Incorrect delivery addresses...

Gavin83

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.

So why don’t retailers and couriers insist on delivering it to the named person only? What’s the point of getting delivery confirmation from someone else? What’s the point in taking pictures of parcels in the doorway? If a missing parcel claim could be submitted whenever someone’s spouse or flatmate signed for it they’d never deliver it.

Do you have any examples of court cases where a company has delivered it to the named address but then had to refund due to not delivering it to the person on the parcel instead? 

I’ve lost count the amount of times my wife has signed for one of my parcels so given how common this must be there must be tens of thousands of such court cases surely? Similarly whenever I’ve nominated a neighbour I’ve only ever given an address, not a name, so again, must be several thousand more court cases to display.

DiddyDavies

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

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. 

No, I've never stated or implied anything about having any legal training.

unholyangel

Gavin83 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.

So why don’t retailers and couriers insist on delivering it to the named person only? What’s the point of getting delivery confirmation from someone else? What’s the point in taking pictures of parcels in the doorway? If a missing parcel claim could be submitted whenever someone’s spouse or flatmate signed for it they’d never deliver it.

Do you have any examples of court cases where a company has delivered it to the named address but then had to refund due to not delivering it to the person on the parcel instead? 

I’ve lost count the amount of times my wife has signed for one of my parcels so given how common this must be there must be tens of thousands of such court cases surely? Similarly whenever I’ve nominated a neighbour I’ve only ever given an address, not a name, so again, must be several thousand more court cases to display.

So no legislation which would contradict the physical possession requirement then?

I've already answered why they do it. To maximise the convenience to them and minimise the cost to them. As for taking pictures....I think you'll find that's a third party agent taking the pictures as part of the service they offer/to limit their liability to their client (the retailer), rather than the retailer requesting it. 

Things are different under SoGA. So again, if they didn't want risk to only pass on physical possession you have to wonder why they purposely changed it, and didn't just retain SoGA for the transfer of risk, like they did with other parts of SoGA. 

Major_Clanger_2

So (and apologies for the naive question) isn't the retailer effectively stating that they retain ownership by sending an e-mail stating that the parcel can be disposed of? Or does that question sit firmly in the 'clutching at straws' box?

unholyangel

DiddyDavies said:

unholyangel said:

DiddyDavies said:

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. 

No, I've never stated or implied anything about having any legal training.

Must've been someone with a very similar name who showed up around the same time as you. 

I'm too busy to hunt through people's post history to check details like that, so normally just ask. 

But anyway, the law can sometimes bring about very strange outcomes (sometimes intentionally and sometimes not). To give a few examples you might want to look into....start with why making off without payment exists as an offence, follow up with it still being theft even if you plan to replace it unless you can give back the exact same notes/coins and not merely something equivalent, and perhaps finish off with why Scotland introduced a protected minimum balance. Namely that while wages had protection limits on how much a creditor could take from them, the second those same wages were paid into an account they could arrest every penny...because (in law) they ceased to be wages.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Major_Clanger_2 said:

So (and apologies for the naive question) isn't the retailer effectively stating that they retain ownership by sending an e-mail stating that the parcel can be disposed of? Or does that question sit firmly in the 'clutching at straws' box?

The link in my last post shows the legislation is stating the goods are still at the traders risk until they come in to your physical possession. 

Given they told someone else to dispose of them you could message back with the legislation advising you expect them to replace or refund the order. 

Manxman_in_exile

So this means I could order something from an online retailer under my name but accidentally giving the wrong address - as appears to be the case here - and claim a refund for non-delivery, because it was never physically delivered to me, even though the retailer used the address I had given and knew no better?

What if I deliberately gave a false address for delivery, knowing it would never be delivered to me?

Could I do that more than once?  Could I do it twenty times?

(I'm not interested in any practical issues here - like a retailer refusing to deal any further with me after a couple of failed deliveries, or why I'd do it in the first place - I'm interested in understanding the legal position and knowing where the law says "OK - that remains at the retailer's risk" and where it says "Hold on - you're taking the p155 here".  I'm also not interested as to whether the retailer in this case or the person the goods were actually delivered to were wrong in disposing of them.  Just the question of a wrong address and physical delivery to a particular named individual where the retailer has no option but to deliver to the wrong address and is not at fault in any way.)

Manxman_in_exile

And if the postie delivers an item through the letterbox of the correct address, but the addressee is away for, say three months, does that mean the retailer is responsible for it for all of those three months?  Surely there has to come a point (eg delivering to the address supplied by the consumer) where the retailer can say they've done everything they reasonably can to deliver it correctly?