Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

You are apparently quite blind...

That is fairly funny, or would be if you weren't serious...

All that counts is if *you ordered it, or not.*

I'm thinking of finding your address, and shipping you a
really fancy rock form the Arctic Ocean. Now, I'm going
to put paper work in the box that says it was ordered by
John Doe. And that you owe me $10,000 payable on
receipt of the rock.

You clearly do not really have to pay me, but you are
saying that you think I could sue you and win! I just
don't that it works that way...

 

Here is the full text at that URL, and there is no
exemption for incorrect addresses. And "unordered
merchandise" is very clearly defined in section (d).


" (a) Except for
(1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as
such, and
(2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization
soliciting contributions, the mailing of unordered
merchandise or of communications prohibited by
subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair
method of competition and an unfair trade practice in
violation of section 45 (a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection
(a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained
therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who
shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose
of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation
whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall
have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement
informing the recipient that he may treat the
merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to
retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he
sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the
sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of
subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions
contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such
merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning
communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, "unordered
merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior
expressed request or consent of the recipient."

 

All "reserve" means is that you are withholding something now that you
may use later. To use it later, though, requires that you have some
legal right to use it.

Exactly. And, you do not have a right to retain merchandise that was
shipped to you by honest error.

The most common instances of examples of shipments made by honest
error are:

1. Multiple shipments where an item was ordered but the same item was
shipped again in error. The duplicate item was not ordered.

2. Paperwork errors where wrong addresses are used on the shipping
label.

3. Paperwork errors where shipping labels are inadvertently used on
the wrong package.

So, you order a new laptop from Dell, you get it, and a few days later
you get another laptop because the shipping order was put through a
second time in error.

You think that Dell is going to allow you to keep the second laptop as
a gift because you didn't order it? You have some "right" to do this?

In a second example, you have an account with Dell and the last time
you ordered from Dell you paid for the item but had it shipped to your
cousin as a gift. Now, you order again from Dell but this order is to
be shipped to you. Dell's account information shows that the shipping
address is your cousin's. Your cousin gets the item, you are charged
for it, but your cousin claims that since he didn't order the item
that the item is a gift to him. You think that your cousin gets to
keep the item that you paid for? He gets to reserve the right to keep
it and you get stuck for the bill?

Third example. You order a laptop from Dell, you are charged for it,
but the shipping label is accidently switched with an order from me
for a $15 part. I'm charged $15, you get my part, and I get to keep
the laptop you paid for because it was a gift to me?

Dell may allow you keep the $15 part shipped in error because the
return postage is in excess of their cost for the part, but that's
their choice.

You can say you reserve the right to do so, but since you have no
right to do so, you can't ever exercise what you have reserved. All
you've done is used a phrase that is meaningless because there is no
right involved.

Reserving the right to lobotomize me has the same legal standing as
reserving the right to retain something you are not entitled to
retain. None.

I seriously wonder about both the morality and the common sense of a
person who thinks that anything shipped to them by honest error is
theirs as a gift.

Where the law applies that you are allowed to keep or discard
unordered merchandise is when the shipper deliberately sends you
something that you did not order. No mistake is involved. It applies
in cases like when BibleThumper, Inc send you a bible that you have
not ordered and bills you for $25. They hope you will pay the invoice
even though you are not required to do so.

 

Your ignorance of the law is only exceeded by your ignorance of most
other things you challenge here.

Just for shits and giggles, though, let's make the scenario a little
more realistic.

You send me an unordered fine example of a carved baculum and enclose
an invoice for $100 for this oosik, but the enclosed invoice is made
out to John Doe at a different address.

I would notify you of the error and request authorization to return it
and a means of returning it to you at no cost to me. I don't need to
specify that I am reserving the right to keep it as a gift if you
don't provide authorization and assumption of return cost. That's
just a phrase that reiterates what is already established.

