• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Item sent worth more than what I ordered. Can I keep it?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Yortie

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

I ordered an hard drive on ebay, and received something worth significantly more (over 10x what I paid) and is much larger capacity. Can I keep this item legally? I've had it for over a month with no word from seller, and just today the company called me saying they will give my information over to law enforcement today if they do not hear back from me about it being returned to them. They claim it is "proprietary property" and "although it is erased, it contains encrypted sensitive information meant for the police and is illegal for me to be in possession of," but was a brand-new/never used/sealed product, and when I hooked it up over a month ago there was nothing on it. Can they file a lawsuit against me for anything?
 
Last edited:


tranquility

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

I ordered an hard drive on ebay, and received something worth significantly more (over 10x what I paid) and is much larger capacity. Can I keep this item legally? I've had it for over a month with no word from seller, and just today the company called me saying they will give my information over to law enforcement today if they do not hear back from me about it being returned to them. They claim it is "proprietary property" and "although it is erased, it contains encrypted sensitive information meant for the police and is illegal for me to be in possession of," but was a brand-new/never used/sealed product, and when I hooked it up over a month ago there was nothing on it. Can they file a lawsuit against me for anything?
Of course they can. Without getting into the information, the mere fact the drive was sent in error and you keeping it after a demand for its return is called conversion. They can consider the new drive sold for what it is worth. That is, you would owe them the difference between what it is worth and what you paid. If it does get to court, sending the drive back for a replacement drive of the correct value will not be the remedy they would choose.

As to the legal status of the purported information, that too could result in damages. However, there is not enough information to hazard a guess as to if or what they are talking about at this point.
 

Yortie

Junior Member
Thank you for the information tranquility. I work with computers every day refurbishing and repairing them, and the "sensitive information" they are talking about was not present at all, encrypted or not. It was a brand new, zero hour use drive (manufacturer's own program verified 0-use hours). I feel they added this bit to push for a hasty return. I will contact them about returning it though, the possibility of a lawsuit is too great simply based on value of the item (which is over $2000 retail).

Another question, it was sent to me and I opened the package (naturally). Now that they are asking for it to be returned, can I be held liable for the difference in price new vs used? I wasn't sure of what was in the box when I first opened it, so I removed the drive from the package to hook it up/check what it was. Only when it was hooked up did I realize it was not exactly what I ordered. I feel it is reasonable that I would open the item they sent me before being able to verify it was the correct item (the bag is not completely see through).
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Thank you for the information tranquility. I work with computers every day refurbishing and repairing them, and the "sensitive information" they are talking about was not present at all, encrypted or not. It was a brand new, zero hour use drive (manufacturer's own program verified 0-use hours). I feel they added this bit to push for a hasty return. I will contact them about returning it though, the possibility of a lawsuit is too great simply based on value of the item (which is over $2000 retail).

Another question, it was sent to me and I opened the package (naturally). Now that they are asking for it to be returned, can I be held liable for the difference in price new vs used? I wasn't sure of what was in the box when I first opened it, so I removed the drive from the package to hook it up/check what it was. Only when it was hooked up did I realize it was not exactly what I ordered. I feel it is reasonable that I would open the item they sent me before being able to verify it was the correct item (the bag is not completely see through).
The box isn't labeled?
 

Yortie

Junior Member
No, it was a plain brown box with just a shipping label and the item inside was "bulk-packaging" so it was just a hard drive in a dark sealed anti-static bag.
The invoice inside the box stated the correct item I ordered and value, but the serial # on the invoice was of the mistaken hard drive.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
§ 2-513. Buyer's Right to Inspection of Goods.
(1) Unless otherwise agreed and subject to subsection (3), where goods are tendered or delivered or identified to the contract for sale, the buyer has a right before payment or acceptance to inspect them at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner. When the selleris required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival.

(2) Expenses of inspection must be borne by the buyer but may be recovered from the seller if the goodsdo not conform and are rejected.

