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.
You'd still have to demonstrate the receiver was aware that the delivery was not addressed to them. Without packaging or an open admission that's going to be hard to prove.
Can't a judge/lawyer whatever just ask if he ordered an 86" TV? The answer is no, or is he going to plead the 5th?
You'd still have to demonstrate the receiver was aware that the delivery was not addressed to them.
Your article only covers two scenarios. Obviously you don't have to pay for it product shipped to you by mistake, obviously you don't have to go to the trouble or returning it at your expense. Return or pay. But this scenario not covered or discussed is where both shipper and police are asking you to return it and literally knocking on your door.
But anyways, apparently they have proof, he was aware.
This is the reason - the actual charge: "Larceny Over $1,200 by false pretense and misleading a police officer."
We can argue the FTC rule all day but it's a waste of time, he's not being charged for simply keeping something that was shipped to him in error. False pretense - he made some kind of claim or signed something knowing that he was not entitled to the TV, with then intent of theft or fraud. The full story I am sure will come out eventually. In another article they stated that the police literally had to obtain a search warrant to get the TV.
Really, when it comes down to it, it sounds like even when the police visited he could have settled this. He probably pissed off the cops somehow. There is an old story - a cop sees a car parked in the desert, no road or other cars for miles, if he's pissed off he can find reasons to write tickets all day long.
Apparently they have proof, he was aware.
This is the reason - the actual charge: "Larceny Over $1,200 by false pretense and misleading a police officer."
We can argue the FTC rule all day but it's a waste of time, he's not being charged for simply keeping something that was shipped to him in error. False pretense - he made some kind of claim or signed something knowing that he was not entitled to the TV, with then intent of theft or fraud. The full story I am sure will come out eventually. In another article they stated that the police literally had to obtain a search warrant to get the TV.
Really, when it comes down to it, it sounds like even when the police visited he could have settled this. He probably pissed off the cops somehow. There is an old story - a cop sees a car parked in the desert, no road or other cars for miles, if he's pissed off he can find reasons to write tickets all day long.
Suspicion to charge isn't proof of anything, it's just a suspicion that can be backed by some evidence, which may include the company saying he signed for it.
But, again the signature has to be shown to be for that TV, and only that TV, if he signed once as he received both TV's at the same time, you'd have to show that the signature was making a knowingly false representation, he'd have to know that he was signing for both, and that one was not addressed to him at the time of signing, and be able to prove it. I've received several things of high value from Amazon (my home theater speakers came to around $30,000 came in one delivery, the fronts alone were $5k a tower), and only provided one signature for the lot, the only time I've needed to provide more than one signature is if there was more than one retailer involved, and both need signature proof of delivery, because both originated from different retailers. While I cannot corroborate this is the same for everyone, I can't help but think that if this is typical, then it's going to be hard to prove he made false pretenses to receive that larger TV, when getting his actual order completed required the same signature.
Sure if the police want to charge someone with something they can, mail and wire fraud are prime examples, if you've ever lied online and it could be determined that it was for gain (undefined what gain its talking about), you may be guilty of felony wire fraud.
You'd still have to demonstrate the receiver was aware that the delivery was not addressed to them. Without packaging or an open admission that's going to be hard to prove.
Here's a article I dug up, about similar circumstances.
The fact is FTC rules apply always, how could they not? It would make the whole intent of it meaningless. "Oh sorry your honor, we just sent the recipient a $100 ring by mistake, we weren't really trying to scam them into paying $100 for a $0.25 ring". Not Guilty!
A mistake doesn't provide any means of reclaiming property, suppose I give you a book, it's got an endorsed check in it for $100,000. Do you really think that I could go to the cops and have you arrested for theft if you refuse to return it? No, it's an idiot tax, plain and simple.
It’s pretty easy to do since he did actually order a tv from them. He ordered a 74” and got that plus the 86”, and he signed for them. This WAS an order he made, it wasn’t like the company sent a tv to his house randomly. It was also a smaller third party delivery service, not a big one like UPS, who would be able to absorb such a cost.
it sounds like they made plenty of efforts to recover the tv before he was arrested. what does that mean he has nothing to worry about? under what logic does the guy have the right to keep the product? the guy sounds like a lowlife dirtbag to me. he knew he was stealing, he was just hoping it wasnt worth anyone's effort to arrest him.
Doesn't matter whether he ordered it or not, its about unsolicited delivery, you can't exactly have an unsolicited delivery if you order something.
The only risk being taken is if you attempt to appear to be someone that you are not.
Don't know about the "unsolicited" delivery part.
Clearly when the delivery company was bringing *two* television sets, and the guy only ordered one, he should have said something at the time refusing to take possession of the larger set that he didn't order. Instead he signed for *BOTH* televisions knowing full well he only ordered the smaller unit. That smacks of intent to steal (larceny) IMHO.
Again people keep acting as if the delivery company just left two big a$$ed televisions on this guy's front steps.
Clearly when the delivery company was bringing *two* television sets, and the guy only ordered one, he should have said something at the time refusing to take possession of the larger set that he didn't order. Instead he signed for *BOTH* televisions knowing full well he only ordered the smaller unit. That smacks of intent to steal (larceny) IMHO.
Again people keep acting as if the delivery company just left two big a$$ed televisions on this guy's front steps.
Good point, the story does show a pic of his signature accepting 2 boxes. Had they just left the 2 tvs, he'd still be a scumbag for not giving the bigger tv back, but the fact he didn't say a word when they were both delivered then refused to give the free one back makes him a super scumbag.
I can't believe there are people in this thread actually defending this guy's actions, and using some unrelated law as justification for stealing. Pathetic.
Good point, the story does show a pic of his signature accepting 2 boxes. Had they just left the 2 tvs, he'd still be a scumbag for not giving the bigger tv back, but the fact he didn't say a word when they were both delivered then refused to give the free one back makes him a super scumbag.
I can't believe there are people in this thread actually defending this guy's actions.
Methinks this is why the guy is in such hot water, and all those pointing that FTC or whatever advice have the wrong end of stick.
This isn't a case of something just showing up in mail, and or being delivered without any interaction on receiver's part.
Large part of criminality is intent; and again this guy accepted delivery of *two* televisions knowing fully well he only ordered the one. He has been trying to justify actions by saying he thought it was a sweepstakes or something IIRC.
Remembered that Married With Children episode; the CC was sent to Buck (family dog), and the Bundy's went on a shopping spree. That is fraud and theft because clearly while the CC issued to Buck was unsolicited, Al and Peggy using it (and thus pretending to be "Buck Bundy" was a crime.
As others continuously have pointed out the FTC advice pertains to goods that pretty much just show up at your home, and or otherwise are unsolicited but they must be addressed to *YOU*. Am pretty sure no local or federal court is going to say someone who knowingly took possession of something they neither purchased or otherwise ordered has any sort of rights to keep. This especially when the error was uncovered and owner of merchandise attempted to reclaim/correct.
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.
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.
