Does receiving a package establish some kind of contract? The setup is as follows. Two private individuals sent a package across international borders via some shipping company. The shipping company asked the sender to fill out some paper work and pay fees for the import regulations. The package was then shipped and delivered to the recipient. A few days after receiving the package the recipient received a letter from the shipping company asking them to pay an import tax plus a handling fee for the shipping company. Does the shipping company have any legal claim to thes fees from the recipient? I believe the shipping company had to pay the import tax and handled the import. But I don't see how they have any claim on the recipient, unless they can somehow claim that accepting the package establishes some kind of delivery contract with them. Presumably the sender should have paid these fees, but if the shipping company didn't charge them when the package was sent, it seems to me they screwed up and have to eat the cost themselves. Sender is outside the EU, receiver is inside in case this makes a difference.
Does the shipping company have any legal claim to thes fees from the recipient? No. There is no contract between the recipient and the company. In fact, the company's attempt to charge twice for the same service is unlawful. The company's requirement for the sender to fill out paper work and pay fees reflects that the fees are part of a contract to which only the company and the sender are parties. The recipient is merely a beneficiary of that contract, and as such he has no duty to provide any consideration for the benefit of the company. Additionally, the company's failure at delivery to inform the recipient about any pending fees further weakens the allegation that the recipient ever had any obligation toward the company. The company prevented the recipient from making an informed decision when receiving the package, which implies that the sole interaction between company and recipient (i.e., the delivery) falls short of formation of contract.
Does Bob have a case/standing? Yes, this is a reasonably straightforward contract dispute. Once you contract to do something and you then don't do it, you are liable for damages. Contractual damages are assessed on an expectation basis - the innocent party is entitled to be placed financially in the same position as though the contract had been completed without the breach. Bob is entitled to have the item and not to be out-of-pocket more than he agreed to pay. But ... There may not be a contract - see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? A contract is formed when the parties reach an agreement and most website terms and conditions are clear that this is NOT when the customer pays for it. For example, Amazon says: The Order Confirmation E-mail is acknowledgement that we have received your order, and does not confirm acceptance of your offer to buy the product(s) ordered. We only accept your offer, and conclude the contract of sale for a product ordered by you, when we dispatch the product to you and send e-mail confirmation to you that we've dispatched the product to you (the &quot;Dispatch Confirmation E-mail&quot;). So, here, two things have to happen before Amazon and you have a contract: they have to physically dispatch the goods and they have to send you an email saying they have. If they do one without the other, there is no contract. If your vendor has similar terms, you don't have a contract with them and are not entitled to contractual damages. You would not have a case in equity because they were clear that there was no contract until these things happened. You might be able to argue negligence if they sent the email without dispatching the goods but your damage basis would be different. Tort damage is calculated on a restoration basis, not an expectation basis, so you can recoup your losses but not claim any lost profits. It makes no difference here but if you had had a buyer who was going to pay you twice the price you paid, in contract you are entitled to the lost profit, in tort, you aren't. However, if the contract has a dispute resolution clause, that would normally have to be complied with before you can go to court. In some cases, this may prevent going to court at all, for example, if the dispute resolution clause included binding arbitration or expert determination. If there is a choice of law clause then this will usually be binding, however, if this is a consumer contract in New Zealand then NZ consumer law will apply in addition. Similarly, courts will usually observe a choice of venue clause. With what reasonable time lapse between (false) shipment notification of the original order and placing the eBay order? A reasonable time. Depends on what the product is and what normal delivery times are. For a 5mm screw, a reasonable time is probably measured in months. For an aircraft carrier it's probably measured in decades. Does this sort of a claim fall under the jurisdiction of small claims court (given that the amount is less than the threshold)? Neither New Zealand nor England &amp; Wales (bearing in mind Scotland and Northern Ireland are different jurisdictions) have small claims courts. The correct venue in New Zealand is the Disputes Tribunal which is not a court, and in England and Wales it is the County Court. Procedurally, would it be more advantageous for Bob to file the claim in the UK or in New Zealand? Ask a lawyer in each jurisdiction. Now Bob wants to claim damages from the store in the amount &quot;Total for the eBay order less total for the original store order&quot; — on top of full refund of the original order. Bob is not entitled to a refund. He is entitled to damages. A more accurate way to state the damages is the total for the eBay order and to not make any mention of a refund.
No They will list the price they are charging you. This will normally be greater than what they paid because that’s how business works. The amount they are allowed to charge is what you agreed in your contract with them (which may incorporate a price list) or, if the contract is silent, a reasonable amount. What is reasonable will be related to what the market in your geographical area charges. While this is indirectly related to the input cost of a given item, business can and do charge what the market allows.