If you don't reply or provide the authorization or means of return
without cost to me, after a period of time I can consider the item to
be abandoned by you and I can keep it as a gift. Normally, 30 days is
sufficient to establish abandonment, but circumstances may change
that.

If you do provide authorization and a means of return without cost to
me, but I don't return the item, you would have legal grounds to
pursue this in court. (That's impractical for this amount, but we are
dealing with a theoretical situation here.)

Whether or not you would win in court is dependant on other factors.
If you can show that you did provide authorization to return and a
means of return without cost to me, you probably would. There are no
slam-dunks in court, though.

For anyone reading this that doesn't know what a baculum or an oosik
it, I encourage you to Google. Floyd knows, though.

 

You can't reserve the legal right to use it if you don't
have the legal right to use it. The statement means
nothing if you don't have that right, and the specific
reason they said to put it in there is because you *do*
have it and don't want to accidentally lose it.

Since the law says you have that right, and the FTC site
you cited says you do, how can you come up with that
statement?

Here's an even better one:

https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/...fraudschemes/othertypes/UnsolicitedFraud.aspx

And in case you missed it in the other post, here's is the actual law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009

That clearly fits what the law says:

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

True! And the right reserved concerning unordered
merchandise is one that can be exercised, because it is
a right you do in fact have. Or are you really saying that
the FTC was wrong about putting that into a letter?

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

Hence you *do* have that right!

"If you do not wish to pay for unsolicited merchandise
or make a donation to a charity sending such an item,
you may do one of three things (in each case, by law,
you have no obligation to the sender):

If you have not opened the package, you may mark it
"Return to Sender," and the Postal Service will return
it with no additional postage charged to you.

If you open the package and don't like what you find,
you may throw it away.

If you open the package and like what you find, you
may keep it for free. In this instance,
"finders-keepers" applies unconditionally."

That is a direct quote from the postalinspectors.uspis.gov
URL shown above.

Do you understand yet just exactly what it means?

There is nothing at all in the law that says a "mistake"
is any different than an intentional fraud.

... "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed
without the prior expressed request or consent of the
recipient. 39 USC § 3009 (d)

 

Do you not understand what "mailed in violation" means?

Merchandise shipped to the wrong person or address by honest error is
not merchandise shipped in violation of Subsection (a).

A violation, in this context, is a willful act.

 

That's a hoot.

So now you finally admit that it *is* a right that you
already have to just keep the item! That is in fact well
established.

As noted in another article:

'"finders-keepers" applies unconditionally.'

That is according to postalinspectors.uspis.gov, and they
should be an authority on interpreting the law...

What circumstance would change anything? You don't even
have to talk to them (me), much less give 30 days to do
something.

That is simply not true. Cite *anything* that says it
is!

That's just another name for a Tony Cooper type character.

BTW, oosik is the word for a common nail in Yup'ik Eskimo.

 

Yes, in fact I do. If you had read it, it says any
merchandise that not a free gift or is not from a
charitable organization soliciting donations... if it
is "unordered merchandise" as defined in (d),it is then
"mailed in violation. See (a) and (b) and (c) above.

You might still want to find a 12 year old to read and
explain it to you.

(d) For the purposes of this section, "unordered
merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior
expressed request or consent of the recipient."

It says nothing about "honest error", about "willful act", about
"wrong person or address".

The law is very clear, and both the FTC and the USPS interpret
it very clearly too.

 

Top posting because no one should have to read this claptrap from
Floyd.

You are like a little boy clapping his hands over his ears and crying
"wow wow wow" because he doesn't want to hear what is being said.

I expect this is a hopeless request, but can you answer "Yes" or "No",
and only "Yes" or "No" to the following:

Can you keep as a unconditional gift the second Dell computer shipped
in example 1?

Can your cousin keep as an unconditional gift the computer Dell
shipped to him and billed to you as explained in example 2?

