anyone to take possession of the goods then although they had been delivered and signed for by an adult living at the correct delivery address, those goods would still be at the traders risk until I returned from my travels and had the goods given to me.

Gavin83

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

I disagree with most of the answers here. There are a lot of variables though....

If the retailer is considered as having successfully delivered the package then it ceases to be their property and it becomes yours. Therefore they’ve no right to offer any advice on what to do with the package no more than I would have done, it’s not their property. If they still own the item (and therefore can offer the advice) then they should be refunding you as it was never considered as having been delivered.

Personally the way I see it is they did what you asked them to and delivered the package. Therefore it’s yours and they shouldn’t be giving out any recommendations on the package.

However I’m not sure who’d you take to court. Either the retailer is still considered as owning the item, in which case you’d sue them or they’d be considered as having completed the contract and therefore you’d probably take the person to court who it was delivered to. They should have kept the parcel safe, it wasn’t their property and it certainly wasn’t unsolicited goods.

Given how difficult this’ll be to pursue and the low value of the item I’d chalk it up to experience. If it was a more expensive item I’d definitely be recommending a solicitor in this case as it’s far from clear cut but I suspect you’d ultimately be suing whoever lives in the house.

Regardless this is not an easy question to answer.

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

The fact the retailer outsources the delivery obligations to a company that only deliver to an address, doesn't have any impact on the trader's obligations. They remain liable as the courier is their agent. 

Which is also why if you arrange a courier yourself, risk passes when your courier collects goods. Because the courier is your agent in that scenario and you have liability for them. 

I’m not entirely sure that’s accurate. The OP gave the company an address to deliver to and they fulfilled this duty. In a normal situation I couldn’t see any judge finding against the retailer in this situation.

This is a complicated case though. Ultimately all 3 parties involved have made mistakes and if this was to go to court I’ve honestly no real idea of what way it would go.

I do thank the OP for posting it though, it’s certainly an interesting case for debate.

unholyangel

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

Although that is what the wording that consumer legislation uses, I wouldn't be surprised if a court gave more leeway when interpreting it.
If it was always the case, it would mean that I could order something from a retailer whilst on holiday, have it delivered to my house at a time when I was fully aware that I wouldn't be there to accept the delivery knowing that the package would be accepted and signed for by someone else living at the property.
As I hadn't specifically identified anyone to take possession of the goods then although they had been delivered and signed for by an adult living at the correct delivery address, those goods would still be at the traders risk until I returned from my travels and had the goods given to me.

Judges may have some leeway if the law is ambiguous, they cannot overrule something explicit though. I thought you said you were legally trained? Any solicitor should know this and know of judgements that go against common sense because the law is, the law is the law. 

It expressly says the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by them. If they wanted risk to pass once correctly delivered to an address, they wouldn't have written physical possession. 

It's the retailer's obligation to deliver goods. If they want to maximise convenience and minimise cost to themselves by outsourcing to a company that only deliver to an address, that's their choice. But the contract with a third party cannot affect their obligations to their customers. Even in an assignment, you can only assign the benefit and never the obligations. 

unholyangel

Gavin83 said:

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

I disagree with most of the answers here. There are a lot of variables though....

If the retailer is considered as having successfully delivered the package then it ceases to be their property and it becomes yours. Therefore they’ve no right to offer any advice on what to do with the package no more than I would have done, it’s not their property. If they still own the item (and therefore can offer the advice) then they should be refunding you as it was never considered as having been delivered.

Personally the way I see it is they did what you asked them to and delivered the package. Therefore it’s yours and they shouldn’t be giving out any recommendations on the package.

However I’m not sure who’d you take to court. Either the retailer is still considered as owning the item, in which case you’d sue them or they’d be considered as having completed the contract and therefore you’d probably take the person to court who it was delivered to. They should have kept the parcel safe, it wasn’t their property and it certainly wasn’t unsolicited goods.

Given how difficult this’ll be to pursue and the low value of the item I’d chalk it up to experience. If it was a more expensive item I’d definitely be recommending a solicitor in this case as it’s far from clear cut but I suspect you’d ultimately be suing whoever lives in the house.

Regardless this is not an easy question to answer.

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

The fact the retailer outsources the delivery obligations to a company that only deliver to an address, doesn't have any impact on the trader's obligations. They remain liable as the courier is their agent. 

Which is also why if you arrange a courier yourself, risk passes when your courier collects goods. Because the courier is your agent in that scenario and you have liability for them. 

I’m not entirely sure that’s accurate. The OP gave the company an address to deliver to and they fulfilled this duty. In a normal situation I couldn’t see any judge finding against the retailer in this situation.

This is a complicated case though. Ultimately all 3 parties involved have made mistakes and if this was to go to court I’ve honestly no real idea of what way it would go.

