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 03-28-2019, 11:12 AM
 
Location: S.W. Florida
2,094 posts, read 843,134 times
Reputation: 5837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
I side with the guy. Amazon told him not to worry about it, it's on the shipper. I don't see why he had to get arrested.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man-...230124458.html
He got arrested because he is a thief. It doesn’t matter what the Amazon guy said or thinks. Bottom line is this guy has something in his possession that he knows he did not pay for and refuses to return it. That makes him a thief and he should be punished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,184 posts, read 787,796 times
Reputation: 11961
These threads are like Rorshasch tests.

Posters are effectively asked whether or not they will:
*try and do the right thing, or
*screw someone or something else in order to have something they neither earned nor deserve if they can possibly stay on the legal side of things

It's not that hard to be a decent person and do the right thing. Well, I guess for some people it is...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 01:20 PM
 
3,182 posts, read 1,749,933 times
Reputation: 8367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
OK, forget about the FTC law, here is the relevant Massachusetts state law again.


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
Sigh.

The second TV was NOT offered for sale to the guy who received it, it was already bought and paid for by third party who had purchased it for themself. Therefore not covered under the Massachusetts law.

This statute refers ONLY to the sales technique of sending an unordered item along with an invoice for said item in an attempt to receive payment from the recipient. None of which happened in this case.

Last edited by rugrats2001; 03-28-2019 at 01:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 01:33 PM
 
19,712 posts, read 12,921,051 times
Reputation: 13423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
These threads are like Rorshasch tests.

Posters are effectively asked whether or not they will:
*try and do the right thing, or
*screw someone or something else in order to have something they neither earned nor deserve if they can possibly stay on the legal side of things

It's not that hard to be a decent person and do the right thing. Well, I guess for some people it is...


This is what I am saying.


Mr. Memmo has been interviewed/on various news media and thus far has not produced a single piece of evidence that the television was addressed to himself. Just keeps going on about the delivery mistake (which he acknowledges), and that based upon his "research" the laws say he can keep the TV.


That smirk he's wearing in mug shot pictures tell the whole story; guy is trying to run game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 04:16 PM
 
21,420 posts, read 27,411,365 times
Reputation: 15595
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
I don't think it matters, either way this guy did not have a right to keep the tv whether it was the seller's or the shipper's mistake. The article makes it pretty clear though that it was the shipper's fault, and I don't think it's possible that they created a label with the wrong name and address on it, because shipping company's don't fill out shipping labels - sellers do.
I think it's pretty safe to assume the shipping label on the second tv was not made out to idiot.
I didn't claim that the shipping label was created by the shipping company; just wondering if it could possibly be the seller's mistake that resulted in everyone pointing fingers at everyone else.

I was trying to figure out how this guy could possibly be so dumb that he thinks he can keep something addressed to someone else because of the FFC thing he's trying to hide behind. It's pretty clear it doesn't apply to this situation. I guess the answer is that he really is this dumb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 08:17 PM
 
298 posts, read 85,032 times
Reputation: 826
Dumb enough to try to evade police investigation after he saw on stolen new 86” TV the law and Order type show where they teach: “ don’t talk to police”

I bet if he TALKED TO POLICE RIGHT AWAY saying something like:” yes, I have that TV on my wall and I intend to keep it as I think I am protected by this and this law, which allows me to keep this tv according to how I interpret it”
Then I can’t see police doing anything except telling the shipping company who filed a complaint:” yes, the guy has your tv on the wall and says he wants to keep it- it is a civil matter- take him to a small claims court” .
Now he got himself a felony evading bench warrant! Wonder how much it will cost him to defend himself
Will see how it plays out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2019, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,428 posts, read 393,104 times
Reputation: 3697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nik4me View Post
Dumb enough to try to evade police investigation after he saw on stolen new 86” TV the law and Order type show where they teach: “ don’t talk to police”

I bet if he TALKED TO POLICE RIGHT AWAY saying something like:” yes, I have that TV on my wall and I intend to keep it as I think I am protected by this and this law, which allows me to keep this tv according to how I interpret it”
Then I can’t see police doing anything except telling the shipping company who filed a complaint:” yes, the guy has your tv on the wall and says he wants to keep it- it is a civil matter- take him to a small claims court” .
Now he got himself a felony evading bench warrant! Wonder how much it will cost him to defend himself
Will see how it plays out.
Uh, no. The cops would have continued with the arrest warrant with a dipsh$t attitude like that. The thing to do would have been to be honest and taken the cops word, that he was wrong in his idiotic justification n keeping the tv and apologized and asked how to make it right.
Yeah, this guy is actually dumb as a stump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2019, 12:05 AM
 
8,458 posts, read 6,921,904 times
Reputation: 8820
Delivery mistakes happen. That does not negate keeping something labeled and intended for someone else.

He understood what he was doing by accepting and keeping the item. This point alone plays a huge roll in how the law will perceive fault/s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2019, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
11,807 posts, read 9,822,765 times
Reputation: 31652
I never knew CD had so many lawyers. Very impressive CD!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2019, 08:11 AM
 
1,343 posts, read 667,310 times
Reputation: 3533
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
Sounds like he might have a TV and a couple of lawsuits on his hands...

According to the FEDS...

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/article...ed-merchandise

"What do you do when you receive merchandise that you didn’t order? According to the Federal Trade Commission, you don’t have to pay for it. Federal laws prohibit mailing unordered merchandise to consumers and then demanding payment."
You're right...you don't have to PAY for it....that doesn't mean though that you get to KEEP it. Doing so falls under theft laws everywhere in the US that I know of for retaining "mislaid" property:

Here is the language of one from NJ law:

2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.


And PA:

Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake.

A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have it.


I would agree though that the person it was wrongly delivered to should not have to pay in any way to return it nor have to schlep it back to the post office/UPS, etc. The rightful owner/company should have to jump through the hoops to get it back since they made the mistake and have it picked up at the place of delivery and pay all return expenses.
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