Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:29:19 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 9/25/2012 12:04 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:57:42 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not
>>>>>>> only do you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
>>>>>> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
>>>>>> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
>>>>>> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
>>>>>> no hope for you understanding this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
>>>>> set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
>>>>> yourself very clearly.
>>>>
>>>> What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
>>>> different things.
>>>
>>> merchandised shipped to you by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
>>> ordered.

>>
>> No, it's not. They are entirely different things.
>>
>> Merchandise not ordered is a deliberate action on the part of the
>> shipper. The intent is to get you to pay for something you did not
>> order.
>>
>> Merchandise shipped to you by mistake is an inadvertent error on the
>> part of the shipper. The intent was to ship the merchandise to the
>> person who did order it and would pay for it.
>>
>> Jeez...anyone should be able to understand that.
>>
>>

>
>I have some friends who still practice, some of whom made and still
>make, a lot of money from people who didn't understand what you are saying.


Well, I see - on reflection - what nohelp and David are saying about
"subset". They see "Merchandise received that was not ordered by the
recipient" as the master set, and "Merchandise received that was not
ordered by anyone" as a subset of that, and "Merchandise received that
was not ordered by the recipient" as another subset of that. That's a
valid ordering if you add that master set, but it ignores the point of
the difference between the two.

For purposes of what the recipient is allowed to do, the subset
ordering concept is not important, and the two must be looked at
individually. In one, the recipient is allowed to keep or discard
the merchandise with no further responsibility. In the other, the
recipient has an obligation to the shipper.

The other guy, Mxlwhatever, sees no difference between the two. That
is incorrect.








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:47:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:59:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
>>>>you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
>>> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
>>> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
>>>
>>> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
>>> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
>>> no hope for you understanding this.

>>
>>Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
>>set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
>>yourself very clearly.

>
> What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
> different things.


Merchandise sent to me by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
ordered.

> The Federal Trade Commission webpage explains it better than I can:
> http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer...cts/pro15.shtm
>
> Note that on this page it states that merchandise sent to you by
> mistake ("honest shipping error") is not treated the same as unordered
> merchandise.


So basically, they're back-pedaling. I have no way of knowing what
something arriving on my porch falls into.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:57:42 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> >>>No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not
>>> >>>only do you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
>>> >> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
>>> >> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
>>> >> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
>>> >> no hope for you understanding this.
>>> >
>>> >Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
>>> >set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
>>> >yourself very clearly.
>>>
>>> What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
>>> different things.

>>
>>merchandised shipped to you by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
>>ordered.

>
> No, it's not. They are entirely different things.


Not in English they're not. Maybe in legalese.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:48:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-09-24 17:59:26 -0700, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
>>>> you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>
>>> You should try that some day.

>>
>>Well-established law in the USA. See for example this FAQ put up by the
>>Federal Trade Commission
>><http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro15.shtm>.

>
> Did you read the link, David? It does not say you can keep
> merchandise shipped to you by (honest) mistake.


Of course I read it.

> You have to notify the shipper and allow them to make arrangements to
> get it back. You can "reserve the right" to keep it after a specified
> length of time, but asking for that doesn't mean you can specify an
> unreasonable length of time.


The first Q&A:

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a
legal right to keep it as a free gift.

And the second Q and first part of A:

Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without
paying for it?

A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller.

So, it specifically, and early on, denies what you claim it says.

So apparently *you* didn't read it.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On 9/25/2012 1:51 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:29:19 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2012 12:04 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:57:42 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not
>>>>>>>> only do you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
>>>>>>> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
>>>>>>> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
>>>>>>> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
>>>>>>> no hope for you understanding this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
>>>>>> set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
>>>>>> yourself very clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
>>>>> different things.
>>>>
>>>> merchandised shipped to you by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
>>>> ordered.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. They are entirely different things.
>>>
>>> Merchandise not ordered is a deliberate action on the part of the
>>> shipper. The intent is to get you to pay for something you did not
>>> order.
>>>
>>> Merchandise shipped to you by mistake is an inadvertent error on the
>>> part of the shipper. The intent was to ship the merchandise to the
>>> person who did order it and would pay for it.
>>>
>>> Jeez...anyone should be able to understand that.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> I have some friends who still practice, some of whom made and still
>> make, a lot of money from people who didn't understand what you are saying.

