what about wrote:
"Unsolicited goods are those goods which are sent to someone without being asked those goods to be sent ... Consumers can retain unsolicited goods or dispose them as they wish. They are under no obligation to keep them safe or to return them.."
Yep, I agree with this. He didn't ask for the tv, and is under no obligation to return it.
Looks like a lawsuit against the PD and whoever else caused the action that was taken against him is in order.
free_the_thigh wrote:
The Guru Matt James wrote:
I believe the theory of unsolicited goods applies to goods that were sent intentionally. This was an error. See what happens when the bank accidently deposits $1k in your account.
ya, im not sure he should get to keep the tv, but i feel like that is distracting from the real issue, whether or not the cops should have gotten involved, which they absolutely shouldnt have
+1
He shoulda just tossed out in his driveway and said: come get it.
moral question wrote:
Slight tangent but I'm curious as to how people on the thread would respond to a lesser situation:
You order a pair of shoes from an online store. Two pairs show up. What do you do?
Do you have a moral obligation to return the extra pair, even if there's no legal one? Is it okay because it's a big company? Where do you draw the line?
Personally - I would contact them and ask them to send me a return shipping label.
I return them.
Smoove wrote:
For the state statute on the issue, see:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter266/Section30I will let you all debate the specifics now that you have them. I would note that he may have been charged under the local municipal code, but that is not freely available.
The relevant part of the statute:
Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.
I don't think this applies. From a couple of postings here it looks like if it was sent to him by mistake by the company he can keep it. The statute above would be applicable if he stole it off the neighbor's porch or somehow defrauded the company into sending it to him.
The article really does not answer some key questions:
1) Was the tv sent to him at that address or did the delivery guy drop off the tv that was addressed to someone else (even at that address)? If the tv was addressed to someone else and he signed for it with that person's name then I think there could be a legal issue.
2) If the tv had someone else's address on it, then he stole it. It seems like there ought to be information on what the shipping label says and what he signed.
I am surprised this is the law to be honest.
Smoove wrote:
For the state statute on the issue, see:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter266/Section30I will let you all debate the specifics now that you have them. I would note that he may have been charged under the local municipal code, but that is not freely available.
The relevant part of the statute:
Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.
Maybe you can also looking practicing law in Mass with only a Florida license.
It's pretty sad the guy couldn't afford the 86" version in the first place.
This generation might never experience prosperity.
Alter AOC wrote:
It's pretty sad the guy couldn't afford the 86" version in the first place.
This generation might never experience prosperity.
I'm experiencing prosperity just fine. Maybe that guy is just lazy.
doing okay wrote:
Alter AOC wrote:
It's pretty sad the guy couldn't afford the 86" version in the first place.
This generation might never experience prosperity.
I'm experiencing prosperity just fine. Maybe that guy is just lazy.
Dude didnt have to let the cops in to see it, fer crissakes. He shoulda said "i dont know what youre talking about," and shut the door.
Luv2Run wrote:
Smoove wrote:
For the state statute on the issue, see:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter266/Section30I will let you all debate the specifics now that you have them. I would note that he may have been charged under the local municipal code, but that is not freely available.
The relevant part of the statute:
Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.
I don't think this applies. From a couple of postings here it looks like if it was sent to him by mistake by the company he can keep it. The statute above would be applicable if he stole it off the neighbor's porch or somehow defrauded the company into sending it to him.
The article really does not answer some key questions:
1) Was the tv sent to him at that address or did the delivery guy drop off the tv that was addressed to someone else (even at that address)? If the tv was addressed to someone else and he signed for it with that person's name then I think there could be a legal issue.
2) If the tv had someone else's address on it, then he stole it. It seems like there ought to be information on what the shipping label says and what he signed.
I am surprised this is the law to be honest.
The law cited may or may not apply, but you would need to look at the definition of "stealing" to be sure. Stealing, or larceny or however they define it in Mass. Larceny typically involves the taking of property without the owner's consent. If the TV was given freely to the guy by the owner (or in this case, the owner's agent) then it would follow he had consent for the transfer of the property. If he was given the TV under false pretenses (i.e. he said he was the intended recipient when he was not for instance) then maybe it was stealing.
Alter AOC wrote:
It's pretty sad the guy couldn't afford the 86" version in the first place.
This generation might never experience prosperity.
Fortunately when Yang2020 institutes UBI (universal basic income) then everyone will be able to afford two TVs in every room, just as our Founders intended.
it's what they do wrote:
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what cops are. Police departments in the US are essentially private security firms that work for corporations.
