[Squawks]

It's actually against the law to take something that you know isn't yours.

For example, the classic case of a guy who robs a bank, loses the sack of cash and it's mysteriously 'found' by another guy not associated with the bank robbery - that guy must return the cash and if he doesn't, is and will be prosecuted by the law for theft (and in this case, grand theft).

Note that in your case, the simple fact that they shipped something to your address is by no means any indication that they are giving you the item. There is no contract (apparently no valid receipt/invoice if they never received a payment) so therefore the item you received in the mail addressed to you really isn't yours and if they want, they can prosecute you for theft, assuming they can prove that you did indeed receive and accept the package.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by Squawks

It's actually against the law to take something that you know isn't yours.

For example, the classic case of a guy who robs a bank, loses the sack of cash and it's mysteriously 'found' by another guy not associated with the bank robbery - that guy must return the cash and if he doesn't, is and will be prosecuted by the law for theft (and in this case, grand theft).

Note that in your case, the simple fact that they shipped something to your address is by no means any indication that they are giving you the item. There is no contract (apparently no valid receipt/invoice if they never received a payment) so therefore the item you received in the mail addressed to you really isn't yours and if they want, they can prosecute you for theft, assuming they can prove that you did indeed receive and accept the package.

Thank you!


Shim- if she was gonna give it back in the first place, why would she create this thread?

[Nikki]

Just to go along with my buttered popcorn.

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by BMWE90

Thank you!


Shim- if she was gonna give it back in the first place, why would she create this thread?

What she said.

[Nikki]

yum, now time to ace my third final.

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by BMWE90

Shim- if she was gonna give it back in the first place, why would she create this thread?

Hahah, good psychology there, kenny - Nikki obviously not going to return when she's asking if they can prosecute her upon her not returning the item.

Also, another prime example of this whole issue is the case of lost-and-found.

If some loses a Rolex (that's engraved/serial-numbered so as to prove their ownership), somebody else finds it a year later, and the original owner sees this person wearing it, sees the engraving - then the original owner can prosecute that person for theft. Period. End of story. Here, the mailed item is considered lost.

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Hahah, good psychology there, kenny - Nikki obviously not going to return when she's asking if they can prosecute her upon her not returning the item.

Also, another prime example of this whole issue is the case of lost-and-found.

If some loses a Rolex (that's engraved/serial-numbered so as to prove their ownership), somebody else finds it a year later, and the original owner sees this person wearing it, sees the engraving - then the original owner can prosecute that person for theft. Period. End of story. Here, the mailed item is considered lost.

lol the Rolex situation you mentioned and this situation is different. There are invoices, not to mention a whole bunch of CC transactions, etc. Hell, if they were to sue her for "theft", she could counter-sue on the basis of fraud.

[Nikki]

Wel just to fill in some details, this story was not about me anyways, I was just curious.

[deutschmann59]

Let me guess, Nik...you've got this "FRIEND" right?

[Nikki]

yeah, but i wanted to know incase i was ever in a similar situation in the future. although i would probably just return it anyways, since i'm a nice moral person.

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by shimshimhada

lol the Rolex situation you mentioned and this situation is different. There are invoices, not to mention a whole bunch of CC transactions, etc. Hell, if they were to sue her for "theft", she could counter-sue on the basis of fraud.

Nope - no fraud was ever involved on the sender's behalf.

As a matter of fact, it's the same as me purchasing an item online, they ship it to me, I request a refund - they give me my money back first but I don't send them the item back. Exact same applies here. End of story.

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Nope - no fraud was ever involved on the sender's behalf.

As a matter of fact, it's the same as me purchasing an item online, they ship it to me, I request a refund - they give me my money back first but I don't send them the item back. Exact same applies here. End of story.

What I am saying is that she can't be sued if they never asked her to send back the item, which they said was out of stock, but shipped anyway.

I am so digging myself deeper.

[Nikki]

I did say that they tried to contact the buyer

[deutschmann59]

I'm confused. How could they ship something that the didn't have? Even by accident?

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Nikki

I did say that they tried to contact the buyer

Didn't you say they were unable too?

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by sharp1183

I'm confused. How could they ship something that the didn't have? Even by accident?

I think that item was supposed to be sent to another custom who ordered it before Nikki (before the item was out of stock).

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by shimshimhada

What I am saying is that she can't be sued if they never asked her to send back the item, which they said was out of stock, but shipped anyway.

Doesn't matter - they obviously won't sue unless she refuses to ship back the item first (and they obviously will redeem her for shipping costs). If they sue, they will obviously win.

If they don't contact the original buyer, then it's as if they dropped some bills from their pocket without ever noticing. It's up to the finder's morals whether to return it or not.

Here's an interesting bit of read for you guys dated a month ago (March 28) where a hiker in San Francisco returned a Louis Vuitton bag found on a park bench containing a 12-carat diamond on top of pearls and emeralds with a total worth of over $1,000,000 back to the original owners via the police station:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28032006/...lry-worth.html

Hiker must not be Nikki (or her presupposed friend), I believe.

[CALIF65GM]

I had a somewhat similar situation; although, in mines I had paid and didn't get a refund.
Basically the warehouse closest to me was out of stock, so they shipped it from another warehouse, fine and dandy. Then a day later, I get the exact same shipment from the closest warehouse that was supposedly out of inventory.

I called the company to try to return it. The Rep put me on hold to contact the warehouse and finally came back and just told me to keep it for free since it would have been too much hassle.

[FeeBear]

I think it comes under larceny if they ask for it back and she refuses. In Massachusetts, it is a Felony only if it is worth more than $250.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Doesn't matter - they obviously won't sue unless she refuses to ship back the item first (and they obviously will redeem her for shipping costs). If they sue, they will obviously win.

If they don't contact the original buyer, then it's as if they dropped some bills from their pocket without ever noticing. It's up to the finder's morals whether to return it or not.

Here's an interesting bit of read for you guys dated a month ago (March 28) where a hiker in San Francisco returned a Louis Vuitton bag found on a park bench containing a 12-carat diamond on top of pearls and emeralds with a total worth of over $1,000,000 back to the original owners via the police station:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28032006/...lry-worth.html

Hiker must not be Nikki (or her presupposed friend), I believe.

My dad told me about that last week. That was some crazy stuff. She has over a mil worth of stuff in her purse alone. He said even the purse is very expensive. I recalled he mentioned they were Canadians??

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Squawks

Doesn't matter - they obviously won't sue unless she refuses to ship back the item first (and they obviously will redeem her for shipping costs). If they sue, they will obviously win.

If they don't contact the original buyer, then it's as if they dropped some bills from their pocket without ever noticing. It's up to the finder's morals whether to return it or not.

Here's an interesting bit of read for you guys dated a month ago (March 28) where a hiker in San Francisco returned a Louis Vuitton bag found on a park bench containing a 12-carat diamond on top of pearls and emeralds with a total worth of over $1,000,000 back to the original owners via the police station:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28032006/...lry-worth.html

Hiker must not be Nikki (or her presupposed friend), I believe.

I bet he got a whole dollar as a reward.

[Squawks]

Originally Posted by BMWE90

I recalled he mentioned they were Canadians??

Yup, they were Canadians down here for a wedding (supposedly) but the fact they carried so much in terms of worth in a single bag is quite suspicious (especially across the border).

I'm in the middle of watching The Sopranos so some thoughts come to mind as to who these Canadians might be...(hey, no offense, Stew!).