Can I keep as an unconditional gift the computer Dell shipped to me
but billed to you as explained in example 3?

 

Tony, it is utterly hilarious that you make up gratuitous insults such
as that. The only one acting that way is *you*. We have seen two
US Government sites explain what the law means, and neither of them
support what you say. We've seen the law itself, and you can't even
understand what it says.

All of these have been answer prevously, and with specifics as to
exactly what that is the answer.

You don't seem to have to ability to disucss the significance of the
answer in any of the cases presented, and you absolutely have never
posted anything which even begins to support the nonexistant words
you read into everything that has been quoted.

Again, there is the point that ends the discussion every single time.

 

The FTC disagrees.

 

Yes, it makes it clear that you can keep the merchandise, although it suggests
that you offer to return it if it was a shipping error. You don't have to
return it, though. You can just keep it.

See above.

 

In England if delivers a product to your dwelling without you ordering
and just leaves it ; after you have informed the person/company that
they may pick it up at their expense and that after a few days (I am
not sure of the exact amount but may be around the 100 mark) if they
haven't done so you in form them that they will be charged a fee for
storage and it it still isn't removed within a year and a day it
becomes your property - if you want it.

 

[other customer's monitor misdelivered several times to the
Duck]

Well, maybe it was a hiccup in DHL land ...

-Wolfgang

 

It sits safely in my garage, I checked yesterday. It is a somewhat
obsolete 13'' CRT with the non-standard Apple proprietary cable
required, making it pretty much useless for current Apple computers,
and anything else. It is probably time to send it to recycling.

That was during the period (1997-2003)DHL was having all sorts of
troubles with, and was about to discontinue its domestic US operation
if it could not find a local solution. There was even talk of DHL
subcontracting its US operation to FedEx. That ended when DHL bought
Airborne Express making the US operation DHL Express.

 

Of course I was using a bit of hyperbole. I'm surprised you did not
recognize it as such. But, when the individual becomes stubborn and
litigation necessary, the collection guys get a hefty percentage of what
was collected.

What do you think happens if the item has any real value and the client
becomes stubborn.
Look at your cite carefully. It specifically states that the method of
delivery is MAILING. And punitive statutes are strictly construed.
State law applies in regard to property ownership.


Georgia law
<http://consumer.georgia.gov/consumer-topics/unordered-merchandise>

Property ownership is usually determined under State law. If the
mistaken shipment to the Duck was not fungible goods, and my agreement
called for title to me passed upon shipment, the Duck could not become
the owner, simply because the shipper did not won the item shipped in
error.

 

Strangely enough I have never considered it mine.
For months I waited for the inquiry, and request to return the monitor.
Since then I expect any statute of limitations has long expired, all
this took place sometime around 1999. It is undoubtably an obsolete
electronic disposable, currently abandoned, not by the proper owner,
but by Apple & DHL, and remains in storage in my garage. I should get
it to the local E-recycler.

 

This is another where my response was lost, so here goes again:

Strangely enough I have never considered it mine.
For months I waited for the inquiry, and request to return the monitor.
Since then I expect any statute of limitations has long expired, all
this took place sometime around 1999. It is undoubtably an obsolete
electronic disposable, currently abandoned, not by the proper owner,
but by Apple & DHL, and remains in storage in my garage. I should get
it to the local E-recycler.

 

REPOST

It sits safely in my garage, I checked yesterday. It is a somewhat
obsolete 13'' CRT with the non-standard Apple proprietary cable
required, making it pretty much useless for current Apple computers,
and anything else. It is probably time to send it to recycling.

That was during the period (1997-2003)DHL was having all sorts of
troubles with, and was about to discontinue its domestic US operation
if it could not find a local solution. There was even talk of DHL
subcontracting its US operation to FedEx. That ended when DHL bought
Airborne Express making the US operation DHL Express.

 

Every response you think has been lost is one that did appear...at
least for me.

I suspect the problem is at your end, not the viewer's end.