Subject:
|
Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:19:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
934 times
|
| |
|
|
"Todd Thuma" <thumat@gactr.uga.edu> wrote in message
news:GtD0pH.1JE@lugnet.com...
> 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
If this happened to me, my initial reaction would be like you
Jeremy - Happy as hell that I received three free Super Chiefs.
Todd, along with others bring up excellent points. Like I said, my
initial reaction would not say nothing but I know myself better and I
would do the honest thing in the end and let S&H know about the
error in shipping. This is your choice. Sure it would be nice to have
these, but
I truely believe that you would do the right thing and let S&H know of
your situation.
Ken
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| (...) 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. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
