Goods received in error - obligations?

[xjay1337]

Nigel_O said:

Amazing - absolutely amazing....

Now that the watch company has had the watch back, they've refunded me the money that I didn't pay for the watch that I didn't order....

They seem to be hell bent on giving me a watch and now I've sent it back, they have given me the money instead...

I know the law about retaining money credited in error, so I'll be calling them in the morning, but I wonder how much profit is lost for companies due to admin cock-ups

I would just keep quiet and enjoy the £650.

[Nigel_O]

I've spoken with the head of customer services at the watch company - she was staggered that they had managed to cock up so many times and was very apologetic. She has said that she will organise the reclaiming of the erroneously paid £660, but that she will only reclaim 70% of it as compensation for the inconvenience

Yes, I could have kept quiet about the watch and kept it, but I'd have felt dishonest

Yes, I could have kept quiet about the money, but they would probably have sussed it by the end of the year, by which time it would have been spent...

I'm now a couple of hundred quid up for my honesty and more importantly, I feel that I've done the right thing

[RYH64E]

We sometimes get paid twice for the same customer invoices, it really isn't uncommon, if a transaction gets duplicated in the customer's system and signed off it gets paid twice. Unless the customer has really pissed me off I always refund their money, but the official advice from a fairly well know accountancy firm was to allocate the money to 'unearned income' until such time as the customer asked for it back, apparently that's what this particular accountancy firm do...

Cock ups, waste and general incompetence are huge costs for any company, it's very upsetting when it's your money being wasted.

[anonymous-user]

OP have you got a free watch yet?

[amancalledrob]

Learn2MergeInTurn said:

OP have you got a free watch yet?

If he can buy one he likes for £198.00, then yes

[7795]

Nigel_O said:

I've spoken with the head of customer services at the watch company - she was staggered that they had managed to cock up so many times and was very apologetic. She has said that she will organise the reclaiming of the erroneously paid £660, but that she will only reclaim 70% of it as compensation for the inconvenience

Yes, I could have kept quiet about the watch and kept it, but I'd have felt dishonest

Yes, I could have kept quiet about the money, but they would probably have sussed it by the end of the year, by which time it would have been spent...

I'm now a couple of hundred quid up for my honesty and more importantly, I feel that I've done the right thing

HAHAHA....ignore my earlier mini-rant OP, good effort. You ultimately seem to be infinitely more tolerant and patient than me and these guys seem like imbeciles!

Good effort...

[bad company]

xjay1337 said:

I would just keep quiet and enjoy the £650.

Yes, me too.

[Nigel_O]

amancalledrob said:

If he can buy one he likes for £198.00, then yes

A further update - wrongs have been righted!

As a return gesture for their very kind offer of allowing me to keep some of the funds they sent me by error, I asked if I could "recycle" their gift into buying a watch from their clearance range AND for them to honour the discount voucher (now expired) that they gave me with the very first watch.

It was a pretty cheeky request, but to their credit, the company has agreed to honour the voucher code, which means I've got a great Christmas present for my eldest son at a bargain price (the original watch was for my youngest son's 25th birthday).

Seems everyone's happy now

[Janluke]

Until they send you two of them

[MrBarry123]

You don't learn do you OP?!



Good result though.

[JustinP1]

Janluke said:

Until they send you two of them

[johnfm]

Nigel_O said:

johnfm said:

You're an involuntary bailee of their property.

You have obligations to keep the watch safe. Google Bailment.

You cannot just keep it or sell it without following the necessary notice requirements of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act.

Lifted from t'internet

Baiment - "The temporary placement of control over, or possession of Personal Property by one person, the bailor, into the hands of another, the bailee, for a designated purpose upon which the parties have agreed"

It seems to fit the bill, apart from the fact that I didn't agree to be the bailee - in fact I specifically requested that they didn't send the watch.

To address earlier comments:-

It might be debatable whether the watch is unsolicited - I didn't order THIS watch, I ordered a previous one, and that order was fulfilled - this is an inadvertent duplication of the order. Def: "Given or supplied without being requested or asked for". I didn't request it or ask for it, in fact I specifically requested NOT to receive it when I became aware that it was on its way.

The earlier faulty watch was returned by them sending a pre-paid postage bag, which I then had to arrange for someone else to take to the Post Office. I'm not averse to doing this again, but when I advised the company that the watch had been delivered, I asked them to arrange a courier collection, to which they agreed. They seem to have forgotten to actually arrange it though.

Hence me typing 'involuntary' in front of 'bailee'.