Can FedEx bill the recipient of a package for a &quot;Clearance Entry Fee&quot;, without consent? Some time ago, I received an unsolicited birthday gift from a relative as an international package via FedEx (USA to Canada). Then, several days later, FedEx mailed me an invoice for a "Clearance Entry Fee" for having processed the customs paperwork for that package. Apparently, it's their policy to charge these kinds of fees to the recipient. I acknowledge that FedEx did some work that benefitted me (though I would value that paperwork-handling at less than the 15 CAD that they are billing me). However, I didn't order the package myself, nor was I informed that accepting the package would incur an associated fee. As far as I am concerned, I never consented to anything! Am I legally obligated to pay that fee? By what reasoning? If FedEx can bill me for that kind of hidden "service", then it seems like anybody could extort money from anyone else. For example, could I pick up a piece of garbage from my neighbour's lawn and send them an invoice for a "garbage-clearing fee" — and threaten them with a collections agency if they don't pay? Can I choose to set that fee at any amount I like? And, assuming that I don't have a legal obligation to pay FedEx, how can I get them to stop harassing me?
Based on the advice from @user6726, here's how I disputed the charge. First, I called FedEx customer service. They declined to waive the fee, and informed me that if I didn't pay, it would go to collections. So, I waited a few months and let the collection agency send me their version of the bill. Then, I sent the following reply (paraphrased) to the collection agency, by registered mail. On date, we received a letter from your agency demanding a payment for Federal Express Canada Co. I am writing this letter to dispute this debt, as I do not believe that we owe it. The debt claimed by Federal Express Canada appears to be related to FedEx invoice n, consisting of a Clearance Entry Fee of $X. I called FedEx on date to dispute this fee. It appears that they have decided to proceed with demanding payment anyway. The facts of the case are as follows: In month, we received an unsolicited birthday gift from a relative in the United States, which FedEx left at our doorstep, with no signature required, and no indication that accepting the package would incur an obligation to FedEx. As the value of the gift did not exceed 60 CAD, the package was admitted into Canada duty free. The Clearance Entry Fee is a fee imposed by FedEx, not on behalf of any government agency. “Clearance Entry” is an “unsolicited good or service”, as defined by the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 2, Section 11. We did not order the shipment of the package, and did not consent verbally or in writing to the “Clearance Entry” service claimed to have been provided by FedEx. Therefore, as provided in Section 12 of the Act, we have no obligation to FedEx, and FedEx has no cause of action against us. The burden of proof that the service was not unsolicited rests with FedEx, and until such proof is provided, this debt is void under BC law, and you, as a collector, must not collect or attempt to collect money from a person who is not liable for the debt. Based on Section 116 of the Act, I am requiring you to communicate with me only in writing, at the address given above. At this point, I expect that your next communication would either contain: Proof that we consented to the “Clearance Entry” service provided by FedEx, or A statement that the debt is invalid, and that we are discharged from any obligation to your agency or to Federal Express Canada in regards to this matter. In addition, please inform any credit reporting agencies to which you have reported this debt to, that this debt is currently in dispute. I will require proof that you have done this. It has been over two months since the collection agency received the letter, and we still have not heard from them. Evidently they have decided that it is not worthwhile to pursue this case.
The contract between you and the company is for the supply of the goods. How they get them to you is irrelevant; they may have them in stock, or they may order them and ship them on, or they may send an order to the factory to ship them directly to you. There is nothing saying that they have to be in stock anywhere. The law you refer to says that they must ship within 30 days unless they provide a specific date. In effect "shipped within 30 days" is an implicit term in the contract. If after 30 days they have not shipped the goods then you are entitled to rescind the contract (i.e. get your money back). Where things get interesting is if they took your money knowing that they would not be able to ship within 30 days, or at least being reckless (i.e. not caring) about it. It does rather sound like this may be the case. If so then it may rise to the level of fraud, and the FTC or state authorities may take action. Try writing to the FTC. A single event won't get any action, but if they get lots of complaints then they might.
You give no jurisdiction but in general: First, police have no obligation to be honest. So, yes they can collect this without consent by e.g. taking hair from your hairbrush (with a warrant) or giving you a glass of water while interviewing you and getting it from your fingerprint oils (which may not actually be technically possible but never mind that). No, they can't take it by "force" by sticking a swab in your mouth. Yes, it will almost certainly go into a database. Of course, there are some jurisdictions where police are entitled to decide you are guilty based on the fact that you didn't pay them a bribe.
