Goods delivered by mistake??

[MrShed]

karl - ignore Al. There is NO act of theft, by absolute definition. Any action would be CIVIL, and would be regarding breach of contract, if it ever came to that stage(which I sincerely doubt).

[Weird Al Yankovic]

So? you cannot take PART of the theft definition and apply it to the entire offence.

 

Theres been no dishonest appropriation, therefore no act of theft - end of!

 

Then just how exactly is not returning goods, that have been refunded and not paid for with the full knowledge of the OP, classed as by you?

[MrShed]

"dishonest holding" - completely different thing.

 

Appropriation is the act of taking possession

He has not dishonestly taken possession. The law is applied via definitions Al, you cannot change them as you like for the situation. There is no amiguity in this definition. Edited June 14, 2008 by MrShed

[Weird Al Yankovic]

"dishonest holding" - completely different thing.

 

 

 

He has not dishonestly taken possession. The law acts be definitions Al, you cannot twist it for the situation.

 

 

And how do you describe the keeping of the second order in exactly the same circumstances as the first?

[karlZuk]

MrShed thanks so much rep left , you seem to know what your talking about , thank you for your replies

 

 

I just got off the phone to Littlewoods they did tell me they was already aware of the mistake and they said i would of been contact in due course...but she did thank me for bringing to her attention.

 

They asked me if i wanted the goods obivously charged to my card i said no , she said she is going to call me back with a collection date which is suitable for myself.

[karlZuk]

And how do you describe the keeping of the second order in exactly the same circumstances as the first?

 

Well i have not been dishonest have i , i cancelled that order also , not my fault Littlewoods couldnt get it right

 

So if Littlewoods ever do it again by mistake then i guess its my fault again?

 

So they can send u cancelled goods when ever they feel like it and im breaking the law?

 

So what if they collect the goods now , can i charge them for my wasted time?

[MrShed]

Exactly the same - its the same situation, and so the same definition!!!

Come on Al, accept defeat.

 

Its not often I say this, but I would stake my entire professional and personal reputation on this not being theft, by definition. The action quite simply does NOT match the definition of theft!!

 

The OP paid for and ordered goods, quite legitimately. He has not acquired the goods through any form of deception. You can argue if you wish that he is CONTINUING to possess the goods dishonestly, but this is not part of the definition of theft!!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Well i have not been dishonest have i , i cancelled that order also , not my fault Littlewoods couldnt get it right

 

So if Littlewoods ever do it again by mistake then i guess its my fault again?

 

So they can send u cancelled goods when ever they feel like it and im breaking the law?

 

So what if they collect the goods now , can i charge them for my wasted time?

 

Hang fire!

 

You described the circumstances and your question basically comes down to the question of if you were allowed to keep the goods.

 

The answer was no, you were obliged to return them as per T&C's of your order with Littlewoods.

 

It is not unusual to receive goods a month after ordering if those goods are in short supply. If that wasn't good enough then you should have sent them back.

 

Why didn't you do what most other normal people do and just have contacted Littlewoods to clear this matter up?

 

Why did you ask if you could keep the goods in any case?

[MrShed]

Do you have the T&Cs to hand Al? Seems to me you are relying on T&Cs you are assuming to exist.

 

At least youve stopped banging on about it being theft and gone down the right track of breach of contract

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Do you have the T&Cs to hand Al? Seems to me you are relying on T&Cs you are assuming to exist.

 

At least youve stopped banging on about it being theft and gone down the right track of breach of contract

 

Erm, one would expect T&C's to exist in any transaction between a retailer and a customer!

 

And I look at the viewpoint of the retailer in this circumstance and what they may think could be happening here. Had the OP took your advice to keep the goods in a cupboard for 6 months then I'm sure they would eventually have got a knock on the door.

 

Just find it odd that the OP prefers to join this site asking if they can keep goods rather than just contacting Littlwoods in the first place.

[MrShed]

I dont personally, but obviously our moral values differ

 

The question isnt moral Al - it is legal. I dont think you can rely on the T&C argument until you have seen them.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I dont personally, but obviously our moral values differ

 

The question isnt moral Al - it is legal. I dont think you can rely on the T&C argument until you have seen them.

 

C'mon MrShed, be a bit more realistic!

 

One doesn't even need to read the T&C's to know what the OP needed to do in the circumstances they described here. And I'm not taking a moral stance either.

 

Had the OP just shut the goods away as you said they should then they would have had a bill to pay eventually. Littlewoods were aware they had sent the two items.

 

Not very good advice to lump a £600 bill on the OP for goods that they cancelled in the first place!:grin:

 

And all of the Littlewoods sites state the 'returns' obligations of the customer anyway, I've just read them.

 

And I stand by the fact that Littlwoods may have considered these transactions to be a possible deception too.

 

I know for a fact some criminals order goods via a (cloned/stolen) credit card and have the items delivered to an empty address, for example. I've been a delivery driver caught up in it!

 

So they may well have considered these transactions as suspicious considering the OP was asking if they can keep them!:grin:

 

(This is just what could have happened OP before you start screaming I'm casting aspersions!!:grin:)

 

 

Good one MrShed!:grin:

[MrShed]

Lol Al....shut up.

 

OK I concede that my advice above was wholly inappropriate.

 

Now I'll concede that its breach of contract if you concede that its not theft....deal???

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Fair enough Sheddy!

[raydetinu]

if you had not contacted them to make sure they were aware of the problem they may just have debited your card again! thhey have the details!

[onlynameleft]

I agree with Al on this actually.

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

The dishonesty need not come at the time when he actually takes possession of the goods.

Had the goods not been returned it would have been squarely within the definition of a theft.

[MrShed]

ONL, I'd be very interested to see case law that you can provide that will show that "appropriation" is ANYTHING OTHER than taking possession of in this context.

[onlynameleft]

Section 3(1) Theft Act 1968: "Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner."

So we clearly have dishonesty and we clearly have appropriation.

The appropriation need not take place at the time the person actually comes into possession of the goods.

I could probably find specific authority but given the wording of the statute itself would hope this isn't necessary.

Cheers

[MrShed]

I stand corrected!!

 

Fair comment ONL.