Even more so the military. Their job is less about protecting us from foreign threats, and more about enforcing the will of corporate America overseas.
moral question wrote:
Slight tangent but I'm curious as to how people on the thread would respond to a lesser situation:
You order a pair of shoes from an online store. Two pairs show up. What do you do?
Do you have a moral obligation to return the extra pair, even if there's no legal one? Is it okay because it's a big company? Where do you draw the line?
Personally - I would contact them and ask them to send me a return shipping label.
Keep the shoes. The company has set up its inventory control and shipping system in a way that will maximize its own profit. For example, the company may have decided that paying someone minimum wage and not having an extra checker is well worth the extra mistakes that occur versus paying people more or having more checkers. So the mistakes are part of its business model. There is no reason that the consumer needs to help the company make more profits. That’s not how capitalism works.
In fact, if everyone gave the shoes back, there may be a number of unintended consequences. It would encourage the company to pay its workers less or hire fewer of them. More mistakes would occur as the company gets a free pass for all of its mistakes.
Now if a clerk at a store gives the wrong change, that is different because then the clerk may get in trouble, and the clerk likely did not select this as the business model and made a mistake that you could be in a position to help fix.
There has to be more to this story as this should have been a civil case and not a police matter. The police didn't merely show up at the guy's door and arrest him. They questioned him previously and then came back to make the arrest.
SJ Warrior wrote:
That's so racist!
Oh wait. Nevermind.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
AMAZING POST!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
AMAZING POST!
sign of a creative, and advanced mind!
WOW!
it's what they do wrote:
free_the_thigh wrote:
wtf, this is ridiculous
How is this a criminal matter, why were the police even involved?
This is 100% a civil matter, if the company wants the tv back, proceed civilly against him.
I feel like this story is missing some important details.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what cops are. Police departments in the US are essentially private security firms that work for corporations. Once you understand this, their activities will make more sense.
No, they're civil servants stuck working for politicos who are bribed or blackmailed from DC all the way down to the city level - politicos who are beholden to "our greatest ally" whose diaspora is dedicated to destroying the US and the West. Do some research instead of quoting their marxist claptrap, and once you understand this everything will make more sense.
SJ Warrior wrote:
That's so racist!
Oh wait. Nevermind.
He was singled out by the Deep State because he is a Trump supporter.
You should probably do your civic duty and report me to the Massachusetts Bar for posting a state statute.
it's what they do wrote:
free_the_thigh wrote:
wtf, this is ridiculous
How is this a criminal matter, why were the police even involved?
This is 100% a civil matter, if the company wants the tv back, proceed civilly against him.
I feel like this story is missing some important details.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what cops are. Police departments in the US are essentially private security firms that work for corporations. Once you understand this, their activities will make more sense.
Uh-huh, right. We'll see how smug you are when there's a burglar in your home.
Luv2Run wrote:
Smoove wrote:
For the state statute on the issue, see:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter266/Section30I will let you all debate the specifics now that you have them. I would note that he may have been charged under the local municipal code, but that is not freely available.
The relevant part of the statute:
Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny,
I don't think this applies. From a couple of postings here it looks like if it was sent to him by mistake by the company he can keep it. The statute above would be applicable if he stole it off the neighbor's porch or somehow defrauded the company into sending it to him.
The article really does not answer some key questions:
1) Was the tv sent to him at that address or did the delivery guy drop off the tv that was addressed to someone else (even at that address)? If the tv was addressed to someone else and he signed for it with that person's name then I think there could be a legal issue.
2) If the tv had someone else's address on it, then he stole it. It seems like there ought to be information on what the shipping label says and what he signed.
I am surprised this is the law to be honest.
I don't see your questions as relevant here.
Facts (as I understand them):
1. He ordered one TV and was delivered two.
2. He didn't tell them shipping company that one of the TVs delivered to him was not his. (secretes with intent to convert)
3. When asked for the extra TV back by the shipping company he apparently ignored their calls. (secretes with intent to convert)
4. When questioned by the police he played dumb answering 'I don't know' (secretes with intent to convert)
5. Finally, he admits that he knows he was possibly doing something illegal (quote: You know, it’s a scratch ticket. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose)
Pretty cut and dry case, to me --> not a lawyer. Guy doesn't sound too bright, really. It's one thing to ignore the shipping company's requests in the hopes they give up or forget about it but when they get the police involved it's probably time to give up the game.
Can anyone explain to me why anyone needs (or wants) an 86 inch (or 74 inch) television in the first place?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion