company overpaid me

[eerelations]

not a troll, but when people make remarks that i believe are insults, i will reply in kind. the first few people to reply to this thread were respectful of my question, then the following poster were not

You admit to being a sleazeball, you get treated like a sleazeball.

 

[cbg]

Knowingly keeping money that you received in error, that you did not earn, and that you KNOW you are not entitled to, is called stealing in many circles.

 

[DaffyDuck]

Knowingly keeping money that you received in error, that you did not earn, and that you KNOW you are not entitled to, is called stealing in many circles.

But how does he know for sure that it was an error? Is it his obligation (legally) to check? Can anyone cite case law or something? Don't make me wikipedia your arses.

 

[Silverplum]

We don't play by your calls, duckyboy.

But how does he know for sure that it was an error? Is it his obligation (legally) to check? Can anyone cite case law or something? Don't make me wikipedia your arses.

We also don't "do" crass or foul language here. Grow up.

 

[cbg]

If you consider wikipedia the be all and end all of all research, that tells us everything we need to know about you, little boy.

My 30+ years experience in the field trumps your 30 seconds of wiki research any day of the week.

 

[anteater]

Don't make me wikipedia your arses.

Wik away, my feathered friend.

 

[eerelations]

But how does he know for sure that it was an error? Is it his obligation (legally) to check? Can anyone cite case law or something? Don't make me wikipedia your arses.

He has already stated quite clearly that he knows for sure it was an error. He is not asking whether or not he's legally obliged to check, he is asking if he can keep the money knowing it was an error, and if the answer to that is "no" then how long he can keep the money before he's legally obliged to return it.

And I agree with others on this, anyone who takes Wikipaedia as his main source of information is living in a delusion.