Subject:
|
Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:12:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
594 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> > If it was delivered by the USPS, you are by law allowed to keep it if
> > you did not order it. Since they only tried to order three, not 6, the
> > 2nd three were not ordered. I think one can assume similar rules for
> > other delivery services.
>
> Legally, sure. But the issue was "is it stealing based on Xian values?"
> and I think it fairly clearly was.
I think it's still debatable. Of course I mentioned that depending on
the circumstances, I would take the effort to help the sender correct
their mistake. While I don't call my self a Christian, it is certainly
in my values to try and be fair.
Of course in this instance, another important fact was pointed out. The
items arrived with a blank invoice. This is definitely different yet
again from the situation of someone sending something to you that you
didn't order, either because they messed up or are trying to stick you
with something (which is why the law was written, I guess companies used
to send goods with a bill, and expect the recipient to take the time to
properly return the item if not wanted, or just decide it wasn't worth
the hassle, and pay some inflated price). The blank invoice at least
indicates that from an "official" standpoint, the company intended to
send the item to you for free. Now there is still the question of
whether someone made a mistake, or even abused their position and
intentionally sent you the item for free.
In the end, TLC either made a mistake or intended to ship the items for
free. The question is how much obligation do I have to correct their
mistake. It will at least cost me time to return the item (my guess in
the end is that TLC would say "keep the item" since it probably isn't
worth their time and expense to have the items returned).
David Koudy's also brought up stories of found money. I would note that
that is again a different situation. Also, the law actually states what
your obligation is to return the property (you can't just keep it, you
do need to make an attempt to contact the owner, turning it into the
cops is sufficient, and then if the owner doesn't come forth after some
period of time, you may return to the police station and claim the
property). In this case their is no evidence of intent for the owner of
the money to transfer it to you which is different from the Super Chiefs
(where intent is established by the shipping labels, and the blank
invoice). The money lying on the ground is the same as your car (I can't
just drive off with your car because you obviously abandoned it and
intended to give it to whoever wanted it because you couldn't be
troubled with it while you ran into Blockbuster to chose a video to
watch with your wife). Just because your property is accessible to the
public doesn't mean you have given up any rights to it.
It is sad that people aren't more honest with found money. On the other
hand, few will complain should you decide to keep the quarter you found
on the ground (even though by the letter of the law, you should turn it
in).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| (...) Darn. Good points. After I posted, it occurred to me that my analogy was flawed, but it was too late. (...) Legally, sure. But the issue was "is it stealing based on Xian values?" and I think it fairly clearly was. Dave! (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
