Need Link to Law (Vanity)

[savedbygrace]

Yes.

[savedbygrace]

LOL.

There is a lot more involved than I can post in a public forum. I don’t want to create a separate cause of action, if you know what I mean.

[deport]

Just curious.....

Unordered Merchandise
Whether or not the Rule is involved, in any approval or other sale you must obtain the customer’s prior express agreement to receive the merchandise. Otherwise the merchandise may be treated as unordered merchandise. It is unlawful to:

1. Send any merchandise by any means without the express request of the recipient (unless the merchandise is clearly identified as a gift, free sample, or the like); or,
2. Try to obtain payment for or the return of the unordered merchandise.

Merchants who ship unordered merchandise with knowledge that it is unlawful to do so can be subject to civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation. Moreover, customers who receive unordered merchandise are legally entitled to treat the merchandise as a gift. Using the U.S. mails to ship unordered merchandise also violates the Postal laws

[savedbygrace]

Thanks, that didn’t come up on any Google search I did, at last not in the first ten or twenty pages I sloshed through for each search.

I forget which search terms I used. Anyway, thank you, That’s very helpful.

[rockrr]

Are you claiming that you NEVER negotiate to gain an advantage? Never?

A disingenuous strawman that you should be ashamed of, but since you asked, of course I negotiate for personal advantage. But from a principled stance. I’m not a predatory opportunist that seeks whatever advantage from circumstance that I may. In that, you have the obvious advantage over me.

[savedbygrace]

Hahahahahahaha. Sure, whatever gets you through the night.

Again, you do not know all the facts of this matter, and you’re being judgmental in error. But, whatever.

[rockrr]

Spoken like a true moral relativist...

[savedbygrace]

Oh great one, I feel so inferior next to your perfection.

[rockrr]

I never claimed nor implied perfection. If anything, I offered you an opportunity to reexamine your own motives. In response, you have shown that you are quite comfortable with your er, acquaintance with a sense of ethics.

‘tis a pity that...

[savedbygrace]

I’ve told you more than once that there are FACTS you DO NOT know. Those facts actually make this a different situation than the one you think you’re judging.

[rockrr]

Who says I’m judging anything? I’m merely responding to someone who openly proposed cheating a company who made a mistake. (feeling guilty?)

[savedbygrace]

I proposed no such thing. You’re making this stuff up out of thin air.

If you think otherwise, prove it.

[rockrr]

savedbygrace (a deliciously ironic name considering the circumstances) begins this drama by stating (incorrectly, but notably): "I understand that federal law says if you receive an item you didn't order, it is considered a gift from the company, and you are not required to send it back."

Several posters reply that regardless of circumstance, it is wrong to knowingly enrich yourself by virtue of another's mistake.

savedbygrace adds this delightful tidbit: "What I might be able to do with this knowledge of the FTC regs is to negotiate with this company for an added credit or discount. Maybe it will work, maybe not."

Thus proving that he/she/it is purposefully advocating defrauding or extorting for he/she/it's personal benefit.

My central point (and one that I find of continuing amusement) is the nexus of name to deed. If your name was "Satan's little helper" and you proposed this, no one would think twice of it. But that's not your name (is it?)

[savedbygrace]

Thus proving that he/she/it is purposefully advocating defrauding or extorting for he/she/it's personal benefit.

How so? The law, as administered by the FTC, says such unordered shipments are to be considered as a gift. (see deport's post #23). How is reminding the company of this fact defrauding them, or extorting them in any way?

BTW, the actual facts of this situation lead to the conclusion that this shipment was more likely intentional, rather than a mistake. As I've said, your assumptions are incorrect.

[rockrr]

BWAAAAAHAAAAA!

And you’re gonna take that to the bank huh?! Now Mr. Deport may have been trying to be helpful, but are you willing to gamble a felony charge that he is correct? (Here’s a little hint: while you’re assuming details, consider the term “solicited” - it may keep you out of jail).

Nevertheless, you conveniently avoid the central point - even on the outside chance that what you want to do falls on your side of the “lawful” conundrum, it still illustrates you as the moral relativist that you are!

[savedbygrace]

Your last post bears no relationship with reality. It’s a non sequitur.

[rockrr]

Here, I'll type it slower so that you can keep up.

That you would be foolish and ignorant enough to take any FReeper's legal advice on potentially felonious conduct (on your part) is the height of folly.

That you would contemplate any of this (without at the very least saying "OK, what I proposed was hinky - forget I ever mentioned it") shows you to be an idiot...

[Shimmer128]

When I was in the service I got a fed income tax refund of $27, the next day I got another check for $27, the next day another one. I cashed all three of them. Nothing was ever said. I’m still waiting for the hammer to fall on that bit of stupidity on my part.

Ooooh, i’m telllling!!! :D

[Shimmer128]

Yes they did make unwarranted assumptions, but it wouldn’t have hurt you to explain beforehand either. It’s almost like you wanted to mislead, so you could then chide others, but I wouldn’t want to make an unwarranted assumption! :D

The company will probaby have it picked up by a delivery service, so your trouble will be minimal.

[savedbygrace]

I asked at the very beginning for NO moralizing. I just wanted to confirm what the law said about all this. That’s all.