(3) Unless otherwise agreed and subject to the provisions of this Article on C.I.F. contracts (subsection (3) of Section 2-321), the buyer is not entitled to inspect the goodsbefore payment of the price when the contract provides

(a) for delivery "C.O.D." or on other like terms; or
(b) for payment against documents of title, except where such payment is due only after the goods are to become available for inspection.
(4) A place or method of inspection fixed by the parties is presumed to be exclusive but unless otherwise expressly agreed it does not postpone identification or shift the place for delivery or for passing the risk of loss. If compliance becomes impossible, inspection shall be as provided in this section unless the place or method fixed was clearly intended as an indispensable condition failure of which avoids the contract.
But, look to all the UCC. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2) Others may apply as well. 2-602, 2-605, 2-606, 2-709 and 2-710 might be relevant.
 

Yortie

Junior Member
They responded and sent me a return label, it's on it's way back to the seller. Hope nothing negative comes from it.
 

quincy

Senior Member
They responded and sent me a return label, it's on it's way back to the seller. Hope nothing negative comes from it.
The error in shipment was theirs not yours. I would not expect anything negative to come from it.

That said, you were probably smart to send the hard drive back to the seller.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
The error in shipment was theirs not yours. I would not expect anything negative to come from it.

That said, you were probably smart to send the hard drive back to the seller.
I am honestly not certain that he needed to do that...legally. He ordered a hard drive, he got a hard drive and all of the paperwork stated that he got the hard drive that he ordered. He was tech knowledgeable enough to know that he got better than what he ordered, but the seller certainly couldn't prove that and had he not been tech knowledgeable enough he wouldn't have known that either.

I am not disregarding the moral issues, but in this instance there was zero usable evidence that he did not get what he ordered and paid for. There may have been some internal evidence on the sellers end, but that does not trump the paperwork the seller provided to him on a legal basis.

I worked as a CFO for a small, local corporation for 15 years. We made mistakes sometimes. While I might have made some attempt to get back an item with this kind of mistake, I would not have taken it any further than an attempt.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I am honestly not certain that he needed to do that...legally. He ordered a hard drive, he got a hard drive and all of the paperwork stated that he got the hard drive that he ordered. He was tech knowledgeable enough to know that he got better than what he ordered, but the seller certainly couldn't prove that and had he not been tech knowledgeable enough he wouldn't have known that either.

I am not disregarding the moral issues, but in this instance there was zero usable evidence that he did not get what he ordered and paid for. There may have been some internal evidence on the sellers end, but that does not trump the paperwork the seller provided to him on a legal basis.

I worked as a CFO for a small, local corporation for 15 years. We made mistakes sometimes. While I might have made some attempt to get back an item with this kind of mistake, I would not have taken it any further than an attempt.
I agree with you, LdiJ. Legally, Yortie did not have to send back what he received in error.

It is only to avoid harassment from the seller that it was smart for him to return it.

I disagree with tranquility that it is theft.

There was a thread with the laws on this recently and, if I can locate it, I will add the link to this post.


edit to add link to thread that has links to the law: https://forum.freeadvice.com/online-purchases-sales-87/scammers-sent-us-product-we-didnt-order-609899.html
 
Last edited:

tranquility

Senior Member
I agree with you, LdiJ. Legally, Yortie did not have to send back what he received in error.

It is only to avoid harassment from the seller that it was smart for him to return it.

I disagree with tranquility that it is theft.

There was a thread with the laws on this recently and, if I can locate it, I will add the link to this post.


edit to add link to thread that has links to the law: https://forum.freeadvice.com/online-purchases-sales-87/scammers-sent-us-product-we-didnt-order-609899.html
LdiJ did not say he did not have to legally return it, she said it would be factually difficult to prove. I did not say it was "theft", but, conversion. Which it is. The other thread is not factually relevant to this one unless one supposes the UCC has been abrogated. While it has been a while since I've done any study on the matter, I would have thought such a thing (if true) would have made the papers.
 

quincy

Senior Member
LdiJ did not say he did not have to legally return it, she said it would be factually difficult to prove. I did not say it was "theft", but, conversion. Which it is. The other thread is not factually relevant to this one unless one supposes the UCC has been abrogated. While it has been a while since I've done any study on the matter, I would have thought such a thing (if true) would have made the papers.
Well, conversion is an unauthorized act which deprives an owner of his property or the wrongful possession of another's property. There was nothing "unauthorized" or "wrongful" about Yortie's possession of the hard drive. He paid for a hard drive from the seller and the seller sent him a hard drive.