I do thank the OP for posting it though, it’s certainly an interesting case for debate.

So where is it laid out in law that a retailers obligation is to deliver to an address? What the law actually states is they're under an obligation to deliver to the consumer, not an address.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I assume this is where mitigating losses would come in to play, i.e the buyer should seek to recover the goods from the address they nominated but the mistake the retailer has made in this case is to tell someone else to dispose of the goods when they still actually belong to the retailer.   

[Deleted User]

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

I disagree with most of the answers here. There are a lot of variables though....

If the retailer is considered as having successfully delivered the package then it ceases to be their property and it becomes yours. Therefore they’ve no right to offer any advice on what to do with the package no more than I would have done, it’s not their property. If they still own the item (and therefore can offer the advice) then they should be refunding you as it was never considered as having been delivered.

Personally the way I see it is they did what you asked them to and delivered the package. Therefore it’s yours and they shouldn’t be giving out any recommendations on the package.

However I’m not sure who’d you take to court. Either the retailer is still considered as owning the item, in which case you’d sue them or they’d be considered as having completed the contract and therefore you’d probably take the person to court who it was delivered to. They should have kept the parcel safe, it wasn’t their property and it certainly wasn’t unsolicited goods.

Given how difficult this’ll be to pursue and the low value of the item I’d chalk it up to experience. If it was a more expensive item I’d definitely be recommending a solicitor in this case as it’s far from clear cut but I suspect you’d ultimately be suing whoever lives in the house.

Regardless this is not an easy question to answer.

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

The fact the retailer outsources the delivery obligations to a company that only deliver to an address, doesn't have any impact on the trader's obligations. They remain liable as the courier is their agent. 

Which is also why if you arrange a courier yourself, risk passes when your courier collects goods. Because the courier is your agent in that scenario and you have liability for them. 

I’m not entirely sure that’s accurate. The OP gave the company an address to deliver to and they fulfilled this duty. In a normal situation I couldn’t see any judge finding against the retailer in this situation.

This is a complicated case though. Ultimately all 3 parties involved have made mistakes and if this was to go to court I’ve honestly no real idea of what way it would go.

I do thank the OP for posting it though, it’s certainly an interesting case for debate.

So where is it laid out in law that a retailers obligation is to deliver to an address? What the law actually states is they're under an obligation to deliver to the consumer, not an address.

What scenario is there where it could be delivered to a consumer but not an address?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

camelot1971 said:

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

unholyangel said:

Gavin83 said:

I disagree with most of the answers here. There are a lot of variables though....

If the retailer is considered as having successfully delivered the package then it ceases to be their property and it becomes yours. Therefore they’ve no right to offer any advice on what to do with the package no more than I would have done, it’s not their property. If they still own the item (and therefore can offer the advice) then they should be refunding you as it was never considered as having been delivered.

Personally the way I see it is they did what you asked them to and delivered the package. Therefore it’s yours and they shouldn’t be giving out any recommendations on the package.

However I’m not sure who’d you take to court. Either the retailer is still considered as owning the item, in which case you’d sue them or they’d be considered as having completed the contract and therefore you’d probably take the person to court who it was delivered to. They should have kept the parcel safe, it wasn’t their property and it certainly wasn’t unsolicited goods.

Given how difficult this’ll be to pursue and the low value of the item I’d chalk it up to experience. If it was a more expensive item I’d definitely be recommending a solicitor in this case as it’s far from clear cut but I suspect you’d ultimately be suing whoever lives in the house.

Regardless this is not an easy question to answer.

You're confusing title and risk I think. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns the goods because they remain at the traders risk until they enter the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods. 

In this instance, as long as the op had either his name or his friend's name on the order, then ownership is irrelevant as risk has not passed and the retailer is liable. 

The fact the retailer outsources the delivery obligations to a company that only deliver to an address, doesn't have any impact on the trader's obligations. They remain liable as the courier is their agent. 

Which is also why if you arrange a courier yourself, risk passes when your courier collects goods. Because the courier is your agent in that scenario and you have liability for them. 

I’m not entirely sure that’s accurate. The OP gave the company an address to deliver to and they fulfilled this duty. In a normal situation I couldn’t see any judge finding against the retailer in this situation.

This is a complicated case though. Ultimately all 3 parties involved have made mistakes and if this was to go to court I’ve honestly no real idea of what way it would go.

I do thank the OP for posting it though, it’s certainly an interesting case for debate.

So where is it laid out in law that a retailers obligation is to deliver to an address? What the law actually states is they're under an obligation to deliver to the consumer, not an address.

What scenario is there where it could be delivered to a consumer but not an address?

My understanding is the passing of risk section is for all sales contracts rather than just online:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/29/enacted

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2)The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

So if for example you buy in a shop the goods have come into physical possession of the consumer without delivery.