Subject:
|
Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:08:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> 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 if you think about it. I can't mail you
> something, then charge you for it. What if I sent you a postcard, then sent
> you a bill for $1000 for it? Would you pay? Of course not!!
Entirely true! In the vein of consumer protection the Congress of the United
States enacted legislation that protects the consumer from this kind of mail
fraud. Anything from Reader's Digest Books to CD's cannot be shipped to a
recipient without their approval and have the company that shipped the items
expect payment for the goods shipped.
However, if the recipient receives the goods and knows this to be in error than
the recipient is under no obligation to return the goods unless the company
that sent the goods requests the items back. Read the fine print on any
Reader's Digest shipment or BMG Music shipment and it will state, in not so
clearly worded language, receipt of goods, solicited or unsolicited,
constitutes an agreement on the part of the recipient to pay for goods
received. Plus there's that initial "membership" agreement which tends to lock
you into payment.
If the recipient does not desire the goods and the company requests these items
back then the consumer is not required to pay for return shipping and may
return items at the expense of the original shipper.
I never made the case that the parties were obligated under the postal code to
pay for the items. The fact is that they are in receipt of property that LEGO
Shop@Home did not intend to send them. In their original posting the
individuals indicated an ethical issue, which is all I believe this to be, in
which they were knowledgeable of receiving goods which they neither paid for
nor intended to pay for.
Subsequent postings have indicated that they have contacted the LEGO Shop@Home
division and have more than a tacit (implied or inferred) right to the goods
received but not purchased. Apparently this is a verbal agreement between the
recipient and a person that takes orders over the phone.
If it were me I would have spoken with a supervisor, obtained their name, and
asked for a letter of agreement stipulating that receipt of these goods
constituted a gift from LEGO Shop@Home. A bit excessive? Maybe not given the
litigious society we live in. Of course, LEGO Shop@Home is probably not
interested in the $120 dollars it lost in this exchange through a mistake made
by its computer ordering system or an employee. It probably costs more to fix
the mistake than to keep making it.
As for Jeremy, I am glad they get to keep the sets and they found way around
the practices and policies set forth by the greedy, evil company. I never
disavowed that they should keep the goods only that the do the ethical thing,
which in the end Jeremy did. They contacted LEGO Shop@Home and asked, "what
gives."
As far as I am concerned this is a testament to LEGO Group and its fundamental
policies and practices. Have you ever gotten a set and found pieces missing or
less than perfect pieces? In all my years I have only had one set with anything
missing and a simple call to the right parties at LEGO Group had the parts in
my hand in days. Try that with any other company and see what you get.
I am certain that LEGO Group has a standing policy not to upset the customer
should LEGO Group come out on the losing end of any transaction. I am
personally happy Jeremy profited as a result of the policy. It makes me hope
for the day when LEGO will error on my side and I will knowingly call the
company expecting that they will hand me the goods with a smile and not expect
payment or return of their property. (I will, of course, ask for this in
writing.)
Sincerely and always with the utmost respect for everyone!,
Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
