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.
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.
Quote:
(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 un*ordered 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, “un*ordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 749.)
Sigh...you just do not get it, seems never will, believe what ever you want.
The idiot in this story probably looked and thought the same as you, and it resulted in his arrest and will result in his conviction, unless they all agree to a deal to avoid it, which mysteriously will involve him giving the TV back.
First error is that the TV was not mailed to him, the shipper dropped it off by error. If he can prove that yes, in fact he was the intended recipient of the TV, then he has a case, however, it is pretty clear he was not the intended recipient.
Now you can believe anything you want to, has no impact on my life, but you are 100% incorrect on this. To add, though laws sometimes defy common sense, your logic on this totally defies common sense, as if any law is going to allow a person to keep any and all items dropped off at their home, lol, goodness, imagine the scams that could occur.
Sigh...you just do not get it, seems never will, believe what ever you want.
The idiot in this story probably looked and thought the same as you, and it resulted in his arrest and will result in his conviction, unless they all agree to a deal to avoid it, which mysteriously will involve him giving the TV back.
First error is that the TV was not mailed to him, the shipper dropped it off by error. If he can prove that yes, in fact he was the intended recipient of the TV, then he has a case, however, it is pretty clear he was not the intended recipient.
Now you can believe anything you want to, has no impact on my life, but you are 100% incorrect on this. To add, though laws sometimes defy common sense, your logic on this totally defies common sense, as if any law is going to allow a person to keep any and all items dropped off at their home, lol, goodness, imagine the scams that could occur.
Well the only evidence that the TV was misdelivered would be the label on the packaging. The recipient cannot be held accountable if this was addressed to the recipient, or cannot be verified that the recipient was not addressed on the package, even if the shipping order has a different address, since the recipient cannot verify the delivery companies shipping order. Yes he called Amazon because he never ordered it, but it does not follow that this item was misdelivered. It's illegal to intentionally open deliveries addressed to another, INTENTIONALLY is key, it's not unreasonable to open deliveries to your residence without verifying it is indeed addressed to you.
The FTC laws don't apply to all items delivered, only those that were delivered without your prior consent addressed to the recipient.
Now the shipping company tried to contact him, by what means? I never answer the phone if the number isn't recognized. Did they leave a message? Did they use email? Snail mail?
Interestingly, whether he signed for receipt is even debatable, he received two TVs, if he did sign, did he sign for the larger or smaller? Did he sign twice (never had to do this ever, unless the delivery is from two different sellers), and it should be easy to determine if he signed, but not necessarily whether he was informed exactly what he was signing for, or what the signature applied to. Fraudulently claiming you are someone you are not is a crime, but you need to intentionally claim, if he signed for both at the same time, its unclear that he was even claiming to be someone else (presuming it was not addressed to him).
I'll point out, laws do not determine the moral or ethical, only the legal and illegal. This is however an interesting case, certainly not cut and dried.
I couldn't find anything that says this delivery was addressed to another person. However, if it was, then this man is under no privilege to open or accept the package... as long as he is aware that it was not addressed to him. This is one area where ignorance actually trumps knowledge.
However, the courts have supported that if a product is delivered to a person, with correct address, that person, in accordance with FTC consumer protection laws, is allowed to keep the product. Specifically, the sender and/or shipper is not allowed to a) demand payment for the product; b) demand return of the product; c) prevent the receiver from disposing of the product however they wish.
Without additional information, it's unclear what happened here. But if it was addressed to another person (which would require a clearly visible address label), this man has no privilege to keep the product.
I gave a link about what the FTC does a few posts ago. They are involved when there is suspicion of fraud. They do not have jurisdiction to rule on business transactions that are not fraud.
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.
When I was a kid, we went to our family's farm and found that a guy with a tractor was plowing our largest, unfenced field. We hadn't ordered any plowing and didn't know the guy. My dad went up to him and informed him of his mistake. He was very apologetic and said he'd gotten the address confused.
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."
OK, if the Federal law is not enough for you, here is the same thing in Massachusetts state law. He is not guilty under Federal law, he is not guilty under State law. I just hope that when they drop the charges against him, they give him his free unconditional gift back.
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.
OK, if the Federal law is not enough for you, here is the same thing in Massachusetts state law. He is not guilty under Federal law, he is not guilty under State law. I just hope that when they drop the charges against him, they give him his free unconditional gift back.
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.
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.
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.
