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 03-27-2019, 06:09 PM
 
21,415 posts, read 27,395,206 times
Reputation: 15552

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Amazon used a contract third party delivery service in this instance; it was *NOT* one of their employees who delivered television sets.


So far no one has come out with just who the larger set was addressed to; but seeing as the man was arrested for "misleading a police officer" and larceny by fraud there is obviously more to come out.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/freet...1661543917150/
I didn't claim it was "one of their employees who delivered the television set." It was, however, one of their employees who printed out the label and put it on the package, which is what I meant by a mistake by one of their employees. Clear enough now?

I'm quite aware that Amazon employees don't do the damn deliveries.

Again, what I am wondering is how the package was addressed and whose name was on the thing. People keep claiming someone else's name was on it, but it's just as likely that whoever was making labels made an error. Before someone jumps on this and twists it in typical C-D fashion, I'm not claiming that an employee error absolves the recipient, but the fact that he's tried to claim the FCC ruling as applicable (which it isn't, Cloudy, so give it up) suggests that it may have been addressed to him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2019, 06:26 PM
 
19,331 posts, read 15,921,642 times
Reputation: 36384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
I'm aware that the guy ordered a smaller TV, but I can't find a source saying that the larger TV was actually addressed to someone else at a different address or whether the Amazon employee made a mistake. Do you — or anyone else — have a source for that?
IDK, but it were Amazon’s mistake, why would the delivery company be so persistent as to go to his home repeatedly and finally call the police? How could the delivery company even make a police report if it wasn’t affecting them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 06:45 PM
 
21,415 posts, read 27,395,206 times
Reputation: 15552
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
IDK
So you don't know. Thanks for the answer.

The reason I asked the question is because the news story said that the item was "mailed to his home by mistake," indicating an error on the sender's part.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 03-27-2019 at 07:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 08:01 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,541 posts, read 2,084,569 times
Reputation: 15633
I wonder if this is the same guy?
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports...ost-feb-416184

There is an obituary for a guy by the same name (an N. Memmo III) who died at age 50 in Feb 2008. He was a Union Carpenter but it would have been literally impossible for a; “crew to have worked for him in September 2008” ... if he was dead in February 2008. But he did have a son; an N. Memmo IV.

Anyway; my dad ordered a safe over the summer, from Amazon. They charged him for 1 but sent him 2. My dad, who is 78; had specifically ordered a service that would have placed the safe inside for him, as it weighed over 100lbs.

Instead, he came home to two huge boxed safes sitting on his front porch. He called & complained & they sent the service out to carry the safe inside but the guys refused to take the other safe! They weren’t “authorized”, apparently.

So he calls & complains again, about 10 times & finally gives up & tells them that there will be a safe sitting outside when they decide to come pick it up. He wrapped it in plastic as best he could & that damn safe sat outside for an entire month, through several rains & an epic hailstorm! The next time he logged onto his account after the safe finally was retrieved; he found a $600 credit on his account ... for; “his trouble” & an apology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 08:02 PM
 
290 posts, read 80,909 times
Reputation: 805
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
In the law you quote, right below the statement highlighted by you in bold to prove your point, there is another statement, which you have completely ignored:

“...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.”

So, you are saying that the TV had an attached “a clear and conspicuous statement”informing the arrested guy that it was a gift?

I don’t think so!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 08:08 PM
 
290 posts, read 80,909 times
Reputation: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
Yes, that's been my question as well.

I still don't think the rules about sending unsolicited goods and then trying to get the recipient to pay for them or make a donation are applicable here, but it's even more clear cut if it's obviously misdelivered and the person's name wasn't even on the package.
No, that rule is not applicable here. This is what further statement in that rule says:
“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.”

I doubt that TV in question had such statement attached to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
4,658 posts, read 1,826,860 times
Reputation: 6104
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
You don't know how to interpret laws, and continue to be in a state of ignorance despite the many here explaining to you why this MA law does NOT apply to this case.
Nobody has explained that and you're certainly not explaining it. If MA law doesn't apply in MA, then what the hell law does apply?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
4,658 posts, read 1,826,860 times
Reputation: 6104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik4me View Post
In the law you quote, right below the statement highlighted by you in bold to prove your point, there is another statement, which you have completely ignored:

“...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.”

So, you are saying that the TV had an attached “a clear and conspicuous statement”informing the arrested guy that it was a gift?

I don’t think so!
OK, forget about the FTC law, here is the relevant Massachusetts state law again.

Quote:
Section 43: Unsolicited merchandise

Section 43. Any person who receives unsolicited goods, wares or merchandise, offered for sale, but not actually ordered or requested by him orally or in writing, shall be entitled to consider such goods, wares or merchandise an unconditional gift, and he may use or dispose of the same as he sees fit without obligation on his part to the sender.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93, Section 43
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 10:26 PM
 
21,415 posts, read 27,395,206 times
Reputation: 15552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
OK, forget about the FTC law, here is the relevant Massachusetts state law again.



Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Law - Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93, Section 43
This is why I'm wondering if perhaps the second TV was somehow mislabeled. It's kind of a no-brainer that you don't get to keep something addressed to someone else that lands on your doorstep. The charges seem contingent on him signing for the item, and I find it hard to buy that even someone as entitled as him would sign someone else's name and continue to insist he gets to keep it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2019, 10:30 PM
 
19,203 posts, read 10,648,055 times
Reputation: 19159
The ordering and delivery details are not relevant to the charges.

He's charged with lying to the police. They asked him specific questions and he gave them false answers to their questions.

Debate about whether he was in his rights to keep the television is irrelevant--that's not what the charges are about.
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