>
> Well, I see - on reflection - what nohelp and David are saying about
> "subset". They see "Merchandise received that was not ordered by the
> recipient" as the master set, and "Merchandise received that was not
> ordered by anyone" as a subset of that, and "Merchandise received that
> was not ordered by the recipient" as another subset of that. That's a
> valid ordering if you add that master set, but it ignores the point of
> the difference between the two.
>
> For purposes of what the recipient is allowed to do, the subset
> ordering concept is not important, and the two must be looked at
> individually. In one, the recipient is allowed to keep or discard
> the merchandise with no further responsibility. In the other, the
> recipient has an obligation to the shipper.
>
> The other guy, Mxlwhatever, sees no difference between the two. That
> is incorrect.
>

The law is not always logical, especially not in the sense of sets and
subsets.

One must read a regulation in light of the intent.

The regulations in question were enacted in response to entities that
were engaged in unfair, shoddy business practices.
Any suggestion that they were intended to apply to shipments made in
honest error is grossly misplaced.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:20:01 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:48:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-09-24 17:59:26 -0700, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Eric Stevens writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
>>>>> you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>>
>>>> You should try that some day.
>>>
>>>Well-established law in the USA. See for example this FAQ put up by the
>>>Federal Trade Commission
>>><http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro15.shtm>.

>>
>> Did you read the link, David? It does not say you can keep
>> merchandise shipped to you by (honest) mistake.

>
>Of course I read it.
>
>> You have to notify the shipper and allow them to make arrangements to
>> get it back. You can "reserve the right" to keep it after a specified
>> length of time, but asking for that doesn't mean you can specify an
>> unreasonable length of time.

>
>The first Q&A:
>
>Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
>
>A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a
>legal right to keep it as a free gift.
>
>And the second Q and first part of A:
>
>Q. Must I notify the seller if I keep unordered merchandise without
>paying for it?
>
>A. You have no legal obligation to notify the seller.
>
>So, it specifically, and early on, denies what you claim it says.
>
>So apparently *you* didn't read it.


As said, there are two situations involved: receipt of unordered
merchandise and receipt of unordered merchandise shipped in error.
You have addressed the first, but I was addressing the second. You
have to read the entire page.

Q. What should I do if the unordered merchandise I received was the
result of an honest shipping error?

A. Write the seller and offer to return the merchandise, provided the
seller pays for postage and handling. Give the seller a specific and
reasonable amount of time (say 30 days) to pick up the merchandise or
arrange to have it returned at no expense to you. Tell the seller that
you reserve the right to keep the merchandise or dispose of it after
the specified time has passed.

BTW, you would know which situation is involved. The ethically
challenged could pretend they don't, but you'd know.

If you receive a package in the mail, along with an invoice for $50,
for Floyd Davidson's Coffee Table Book of Street Photography (with 100
color photographs of mountains, trucks, and seal clubbings), you'd
know that this is an unordered item and can be kept or discarded and
that you need not pay the invoice.

If you receive a package in the mail, with an enclosed invoice made
out to someone else, that contains an expensive camera, you'd know
that this was an honest shipping mistake and you have an obligation to
return it if the shipper pays for the costs.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:14:39 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:48:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-09-24 17:59:26 -0700, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Eric Stevens writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
>>>>> you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>>
>>>> You should try that some day.
>>>
>>>Well-established law in the USA. See for example this FAQ put up by the
>>>Federal Trade Commission
>>><http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro15.shtm>.

>>
>>Did you read the link, David? It does not say you can keep
>>merchandise shipped to you by (honest) mistake.

>
>Did *you* read it? It in fact does say exactly that!


No, it does not.

>>You have to notify the shipper and allow them to make arrangements to
>>get it back. You can "reserve the right" to keep it after a specified
>>length of time, but asking for that doesn't mean you can specify an
>>unreasonable length of time.


>It says that is what you should do, not what you must
>do. Moreover if you can "reserve the right", then
>clearly you have the right.