Whether or not this would be allowed would generally call for a more fact rich situation than the one presented in the original question, that would cast light upon why a retailer might be inclined to refuse to accept payment. Hypothetical legal questions that presume that people are acting irrationally for no good reason are generally ill posed and don't have meaningful answers. Sometimes, there might be a legitimate privacy interest implicated if the invoicing party acknowledged a payment from a third party. For example, suppose that the invoice was for a paternity test and payment would confirm that the incapacitated person actually obtained a paternity test. Sometimes, there are legal rights beyond payment that are implicated and the reasonableness of a refusal might hinge on those rights. For example, suppose that the invoice was for an option to keep using an oil well. Payment of the invoice by the deadline would keep the oil well operating and the land owner sending the invoice might prefer that it not be paid so that the oil well would be shut down. Quite a few contracts are structured in this way. Maybe the invoice was for the right to purchase a first edition of a book when it was finally released, for example, and not paying it would free up a copy for someone else at a price that had increased in the meantime. Or, suppose that the invoice were for unpaid taxes and payment of the taxes would prevent property from being seized for sale by tax authorities, and the taxing authority would prefer that the invoice was not paid so that the valuable property could be liquidated. But, it is hard to imagine that there would be any reason that an ordinary retailer with an ordinary bill would ever refuse payment, although I suppose that this might trigger an interest or penalty amount owed under the contract for late payment. If that were the case, the principal of mitigation of damages, which says that a party to a contract must take all reasonable steps to mitigate their damages, might obligate the retailers to accept the payment or forfeit the penalty amounts that the retailer could have avoided as damages by accepting payment. I doubt that an undelivered tender of payment from a third party would eliminate the obligation, but, it might limit the damages that could be claimed as in the scenario above.
For a contract (including ToS) to be valid, one of the things it must have is "legality of objects". That is, if the contract purports to require anything that is unlawful in the jurisdiction then (barring a severance clause) it is not a contract. In common law countries, the starting point is that people are free to contract for and about anything they like - a contract is simply a mechanism for exchanging value between the parties on whatever terms they wish. However, judges and legislatures have decided that there are some things you cannot trade and some terms that are unconscionable or against the public interest and these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction*. For example, a contract is not legal in any jurisdiction if its terms seek to exclude the intervention of the courts - this is against public policy. So for example, a binding arbitration clause requiring the parties to accept a private arbitrator's decision as final excludes the courts, yes? Well, in Australia, yes, such clauses if used in a contract between parties with different bargaining power (like a Telco and its customers) are invalid because they prevent the weaker party pursuing a class action. However, they are perfectly legal in the United States because the SCOTUS has determined that the customer can persue litigation after arbitration is finished so this doesn't impede the courts. These are essentially the same laws interpreted by the courts so that they have totally opposite effects. So this might lead you to think that you'll put one in - it'll be OK in the US and Australians will represent such a tiny share of your market that you don't care if I can't enforce my ToS there. Except, if your website is visible by Australians, you have just exposed yourself to a government fine of up to AUD 5,000,000 (say USD 3,000,000) per day for breach of Australian Consumer Law. As a general guide (which is very stereotypical), US jurisdictions are the most permissive in the rights they will allow their citizens to give up: the US attitude is that everyone is free to make the best deal they can. European jurisdictions are the least permissive in this regard: most European countries follow a more social welfare state model and the citizen needs protecting from themselves. Commonwealth countries tend to be more in the middle.
This is an internet transaction Internet transactions can be reversed within 14 days after delivery of physical goods without the need to state reasons in germany. That is &quot;Rücktritt vom Kaufvertrag&quot;. However, you are needed to send back the product and might be required to pay the shipping fees, depending on the original contract. This is a materially flawed product You ordered a book with text A. You got text B. That is a material flaw and you can demand the correction of such a material flaw (Mangel) at the expense of the seller, including any postage. However, if the text was provided by you or the original order form is indicating text B instead of A, the mistake is on you.
For the first question, assuming EU legislation being applicable here, EU regulation No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 on creating a European order for payment procedure may be relevant, foreseeing a unified procedure for payment claims. On the second one, the answer is likely to be found in EU regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This regulation has in its Article 4 a general rule (persons domiciled in a Member State shall [..] be sued in the courts of that Member State) but of course also several exceptions to this rule. A relevant exception here is contained in Article 7: In matters relating to a contract, the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question are competent.
Nobody know what constitutes "scamming", because it's not a legal concept. There is no sense in which receiving a gift itself constitutes "scamming". Since scamming is vaguely about dishonesty, there is an imaginable scenario where you could be liable for a false representation, for example if you impersonated someone else in order to receive something of value, you could be prosecuted in California. You should not assume that a police officer saying "That's not our problem" is proof that you committed no crime or civil tort. Your lawyer can give you advice as to whether you have anything to worry about, legally. The other stuff about being called a scammer or having pictures posted might be a violation of Facebook's TOS, and you can always complain to Facebook central authorities. Technically, uploading a picture that someone took is a violation of copyright law, if you didn't give permission to do so. It might run afoul of some state~provincial or national privacy law, depending on where this takes place.