Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
We are talking about two different types of mistakes in this thread:
1) mistakes that occur during the delivery process (or misdeliveries)
2) mistakes that occur during order processing (processing mistakes) such as the one that resulted in the customer getting 5 ipads from Best Buy and in which no delivery mistake is involved.
The portion of the PA AG's website I linked to does not cover misdeliveries. But it likely covers processing mistakes. Otherwise, any company sending consumers unsolicited items with the intent to get them to buy could merely claim as a defense that it was a processing error and get away with their tactics. So the law is interpreted broadly on behalf of consumers to protect them. And sites such as The Consumerist, which was part of the original story, are also reading the law this way.
One would have to look at case law to see if this specific issue has come up in the past, but a brief search fails to show instances where a company has successfully sued to get back merchandise it included by mistake in an order. I suspect that's why companies normally don't ask for the merchandise back. Because the law is not on their side. That doesn't mean they never ask for it back. They just usually don't.
That's only in the event of a misdelivery (delivery mistake). In the case of the 5 iPads, there was no misdelivery. Only a processing mistake. So the PA law you initially mentioned would not apply here. Can you cite a single precedent where a person was prosecuted or sued for keeping unsolicited items that were correctly addressed to and sent to them?
Again, there was no delivery mistake in the case of the customer who got the 5 iPads. That's an important distinction here and in the law. The mistake was in the order processing stage. The 5 iPads were deliberately shipped to the customer. The shipping company did its job perfectly and made no mistakes. Therefore, the case of the 5 iPads would fall under the protection of the federal law cited on the USPS website -- and the PA AG's guidelines on their website as well. It would not fall under the PA law that you originally cited.
--Pat
|
You say "we are looking at two different types of mistakes in this thread", and that "it (the portion of the AG's website) likely covers processing mistakes". Why does it likely cover them? Again, that portion of the AG's website only covers
deliberate deliveries; not mistaken ones. It is a very specific kind of scam, known as the negative option. It has absolutely nothing to do with "mistakes" of any kind. In this thread, the amount of iPads sent is a mistake (I don't think anyone would argue that Best Buy intentionally sent five iPads with the intent to later come back and charge her for the additional four). You choose to lump "processing mistake" in with "purposeful delivery of item never ordered", rather than lumping it in with "delivery mistakes". I would, rather, argue that the two types of "mistakes" should be lumped together, and obligate the recipient to return (or at least make reasonable efforts), while the "deliberate" delivery does not obligate the recipient at all, and falls under the protection of the PA AG and USPS sites you linked. One is a deliberate action; the other two are mistakes (by the person entering the address, the person processing the order, or the person delivering the package).
A quick search of the interweb shows that several other states (AZ, MD, KY, NJ, etc.) all have statutes that are worded almost exactly the same as PA's.
We will probably have to agree to disagree. I realize this was just an intellectual exercise, rather than a specific forumite asking for advice, but we're all aware that legal advice obtained on a e-reading forum is worth exactly what was paid for it. And that is not a snide remark about your advice; I'm talking about mine. I do have experience with the PA Crimes Code, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
In conclusion, I'll post the entire PA statute, so that anyone interested can evaluate it on their own:
"18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3924 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 think that the phrase "delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property" is directly applicable in this situation - she ordered one iPad, and five were shipped. That's a mistake as to the amount of the property.