Floyd, what do you think "reserve the right" means? It does not mean
that you *have* an actual right. It means that you are declaring that
you will do something if you feel that it is necessary. There's no
implied or actual legal entitlement required to reserve the right to
do something.

"Reserve the right" is simply a phrase, not a point of law. You can't
reserve a right that you do not have, but you can say it.

> The right you have is to
>keep the merchandize, because it was not ordered.


No, you don't.

Scenario:

Acme Camera receive an order from Joe Smith for a Nikon D600. Joe's
credit card is charged for the camera, but an error in Acme's shipping
department occurs and the wrong shipping label is attached to the
package shipping the camera to you.

You think that camera is yours to keep? You think you can "reserve
the right" to not return that camera?

You can notify Acme that you have the camera, that you will return it
if they provide a means of returning to them at no cost to you, and
you can say that you will consider the camera abandoned and your
property if you don't receive instructions and a means of returning it
at no cost to you within 30 days. You don't need to say "I reserve
the right" to keep it under those conditions. There's no "right" that
needs referencing.

If Acme sends you a pre-paid shipping label, you must return the
camera.


>The point is that the law was intended to prevent
>purposely shipping people items they have not ordered
>and then demanding payment.


That's correct, and that's what I've said.

> It was not meant to
>penalize mistakes, but there is no way to separate the
>two other than suggesting a person who realizes it is
>actually a mistake should not take advantage just
>because the law does allow it. And the law absolutely
>does allow exactly that! You are not *required* to
>determine if it is a mistake.


What you are saying here is that if you are morally bankrupt and don't
look at the enclosed paperwork that says the camera should have been
shipped to Joe, that you can pretend that you don't know that there
was an honest mistake and keep the camera. You can hope that Acme
can't trace where the camera was shipped. That may be your ethical
position.

However, if Acme can trace the shipment, Acme can demand return or
payment. Acme would be on solid legal ground to do so. Your refusal
to return it or pay for it would be the criminal act of conversion.

I seriously wonder about the ethics of someone who reads that link and
thinks that they have some "right" to merchandise shipped by honest
mistake and that they are "not *required* to determine if it is a
mistake".

It's like saying "I reserve the right to walk out of the store without
paying for the merchandise I've taken if the cashier doesn't notice
that I have it.".




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:15:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:47:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:59:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Eric Stevens writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
>>>>>you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
>>>> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
>>>> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
>>>>
>>>> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
>>>> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
>>>> no hope for you understanding this.
>>>
>>>Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
>>>set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
>>>yourself very clearly.

>>
>> What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
>> different things.

>
>Merchandise sent to me by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
>ordered.


I can't really see putting merchandise shipped by honest mistake as a
subset of merchandise not ordered. Since the conditions of the two
are different, if I had to have subsets, I'd want a master set with
both as subsets. The merchandise *was* ordered in the honest mistake
set, but ordered by someone else.


>> The Federal Trade Commission webpage explains it better than I can:
>> http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer...cts/pro15.shtm
>>
>> Note that on this page it states that merchandise sent to you by
>> mistake ("honest shipping error") is not treated the same as unordered
>> merchandise.

>
>So basically, they're back-pedaling. I have no way of knowing what
>something arriving on my porch falls into.


Really? I suppose that this would be the case if there was no
paperwork in the package, but that's not usually the case in
merchandise shipped by honest mistake. A private individual may send
something out with no paperwork enclosed, but businesses rarely do.
Once you open the package and read the enclosed paperwork, though, you
know.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:47:16 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:59:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Eric Stevens writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Because the mistake is easily reversed?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it's not that. If someone ships merchandise to you by mistake, not only do
> >>>>you not have to pay for it, but you can keep it.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. Postal regulations allow you keep or discard any
> >>> merchandise sent to you that you did not order or authorize. The
> >>> regulations do not allow you keep what was shipped to you by mistake.
> >>>
> >>> If you are so thick as not know the difference between "merchandise
> >>> not ordered" and "merchandise shipped to you by mistake", then there's
> >>> no hope for you understanding this.
> >>
> >>Since one of those is a subset of the other, and since it's the larger
> >>set that postal regulations cover, you're either wrong or not explaining
> >>yourself very clearly.