Is It Legally Binding? While their customer service sucks, your oral authorization of the charge is legally binding (I take payments that way almost every day in my own business, it isn't an unusual business practice in small professional businesses). You authorize oral authorization of payments over the phone in the credit card agreement that your credit card company sends you every year that you don't read and throw away. The provider has to collect more information for a credit card payment over the phone than they do for an in person swipe in a credit card machine (e.g. your credit card billing address) and they are fully responsible for wrongful charges if they deal with an imposter. By regularly checking your credit card statements, you can confirm that no incorrect charges are present. Tax Issues If you want to take a tax deduction for non-reimbursed medical expenses, you simply need to tote up the amounts your are entitled to from your own records, and put it in the appropriate box on your tax forms. You don't have to attach documentation to your return. If the IRS disputes your payment, you can offer up your credit card statements and your photograph of the receipts, and if necessary, medical records to show that you received the services, to show that the payment really happened and are deductible. Your credit card company's records, reflected in your monthly credit card statements, are considered very reliable for tax purposes. You have the burden of proving that the expense was incurred and is of a type that qualifies for a deduction by a preponderance of the evidence in the event that there is a dispute that is litigated, which means that you must show that it is more likely than not that you incurred a deductible expense of that kind in that amount in that tax year. Privacy Issues While there are financial information privacy issues associated with this transaction, HIPAA, which covers medical records, normally wouldn't apply to a credit card payment that indicates the person paid, the person paying, the account, the amount and the date, but not a description of the medical services provided or to whom they were provided, which is what is normally on a credit card receipt. The financial privacy issues are also partially addressed by the provider's merchant agreement with the credit card company which contains terms requiring them to maintain certain kinds of security with respect to your financial information (which is not to say that the provider actually follows all of the requirements of their merchant agreement scrupulously, which is why data breaches happen all the time in businesses both large and small).
This is an incomplete answer, but regardless of the state of statutory law in the U.K. and Ireland, most credit card providers, as part of their merchant agreements authorizing a merchant to accept credit card payments, prohibit merchants who accept credit cards from offering a lower price for cash payment than for a purchase using a credit card, despite the fact that in the case of a credit card payment, the merchant has to pay a processing fee to the credit card company that the merchant does not have to pay in a cash transaction. There have been some lawsuits challenging the validity of this requirement, but to the best of my knowledge, none have been successful. Generally speaking, however, it is not illegal to offer a different price if the merchant is paid all at once, as opposed to offering seller financing on installment terms (a different sense of the phase "cash price"), which is a different situation than when a merchant is distinguishing between a credit card payment of the entire price in one go, and a cash payment of the entire price in one go. It isn't entirely clear from your question in what sense "cash price" is customarily used with those tags. Similarly, it is probably permissible to offer one price for people who pay via either cash or a credit card on one hand, and a different price for people who pay via a check (which carries with it a risk that the check will not be honored), since that is not subject to a merchant agreement restriction, although my impression is that checks are used less often for payments in the U.K. (where they were invented) and Ireland, than in the United States.
You did not mention the country where you are, but this sounds like a very bad idea. Any working &quot;glitter bomb&quot; will be a low-grade bomb and setting one of those is extremely illegal. If you know when the next parcel will arrive, my advice would be to arrange for a credlible witness and to take pictures of the parcel before you open it any further. Then report the damage to the sender. If it was a commercial parcel, ask for a full refund. Enough of that and the postal inspectors will wonder why their machines are &quot;damaging&quot; so much mail.
Not that I am aware of. A person who 'owns' a domain is entitled to utilize that domain including for the purposes of receiving emails. With physical mail, it is a crime in most countries to intentionally interfere with mail that is not addressed to you. For example - Australia. However, this is statute law and as such does not extend to emails - even if it did, if you own the domain then you are the person to whom it was addressed. I note that you seem to misunderstand "confidential" - this only arises in the context of a special relationship between the person transmitting the information and the person receiving it. Usually this is a contractual obligation between A and B but it can be imposed by law (e.g. doctor-patient, banker-client, lawyer-client, GDPR etc.). If A sends confidential (as between A &amp; B) information to C, C is under no general obligation to keep it confidential if C has no relationship of confidentiality with A or B. If C discloses it and B suffers damage, B sues A for breach of confidence (or the government prosecutes A for breaking the law); B has no case against C. For your situation, where B has allowed A to send the information to an obsolete address then B has contributed to the breach to an extent that B would be extremely unlikely to succeed in a suit against A.
Maybe, maybe not. The answer is implicit in the restraining order, which I assume you have a copy of. If the wording is unclear, you can ask your attorney. The order will state the consequences for violating the order, so you have some idea what the risk factor is. A person may also petition for a new restraining order to include bill-paying, which may or may not be granted.