Goods delivered by mistake??

[MrShed]

There is certainly no criminal offence at all.

 

I actually think that the unsolicited goods regs do come in to it, as when the order is cancelled, it legally acts as if there was no order at all.

 

How long after cancellation did the goods come?

[MrShed]

Lets be completely unequivocal about this - there is NO criminal offence, nor will there be regardless of your actions.

 

The only question is whether you become obliged to pay at some point.

 

Personally in this situation, I would stick them in a cupboard for 6 months and forget about them. If they have not re-contacted in 6 months, use em - if they do, instruct them to collect them. I realise this is perhaps not the most "honest" of answers, but as littlewoods are rip off merchants anyway, I think its their own stupid fault that theyve delivered such a long time after cancellation.

[MrShed]

Also, how much are the goods, and did you sign for the delivery?

[MrShed]

I don't think that is the right way to go, 2 wrongs don't make a right and if they are not classed as unsolicited, then they will always remain the property of Littlewoods.

 

I agree legally. But realistically, if they dont realise after 6 months they arent likely to. But yes, I agree that action is possibly not the best way to go.

 

Wholly disagree with Al that it is classed as theft however. At best by his argument, its breach of contract.

 

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

 

There has been no "dishonest appropriation" here.

[MrShed]

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!

[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).

[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

[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!!

[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

[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.

[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???

[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.

[MrShed]

I stand corrected!!

 

Fair comment ONL.