What offence is being committed
Discussion
Not hypothetical unfortunately, a guy I know placed an online order and cancelled immediately after placing that order and the payment was refunded
Supplier delivers not one but three of the items and the guy signed for them without opening the boxes.
When the boxes are opened the mistake becomes apparent, the company is informed and sends a courier to collect however this chap refuses to allow them to collect them as they have provided him with no returns note. He also refuses at least one further attempt
Items are worth £600 each and he now plans to sell them
Clearly morally wrong and no doubt illegal but what offence is being committed?
Supplier delivers not one but three of the items and the guy signed for them without opening the boxes.
When the boxes are opened the mistake becomes apparent, the company is informed and sends a courier to collect however this chap refuses to allow them to collect them as they have provided him with no returns note. He also refuses at least one further attempt
Items are worth £600 each and he now plans to sell them
Clearly morally wrong and no doubt illegal but what offence is being committed?
BertBert said:
Bigends said:
If theres no dishonesty on the his part and he insists on the couriers following the proper procedure before handing the goods back then maybe not theft
What would this proper procedure be?Hes certainly not entitled to sell them.
t a criminal offence?liner33 said:
H..... said:
Why an invoice? He doesn't want the goods, surely the returns note, as requested, would have solved the problem?
Do they need to give him a returns note since they are unsolicited ?Based on the information given in your OP I would say Theft.
Definition:
"1 Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit."
The area in question is 'dishonestly':
"2“Dishonestly”
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."
a)What right in law is he claiming? He placed an order, paid & then cancelled. There was clearly an error in company procedure so the item plus 2 were delivered. The company want them back & he is aware of this. I would argue that these items are not 'unsolicited goods'.
Ultimately it would be for a jury - the man on the Clapham Omnibus - to decide & R v Ghosh may be of interest:
"Lord Lane CJ
"In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.
If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest."
R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Court of Appeal
b) Doesn't apply. He doesn't have consent of the owner. The company want the property back and have made attempts to recover it.
c) Doesn't apply. He knows who the property belongs to.
I stand to be corrected!
(Would 'your friend' be interested in setting promotion exam questions
)
Definition:
"1 Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit."
The area in question is 'dishonestly':
"2“Dishonestly”
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."
a)What right in law is he claiming? He placed an order, paid & then cancelled. There was clearly an error in company procedure so the item plus 2 were delivered. The company want them back & he is aware of this. I would argue that these items are not 'unsolicited goods'.
Ultimately it would be for a jury - the man on the Clapham Omnibus - to decide & R v Ghosh may be of interest:
"Lord Lane CJ
"In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.
If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest."
R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Court of Appeal
b) Doesn't apply. He doesn't have consent of the owner. The company want the property back and have made attempts to recover it.
c) Doesn't apply. He knows who the property belongs to.
I stand to be corrected!
(Would 'your friend' be interested in setting promotion exam questions
)Edited by paintman on Saturday 5th December 14:19
Bigends said:
If he hands them over without some paperwork - the couriers could allege hes still got the goods and never returned them
Nothing to do with the courier, they don't care who has received or returned them. If the seller hasn't sent a proper collection note enabling the courier to give the customer a receipt then that's down to the seller. I quite often get sent to collect stuff with pre-paid shipping labels but because it's all done via email there is no physical receipt i can give the person i'm collecting from liner33 said:
Not hypothetical unfortunately, a guy I know placed an online order and cancelled immediately after placing that order and the payment was refunded
Supplier delivers not one but three of the items and the guy signed for them without opening the boxes.
When the boxes are opened the mistake becomes apparent, the company is informed and sends a courier to collect however this chap refuses to allow them to collect them as they have provided him with no returns note. He also refuses at least one further attempt
Items are worth £600 each and he now plans to sell them
Clearly morally wrong and no doubt illegal but what offence is being committed?
The guy signs for the three boxes and when he opens them he realises there is a mistake.You say the company is informed,WHO INFORMED THE COMPANY as I doubt it was the delivery driver as he has had his signed paperwork and left and guess it was not the guy who received the parcels as he was the one who refused collection and thinking he could make a few bob as he plans to sell them.Supplier delivers not one but three of the items and the guy signed for them without opening the boxes.
When the boxes are opened the mistake becomes apparent, the company is informed and sends a courier to collect however this chap refuses to allow them to collect them as they have provided him with no returns note. He also refuses at least one further attempt
Items are worth £600 each and he now plans to sell them
Clearly morally wrong and no doubt illegal but what offence is being committed?
If it was the guy who informed the company and then refused several attempts to collect the goods he a bit of a dick head in my opinion.He should either let the company collect the goods as I am sure if asked would provide a collection note or the courier would provide paperwork that the goods were collected.Or he should have kept quiet as the goods may have been dispatched thinking the guy had paid for them and may never be the wiser so if he is dishonest could have sold the goods.
Edited by btcc123 on Saturday 5th December 15:56
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff