Subject:
|
Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:32:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
856 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Jeremy Scott writes:
>
> "The Free Super Chiefs"
>
> After recieving the letter denying the right to buy 10 more 10020's, my Dad
> called LSAH and begun to order 3 more to send to his Mom's. So he got past
> the "ship to" info and they begun the "bill to" info. My dad told the guy
> his info. The guy checked our account and said that the limit of 3 was
> achieved. So, my Dad said, "just to spite you, I'll have my Mom order 3 for
> herself!" and hung up the phone. By that afternoon, three were in the mail
> to my grandma's place.
>
> Last Saturday they arrived. We called her and asked if we could come by and
> get them. She said yes but should there be two boxes. "TWO???" we thought.
> We get there to find that not only the three she ordered were shipped, but
> three more were shipped and the invoice was blank! We checked the credit
> card report to find that there was never a charge to my Dad's card. We got
> three for free!
>
> "The best deal on the 10020 ever!"
>
> The End
>
> Hope you enjoyed my absolutely true story. NO LIES!!!
>
> Jeremy Scott
Dear Mr. Gloats-A-Lot (A.K.A. Jeremy Scott),
I hope you realize the difficult position that you have placed yourself, your
father and your grandmother. Strict interpretation of the law will reveal that
you are in possession of stolen property. If LEGO Shop@Home were to send you a
letter requesting the return of a quantity of three 10020 Santa Fe Super Chief
Limited Edition Sets and a return mailer with postage paid, I would advise you
to return the sets immediately or offer payment for the sets to LEGO Shop@Home.
You seem to be under the impression that because LEGO Shop@Home sent these to
you without charging you for them you are in the clear. Let me asure you that
you are not. I am not a lawyer and do not practice the law, but I can assure
you of personal knowledge of several court case and case law that will back me
up on this.
First, you have used a public form to openly admit receipt of property that you
have not paid for. The tenure of you posting indicates that you do not intend
to pay for them or make restitution to LEGO Shop@Home for the receipt of their
property. Second, by having them sent to your Grandmother's house you have
included her as an accessory to the crime. Third, if you are under the age of
18 your father can be found guilty of several charges as well.
This all depends on the veracity of LEGO Shop@Home, its lawyers and the
District Attorney in your area. I am not joking!
Also I would like to point out that at the fulfillment center where this order
was filled, it is possible that an employee may be required to pay for their
mistake or they might "turn on you" and offer you up for a reduced sentence. Do
you really want to be responsible for some hard working person being required
to make restitution out of their pay, or worse yet lose their job.
I hope a lawyer reads this and backs me up. A year ago I sat on a jury and had
to decide the quilt or innocence of 6 people involved in a scam on a local
merchant. Two of the people on trial were employees of the nation retail chain
and they were assisting 3 others with "purchasing" items. The employees would
pretend to scan an item and across the laser scanner and then de-securitize it
and place it in a shopping bag. Out of 8 to 10 items only one or two would be
rung up. Some of the items would even be brought back to the store and the same
two employees would give cash back for the items without a receipt.
The 6th person in this capper was the one no one thought could get included in
this crime. The grandmother of 2 of the "shoppers" kept the stolen clothing at
her house. The DA very carefully laid out how she was an accessory to the crime
because (1) she refused to return the items even ones that had been marked by a
security system as stolen (long story), and (2) she knew the items were stolen
but never took action to return the items or change the behavior of people in
her care. One of the 2 "shoppers" was under 18. She was additionally charged
with contributing to the deliquency of a minor and receipt of stolen property.
The law is quite clear on this point. If you have received property that is not
yours and you have not purchased or bartered for, you are in possession of
"stolen" property, regardless of whether LEGO Shop@Home sent it to you or not.
Do the right thing and contact LEGO Shop@Home. Offer to pay for the 3 Santa Fe
Super Chiefs. If they will not accept payment but want them back then ask them
to pay for the shipping, you shouldn't be required to pay. Better yet, they may
reward your honesty by letting you keep one or two or maybe all three. If they
do, ask for a letter stipulating as such for your records, just in case. Then
you can walk away from this with a clear conscious.
Sincerely and with all due respect,
Todd
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Heh, I know it's a pain to read to the end of a long thread, but in this case you may want to... (22 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| "Todd Thuma" <thumat@gactr.uga.edu> wrote in message news:GtD0pH.1JE@lugnet.com... (...) Dad (...) past (...) guy (...) for (...) mail (...) and (...) thought. (...) but (...) got (...) your (...) that (...) you a (...) Chief (...) you (...) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma writes: <snipped long and well-written post> United States postal regulations say that if someone sends you something that you don't order, they cannot ask you to pay for, or return, that item. This makes a lot of sense (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: The Free (blank items)
|
| <snip> I've been very out of pocket and I missed the very fact that this thread is going on. I'd like to sincerely ask that any further discussion on this topic, if it relates to the question of items being free or not, or being under limited (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The Free Super Chiefs
|
| (...) Okay, My Dad too tried this and the lady on the phone accepted our order for ten more. (This was weeks ago...) We got a letter in the mail saying that our order was canceled due to the limited nature of the series. They must double check (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
