[Closed] Have I borke the law, am I a thief?

I'm definitely going for troll. Surely nobody can be proud of being such a **** - and also being wrong.

10/10 though. I'm loving it so far. Totally amoral with wife and parents who are at least as bad. Only waiting to hear if he's got kids now

Op is playing the long game.

You should break it and send it back under warranty. Ask for a refund due to not being fit for purpose!

[img] [/img]

Op is playing the chaize longue game.

You've got a sofa you wanted for a price you were happy to pay. So pay for it, enjoy it and sleep well, safe in the knowledge that you simply carried out a transaction whereby money is exchanged for goods. Which is basically how it works.

Op is playing the chaize longue game.

Sofa, that is the worse pun I have heard today. You didn't even try to cushion the blow...

[img] [/img]

So is the link Mr C provided accurate? If it is why is the OP getting a hard time exactly, its them that have committed an offence (if the link is correct)

Either way hes clearly not a thief, but his morals are slightly dubious. That said, I'd be sorely tempted to take Jamie's advice and haggle. Especially if its been reduced subsequently

Either way, if you can prove you cancelled the order you definitely don't need to pay for it and keep it. You may well legally have to return it however.

The link is incorrect try googleing the act and looking at the current version. Also unless the delivery driver pushed the sofa into the house against his wife's protests that she did not want it then it was hardly unsolicited. The op is getting a hard time as has been pointed out above his only argument to say he is not guilty of theft is to maintain he genuinely believes that right thinking people would see nothing wrong in keeping other peoples valuable property if you got your hands on it by mistake.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_problems_with_delivery_e/consumer_unsolicited_goods_e/youve_received_goods_or_services_you_didnt_ask_for_distance_sales.htm

Basically, unsolicited means that you did not order the item. I ordered the item. They told me they were unable to deliver in time. I cancelled the order with them(have proof), they delivered it (unsolicited), Wife accepted the delivery. Kept it, slept on it once, bought scatter cushions for it. They want it back. Tell me I have to pay for it, no returns. Law says otherwise. Im a thief. Morally devoid. Haven't slept well since.

[quote=peter1979 ]Basically, unsolicited means that you did not order the item. I ordered the item.

This appears to be the point where your case falls down. That and:

Kept it, slept on it once

But you had the money and wanted the sofa, what's the problem with paying now ?

Basically, unsolicited means that you did not order the item. I ordered the item. They told me they were unable to deliver in time. I cancelled the order with them(have proof), they delivered it (unsolicited)

The fact there is proof you ordered it and paid for it completely wipes out the "unsolicited" angle. All that has happened is that there has been a despatch error - and I am 100% confident this would stand up in court.

Hopefully this thread is found by the company in question so they have documented evidence of your deliberate attempt to deprive them of their property without paying for it.

wwaswas - Member

But you had the money and wanted the sofa, what's the problem with paying now ?

I had pretty much come made my decision to pay for the sofa, but following my wife's phone conversation with grotbags who told her that there was no chance or a return because its 'out of its returns period' I began to change my mind.

Also i'm worried that it will feel less comfy once I've paid for it.

Jizz on it. This is the only viable option I can see.

[quote=peter1979 ]Also i'm worried that it will feel less comfy once I've paid for it.

I expect it will also feel less comfy once they've taken you to court to get their money. Though I'm surprised it fits under your bridge anyway.

Also i'm worried that it will feel less comfy once I've paid for it.

[img] [/img]

Taking some kind of moral stand because you didn't like the way the lady spoke to your wife is a stupid response. That is a purely subjective and hard to prove thing.

The bit that is easy to prove is that you ordered and paid for a sofa. You subsequently got a pre-despatch refund but a despatch error led to you still getting it. You are now deliberately attempting to deprive the company of their property without paying for it, known in common conversation as stealing it. Just do the right thing and pay for it.

*Edit - wondering how many "well known high street retailers" as described by the OP there could be that are relevant to this situation. I'd imagine it's not many.

So basically what your saying now is, that because a member of staff, who in your wife's opinion, was a bit obnoxious, you now have a green light to steal the sofa after all.

So far you've had to ask whether you're a thief for stealing furniture, whether you can make some extra money out of them for storing the furniture you've stolen and somehow feel aggrieved and of the opinion you're now owed something because you've found the staff a bit grumpy.

**** 'em... Nick it

Anyone that gets sanctimonious with you? Poke 'em in the eye with a shitty finger..
Everyone has a price at which their morals can be compromised.. Yours is £600

don't feel bad about it, we all have a right to be proud

One unknown consequence is the fate of the staff member who is responsible for you getting £600 worth of stock for free. They make a mistake, you act like a **** and get a free sofa/bed and they have to get a new job. It does happen.

You have no contract with these people. You cancelled it and were refunded. Distance Selling Regs do not apply. There is no returns period. If they want to come and collect their property, they are more than welcome to do so at your convenience.

Personally, I would have phoned them immediately and paid up, as I actually wanted the goods. However, if a company got snotty with me because they had ballsed up and sent me an item I had cancelled, I would be highly tempted to make life inconvenient for them by only offering them the option of coming and getting it. I'd write to head office making this clear so that I have a paper trail of 'doing the right thing'.

I suspect they do not want it back under any circumstances, hence the insistence that you are in some kind of contract with them and need to cough up the cash.

+1 to [b]MartinHutch[/b]'s view.

You have no contract with these people. You cancelled it and were refunded.