> >
> > What is a subset of what? I don't understand that. They are two
> > different things.

>
> Merchandise sent to me by mistake is a subset of merchandise not
> ordered.
>
> > The Federal Trade Commission webpage explains it better than I can:
> > http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer...cts/pro15.shtm
> >
> > Note that on this page it states that merchandise sent to you by
> > mistake ("honest shipping error") is not treated the same as unordered
> > merchandise.

>
> So basically, they're back-pedaling. I have no way of knowing what
> something arriving on my porch falls into.


It says that you "should" contact the shipper, which as a matter of
common courtesy is true. It does not say that you must contact
the shipper.

Note that they are explaining the law. The actual wording can be found
at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...?quicktabs_8=1
#quicktabs-8>.

If you read that you will find on exemption for merchandise shipped to
an incorrect address.


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2012
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:26:40 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:14:39 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>It says that is what you should do, not what you must
>>>do. Moreover if you can "reserve the right", then
>>>clearly you have the right.

>>
>>Floyd, what do you think "reserve the right" means? It does not mean
>>that you *have* an actual right.

>
>It means that you do have that right, you know you have
>that right, and are not abrogating that right. Look up
>the word "reserve" in a dictionary and stop huffing
>about something through ignorance.


All "reserve" means is that you are withholding something now that you
may use later. To use it later, though, requires that you have some
legal right to use it.

>You cannot reserve a right that you don't have.


Exactly. And, you do not have a right to retain merchandise that was
shipped to you by honest error.

The most common instances of examples of shipments made by honest
error are:

1. Multiple shipments where an item was ordered but the same item was
shipped again in error. The duplicate item was not ordered.

2. Paperwork errors where wrong addresses are used on the shipping
label.

3. Paperwork errors where shipping labels are inadvertently used on
the wrong package.

So, you order a new laptop from Dell, you get it, and a few days later
you get another laptop because the shipping order was put through a
second time in error.

You think that Dell is going to allow you to keep the second laptop as
a gift because you didn't order it? You have some "right" to do this?

In a second example, you have an account with Dell and the last time
you ordered from Dell you paid for the item but had it shipped to your
cousin as a gift. Now, you order again from Dell but this order is to
be shipped to you. Dell's account information shows that the shipping
address is your cousin's. Your cousin gets the item, you are charged
for it, but your cousin claims that since he didn't order the item
that the item is a gift to him. You think that your cousin gets to
keep the item that you paid for? He gets to reserve the right to keep
it and you get stuck for the bill?

Third example. You order a laptop from Dell, you are charged for it,
but the shipping label is accidently switched with an order from me
for a $15 part. I'm charged $15, you get my part, and I get to keep
the laptop you paid for because it was a gift to me?

Dell may allow you keep the $15 part shipped in error because the
return postage is in excess of their cost for the part, but that's
their choice.

>>It means that you are declaring that
>>you will do something if you feel that it is necessary. There's no
>>implied or actual legal entitlement required to reserve the right to
>>do something.

>
>Giggle, snort. I can reserve the right to lobotomize
>Tony Cooper?


You can say you reserve the right to do so, but since you have no
right to do so, you can't ever exercise what you have reserved. All
you've done is used a phrase that is meaningless because there is no
right involved.

Reserving the right to lobotomize me has the same legal standing as
reserving the right to retain something you are not entitled to
retain. None.

I seriously wonder about both the morality and the common sense of a
person who thinks that anything shipped to them by honest error is
theirs as a gift.

Where the law applies that you are allowed to keep or discard
unordered merchandise is when the shipper deliberately sends you
something that you did not order. No mistake is involved. It applies
in cases like when BibleThumper, Inc send you a bible that you have
not ordered and bills you for $25. They hope you will pay the invoice
even though you are not required to do so.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only tony cooper Digital Photography 26 09-03-2012 10:07 PM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only nospam Digital Photography 0 08-30-2012 12:26 AM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only tony cooper Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 11:07 PM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only Bob S Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 01:02 AM
Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only PeterN Digital Photography 0 08-29-2012 12:14 AM



Advertisments