If a retailer sends you something you didn&#39;t order, can you keep it? This Consumerist article discussing a Wal-Mart shipping mishap involving a customer receiving extra iPods argues that the FTC ruling regarding unsolicited goods means that you can keep good as a result of a shipping error. That is, if you did solicit goods, but the wrong ones were sent. When I've tried getting more information on the legal context regarding this law in the USA, I seem to mostly find opinions and not any real citations or analysis of legal precedence and regulation. Like the Consumerist article, they don't seem to be clear depictions of the legal environment. It seems that many retailers operate under the assumption that if they make a mistake and ship the wrong thing, but the original Rule's wording doesn't seem to account for errors: 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: 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, 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 $16,000 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. Are there other regulations that apply, or is this the end-all be all? Can terms-of-service agreements with online retailers stipulate that you agree to return incorrect shipments?
39 USC 3009(b) says that Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. and (a) prohibits "the mailing of un­ordered merchandise". (d) then says For the purposes of this section, “un­ordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient. If you previously expressly request a jar of herring and they deliver a jar of herring, you have to pay for it. If instead they send you a jar of honey, then since you did not expressly order a jar of honey, they have violated the law. It doesn't matter whether they deep-down intended to send a jar of herring and accidentally sent honey, or they deep-down deceptively, deliberately and maliciously sent you honey – you still didn't order honey. So it isn't necessary for the law to say anything about error, since the effect of the law is clear enough without saying "whether deliberately or by error". TOS wording cannot override federal law.
No If the price advertised is not honoured by the business and you are asked to pay a higher price, you do not have an automatic right to buy the item at the special offer or sale price. As long as the shop or business tells you before you pay that the higher price applies, you have the option to either buy it at the higher price or decide not to. However, the shop or business may be in breach of consumer law in relation to misleading advertising. The prosecution (or not) of the misleading advertising is the government’s task, not yours. This is a common formulation across Common Law jurisdictions as it a codification of the historic common law position. An advertised price is not an offer capable of acceptance, it is an invitation to treat. That is, it is an invitation for you to make them an offer and the price that is likely to be accepted. It is overlaid with later developments in consumer protection surrounding false advertising and misleading and deceptive conduct.
In simple terms, the only basis for the complaint is that the defendant did not ship the toys, not that the defendant violated federal law by their actions. No federal law mandates the shipping of toys, whether banned or unbanned.
According to BGB §447, by default the purchaser is liable if a purchased good is damaged/lost in transit: § 447 Gefahrübergang beim Versendungskauf (1) Versendet der Verkäufer auf Verlangen des Käufers die verkaufte Sache nach einem anderen Ort als dem Erfüllungsort, so geht die Gefahr auf den Käufer über, sobald der Verkäufer die Sache dem Spediteur, dem Frachtführer oder der sonst zur Ausführung der Versendung bestimmten Person oder Anstalt ausgeliefert hat. "Erfüllungsort" is a synonym for "Leistungsort", and according to BGB §269: § 269 Leistungsort (1) Ist ein Ort für die Leistung weder bestimmt noch aus den Umständen, insbesondere aus der Natur des Schuldverhältnisses, zu entnehmen, so hat die Leistung an dem Ort zu erfolgen, an welchem der Schuldner zur Zeit der Entstehung des Schuldverhältnisses seinen Wohnsitz hatte. So, if I am reading the BGB correctly, then it's you, the purchaser, who bears the risk of the goods getting lost during transport. The seller probably has the obligation of helping you to make a claim against DHL. But the loss of the package is between you and DHL, I'm afraid. Notes: This only applies to purchase from a private individual. If you, as a consumer, purchase from a business ("Verbrauchsgüterkauf"), the business bears the risk of shipping (BGB §474). There is an article on eBay's help pages which also explains this: eBay: Versandrisiko für Käufer und Verkäufer All this probably only applies if both seller and purchaser live in Germany. For international deals, the rules are (even) more complicated...
Yes A creditor (or alleged creditor) in the US may report such a debt, but must include in the report the information that the debt is disputed, if the creditor has been informed in writing that there is a dispute. If the consumer disputes that debt is valid that is a &quot;factual dispute&quot;. That would include claims that goods ordered were never delivered, that the wrong goods were delivered, or that the goods were damaged or non-working at the time of delivery. One relevant law is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under § 611 of the act (15 U.S.C. § 1681i) a consumer may file a notice of dispute with a credit reporting agency (CRA). The CRA must re investigate the issue, and may ask for confirming information from the merchant or other person who initially reported the information (known as the &quot;Furnisher&quot; in the law). There is a set of procedures for handliung such disputes. Information found to be &quot;Inaccurate or Unverifiable&quot; must be removed. Subsections (b) and (c) of thsi section provife that: Statement of dispute. If the reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute, the consumer may file a brief statement setting forth the nature of the dispute. The consumer reporting agency may limit such statements to not more than one hundred words if it provides the consumer with assistance in writing a clear summary of the dispute. (c) Notification of consumer dispute in subsequent consumer reports. Whenever a statement of a dispute is filed, unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is frivolous or irrelevant, the consumer reporting agency shall, in any subsequent report containing the information in question, clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer’s statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof. Section 616 of the act (15 U.S.C. § 1681n]) provides penalties for wilful noncompliance, and section 617 of the act (15 U.S.C. § 1681o]) provides penalties for negligent noncompliance. These include for wilful noncompliance actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000, punitive damages if the court thinks such proper, and &quot;the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees&quot; for winning cases. For negligent noncompliance actual damages plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees are allowed. See also the Wikipedia Article on the Acty, &quot;Summaries of Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Regulation V)&quot; from the Federal Register, and &quot;Understanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act&quot; from Experian (a major credit reporting agency). 15 U.S. Code § 1692g which is part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides that if a consumer notifies a collector within 30 days of the initial debt collection attempt that the debt is disputed, collection attempts must cease until the collector verifies the debt, or obtains a certification from the creditor. Section 807(8) of the FDCPA (15 USC 1692f) prohibits: (8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. See also &quot;Dealing with Debt Collectors: What You Should Know&quot;
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.
Two people exchanging goods or services on a commercial basis and then pretending it was two gifts is tax evasion. It's not a gift. It's a commercial sale that you lie about by 'putting' a different 'label' on it. Sometimes two people will give mutual gifts, e.g. if you come to my wedding: I give you dinner, you give me some kitchenware. Yet there's nothing commercial about it. So that's not income for either party. However, if you're talking about two businesses making sales to each other, that is very much income, regardless of what you badge it.
There is, in most countries at least, no law requiring a business to treat a customer fairly. In general, a business may refuse to serve a would-be customer for any reason or none, provided that the reason is not membership in a protected class (racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual bias, mostly). Exactly which classes are protected depends on the local law (in the US, there can be such laws at all of federal, state, and municipal levels). If a customer is asked to leave and does not do so, s/he could be charged with defiant trespass (or local equivalent). More likely, security, or the police, could simply escort the customer out of the business, using as much force as is reasonably needed for that purpose. Unless there are grounds for action not mentioned, I see no basis for a successful suit by the customer.