Correct. But what that overlooks is that a despatch error took place and the retailer's property accidentally ended up in the OP's possession, without any contract for transfer of ownership taking place. In other words, it is still the retailer's property. By deliberately withholding something that belongs to the retailer, he is therefore stealing it.

By deliberately withholding something that belongs to the retailer, he is therefore stealing it.

Of course, which is why he should have the choice of either paying for it or returning it, rather than just one of those options. At the moment, although his posts suggest he would quite like to hang onto it gratis, he's not [i]quite[/i] crossed the line yet.

In other words, it is still the retailer's property. By deliberately withholding something that belongs to the retailer, he is therefore stealing it.

Except they're saying he can't send it back.

Send them an invoice for storing it for them.

Except they're saying he can't send it back.

Because he's used it.

Morally, you're right, he should cough up. Strictly speaking, there's no sale contract, so the idea of 'use it it's yours' doesn't really apply. I can't see any legally-defined responsibility to look after the goods or their packaging.

If anything, by sending goods unsolicited (which is what has happened - the OP cancelled his order, he didn't want the goods or have a contract to receive them, they sent them anyway), and then demanding payment, the company is the one which has already committed a criminal offence under consumer law.

Because he's used it.

One unknown consequence is the fate of the staff member who is responsible for you getting £600 worth of stock for free.

*I know my kids could trash a sofa in a day but I'm sure normal people can manage to have a sofa in their house for a couple of weeks without causing it any discernible distress.

[quote=martinhutch ]Morally, you're right, he should cough up. Strictly speaking, there's no sale contract, so the idea of 'use it it's yours' doesn't really apply. I can't see any legally-defined responsibility to look after the goods or their packaging.
If anything, by sending goods unsolicited (which is what has happened - the OP cancelled his order, he didn't want the goods or have a contract to receive them, they sent them anyway), and then demanding payment, the company is the one which has already committed a criminal offence under consumer law.

Except it was sent by mistake, hence it's not unsolicited under the terms of the law (there has to be an intent for it to be unsolicited). For items sent by mistake there is also a duty to care for the goods - clearly you're not required to inconvenience yourself to do so, but it wouldn't have inconvenienced the [s]troll[/s] OP to have left it in an unused state. I think he probably is entitled to send it back, but the shop is also entitled to charge him for the difference in value between a new and used one. I'll take a shot in the dark and guess that's approximately £600.

Personally I'd punish the errant staff member by making them deal with peter1979 (maybe that's what's happening already).

I'm still confused.

The OP actually [i]wants[/i] to own the item.

He's just trying to get away without paying for it.

In fact he's so keen on it that if he can get shot of the one he has he's going to go out and pay full retail price for an identical item from the same shop.

It all now seems to revolve around him being a bit disgruntled 'cos the woman on the phone wasn't sufficiently obsequious to his wife?

Maybe the woman on the phone is getting a bit shirty as they've now made two phone calls to your wife who is deliberately stalling on finding an acceptable solution to the problem.

It all now seems to revolve around him being a bit disgruntled 'cos the woman on the phone wasn't sufficiently obsequious to his wife?

Isn't it more the fact that the company told him/his wife/etc that they couldn't send it back, that raised his ire?

Except it was sent by mistake, hence it's not unsolicited under the terms of the law (there has to be an intent for it to be unsolicited)

Guess you'd have to gamble on the amount of people who would refuse a "free" sofa and how many of those would get all legal when you said "sorry no returns"

not saying that's what happened here, doosuk's theory sounds a little more likely given the circumstances

[quote=Jamie ]Isn't it more the fact that the company told him/his wife/etc that they couldn't send it back, that raised his ire?

Yes it does seem so. Despite the fact he wants to keep it. Which is just one of the points in this [s]fable[/s] story which doesn't add up.

his problem is that he accepted the goods "cool Free sofa" knowing they were not his he has never raised any issue until he got caught . So he has appropriated the property of someone else with the intention of permanently depriving them of it , one tends not to give thieves the option of returning property they have used and reduced in value so that they can avoid any sanction.

As to no contract Delivery man turns up at door expecting to deliver sofa in knowledge that it has been paid for or is to be paid for wife receives sofa in knowledge that the delivery man is expecting to be paid . is that "I have this sofa for you as part of a commercial transaction do you want it " yes I do ", both parties aware the price is £600 . so offer acceptance valuable consideration and delivery of goods from one party to another . so a binding contract evidenced by conduct or a criminal fraud by wife.

Yes it does seem so. Despite the fact he wants to keep it.

All that legal mumbo jumbo, crankboy. What do you know, you're not a lawyer - clearly the OP and everybody else on this thread suggesting it's unsolicited goods are better informed than you.

We ordered a Barbie electric toothbrush once. They sent me one box of toothbrushes. I sold them to the lads at work for their kids. Will I go to prison?

It was harder than I thought to find the relevant legal bit - all I could find was talk of 'unsolicited goods' with a very broad definition which seemed to fit the OP's circumstances exactly.

I've now found the legally-defined responsibility to look after goods sent in error. (Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977) if anyone's interested...and it's u-turn time.

So while he should be able to send it back if he wants, if the company were spectacularly arsey, they could in theory pursue him separately for any loss of value of the item through unwrapping, putting it up and sleeping on it.

He also had a legal responsibility to inform the company of their mistake ASAP.

So, all in all, legally, morally, or whatever, OP should ring Grotbags back, and pay for his sofa.

Aracer 😉

Thief, and some poor scapegoat is going to lose his job over this.

That's what happens.

i keep thinking the OP is WATSONTONY in disguise!!

Have you used it yet?