U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 08:02 AM
 
2,563 posts, read 629,294 times
Reputation: 2895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Your dad wasn't ... Old McDonald ... was he?

I'd be interested to know if there really was a "moo moo here, a moo moo there" and if there were "everywhere a moo moo."

I've been wondering that my whole life.

I’m DYING
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
5,817 posts, read 3,999,115 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
That law is in regard to fraud. The FTC does not make laws regarding business transactions between consumers and legitimate companies.

The man did order a TV. He ordered a smaller TV. The delivery people accidentally gave him the 86 inch TV meant for someone else who already paid for it. When they tried to correct it he refused to give it back. He did order a TV though. So this would not apply in anyway even if the FTC laws applied, which they don’t.
There was no business transaction between the guy who received the 86" screen accidentally and the retailer. That transaction was for a 72" (or 74" can't remember won't look it up) screen, that he also received.

So his transaction was completed, the 86" TV was never a transaction between him and the retailer. The other TV was IN ADDITION TO his order. So yes indeed he may be entitled to retain it, MA law doesn't discuss fraud, only unsolicited deliveries, as does FTC rules 39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise.

The 86" TV was not ordered, it was an unsolicited delivery, the only recourse would be if it could be proven that the receipt of the delivery was fraudulently obtained (i.e. the recipient contrived to take delivery of said item from the courier with intent). This would require that the delivery company holds sufficient evidence, a signature would do it if it only applies to the larger TV, and was clearly indicated it was not for the receiver. A signature that covers both deliveries does not show adequate intent, because he was signing for the TV he ordered. Further the TV packaging if available should be examined for the addressee, if the guy getting the 86" TV is the addressee, that's it, done it's his TV, if it's not then you still have to convince a jury it's normal to verify the address of something you receive, and if it's no longer available there is no evidence the recipient could validate it was not addressed to them, even though the address would have been on that packaging, there's no evidence to show it was delivered to the wrong address.

So it's not clear cut, it may go either way, but the law you keep saying is for fraud, makes no mention of fraud, merely unsolicited deliveries.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,392 posts, read 383,328 times
Reputation: 3615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
If it wasn't for sale, then what was the purpose of it being manufactured? Regardless, when received unsolicited, it's a free gift under the law.
The point you are missing is that it wasn't offered for sale to this guy. This law is to prevent scammers from sending goods to people and demanding they pay for them, it has no bearing on this situation.
This moron received both tvs by mistake, put the biggest on the wall and probably put the other on craigslist or returned it to Amazon for a refund. I have no idea what universe you live in that makes what he did anything other than theft.

Last edited by duke944; Today at 08:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:53 AM
 
11,850 posts, read 18,019,126 times
Reputation: 17983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
Here is the law. You don't have to like the law, but it is the law. The police can arrest him for it, but until he is convicted, it means nothing.



39 U.S. Code § 3009 - Mailing of unordered merchandise _ U.S. Code _ US Law _ LII _ Legal Information Institute
This is getting into the realm of the surreal - Dude how many times do we have to tell you or others that constantly repeat this same link or quote this same code over and over and over - it doesn't apply in this case. These are FTC/postal code consumer laws, designed to protect the consumer if a company tries to send you merchandise without telling you and then asking for payment. It's all about intent - this isn't unsolicited merchandise, it's a shipping error. This isn't a vendor requesting payment, this is the shipper/vendor simply requiring the TV back.

Stop quoting it, it's not relevant. These cases are governed by state and local law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:58 AM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
10,007 posts, read 13,880,848 times
Reputation: 21689
Solicit - ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
Neither the retailer or the the shipping company were trying to solicit anything from Mr Memmo, so I don't see how the FTC law would apply to this case. It wasn't a case of 'unsolicited mdse' being sent to him, the mdse had already been paid for, by someone else.

From the FTC link people are quoting - Federal laws prohibit mailing unordered merchandise to consumers and then demanding payment.
This is not a case of sending unordered mdse in an attempt to bill for said mdse.

Mr Memmo said he 'looked into laws'. So what, as this thread demonstrates people can look at laws and come up with all kinds of interpretations. For the amount of money that was probably involved I think he was a fool not to contact a lawyer the minute the shipping company sent the police to question him. He gambled that he correctly interpreted whatever laws he looked at, and that could cost him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
5,817 posts, read 3,999,115 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Dude how many times do we have to tell you or others that constantly repeat this same link or quote this same code over and over and over - it doesn't apply in this case. These are FTC/postal code consumer laws, designed to protect the consumer if a company tries to send you merchandise without telling you and then asking for payment. It's all about intent - this isn't unsolicited merchandise, it's a shipping error. This isn't the shipper requesting payment, this is the shipper/vendor simply requiring the TV back.

Stop quoting it, it's not relevant. These cases are governed by state and local law.
The law doesn't make any statement of intent, just unsolicited deliveries. I know this is hard to grasp, there's an ethical and moral sense of outrage, but the law just defines what's illegal, nothing ethical or moral about the law, it's why DC is full of lawyers.

Yup, it's a shipping error, which makes the shipping company at fault, no?

I mean, forget Billy Doughboy who kept the TV for a second. You have a $3k TV, how idiotic must you be to deliver it to the wrong address, now granted they're not particularly heavy, but wouldn't you think for just one second, about not lugging a seven feet wide 4 feet high box out of your truck if you didn't really need to? I'd double or triple check just to be on the safe side to save me effort. And furthermore, it's only three grand, the bad press alone (and this reflects on the largest online retailer on the planet too) is probably costing them that much in lost business because they can't deliver a TV to the right address, because everyone knows they didn't it's right there in the news.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,392 posts, read 383,328 times
Reputation: 3615
Regarding this federal law, here is the definition of "mailed"

Mail | Definition of Mail by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mail
1 : letters and packages sent from one person to another through the post office. 2 : the system used for sending and delivering letters and packages.

This tv was not sent through the post office, it was a shipping company. Not that we need another reason as to why this law does not apply to this case, but there it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:19 AM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
10,007 posts, read 13,880,848 times
Reputation: 21689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
The law doesn't make any statement of intent, just unsolicited deliveries. I know this is hard to grasp, there's an ethical and moral sense of outrage, but the law just defines what's illegal, nothing ethical or moral about the law, it's why DC is full of lawyers.

Yup, it's a shipping error, which makes the shipping company at fault, no?

I mean, forget Billy Doughboy who kept the TV for a second. You have a $3k TV, how idiotic must you be to deliver it to the wrong address, now granted they're not particularly heavy, but wouldn't you think for just one second, about not lugging a seven feet wide 4 feet high box out of your truck if you didn't really need to? I'd double or triple check just to be on the safe side to save me effort. And furthermore, it's only three grand, the bad press alone (and this reflects on the largest online retailer on the planet too) is probably costing them that much in lost business because they can't deliver a TV to the right address, because everyone knows they didn't it's right there in the news.
I would hope anyone with at least half a brain would be able to understand that the retailer in this case didn't make an error, the shipping company did. But then I'm probably overestimating the intelligence of a lot of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
5,817 posts, read 3,999,115 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleT View Post
I would hope anyone with at least half a brain would be able to understand that the retailer in this case didn't make an error, the shipping company did. But then I'm probably overestimating the intelligence of a lot of people.
I don't know I was referring to the shipping company. However it does still reflect on the retailer, because they choose their shipping companies, this shipper is throwing its toys out of the stroller over $3000, that its insured for.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,392 posts, read 383,328 times
Reputation: 3615
Mistakes happen, blaming Amazon or the retailer for a shipping error is just plain stupid. This should have been a non event but for the stupidity and lack of ethics of this guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top