The other thread provides a link to the FTC and the USPS on receipt of goods and the laws that apply when what is received was not ordered. Yortie had the option of returning the unordered goods or keeping the unordered goods. The delivery of the wrong item was not his fault but the fault of the seller.

Did you actually read the information from the links provided in the other thread? And did you actually read what LdiJ wrote?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Well, conversion is an unauthorized act which deprives an owner of his property or the wrongful possession of another's property. There was nothing "unauthorized" or "wrongful" about Yortie's possession of the hard drive. He paid for a hard drive from the seller and the seller sent him a hard drive.

The other thread provides a link to the FTC and the USPS on receipt of goods and the laws that apply when what is received was not ordered. Yortie had the option of returning the unordered goods or keeping the unordered goods. The delivery of the wrong item was not his fault but the fault of the seller.

Did you actually read the information from the links provided in the other thread? And did you actually read what LdiJ wrote?
Goodness, I thought the night was late and you had had some adult beverages. Before I start looking up things to show how precisely wrong you are in considering such, I will wait for an affirmation of your claim.

quincy, this is simple UCC. That I have not been insulting is because you give so much and I respect your opinions and information. Please do not go down the path to NutbarFactor6. A seller's mistake does not lead to a buyer's windfall.

https://www.youtube.com/user/NutbarFactor6
 

single317dad

Senior Member
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009

https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/mailfraud/fraudschemes/othertypes/unsolicitedfraud.aspx
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Goodness, I thought the night was late and you had had some adult beverages. Before I start looking up things to show how precisely wrong you are in considering such, I will wait for an affirmation of your claim.

quincy, this is simple UCC. That I have not been insulting is because you give so much and I respect your opinions and information. Please do not go down the path to NutbarFactor6. A seller's mistake does not lead to a buyer's windfall.

https://www.youtube.com/user/NutbarFactor6
First, my nights are always late and, if you mean by "adult beverages" coffee, I consume it constantly. :)

You mention the Uniform Commercial Code and, in particular, the sections in Part VI.

§2-601. Buyer's Rights on Improper Delivery. ... if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may (a) reject the whole; or (b) accept the whole; or (c) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest.

Yortie accepted the whole.

§2-602. Manner and Effect of Rightful Rejection. (1) Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller.

Yortie did not reject the goods.

§2-605. Waiver of Buyer's Objections by Failure to Particularize. (1) The buyer's failure to state in connection with rejection ...

Again, Yortie did not reject the goods.

§2-606. What Constitutes Acceptance of Goods. (1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity; or (2) fails to make an effective rejection ... but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or (c) does not act inconsistent with the seller's ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.

Yortie accepted the goods by, I suppose, failing to make an effective rejection.

§2-607. Effect of Acceptance; et al. (1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.

Yortie paid for the hard drive at the contract rate.

§2-709. Action for the Price. (1) When the buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due ...

Yortie paid for the hard drive.

§2-710. Seller's Incidental Damages. Incidental damages to an aggrieved seller include any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions incurred in stopping delivery, in the transportation, care and custody of goods after the buyer's breach, in connection with return or resale of the goods or otherwise resulting from the breach.

Yortie did not breach the contract. He ordered a hard drive. A hard drive was sent. He paid for the hard drive.



The only failure was on the part of the seller for delivering to Yortie non-conforming goods which Yortie, nonetheless, accepted and paid for at the contract price. Yortie is not responsible for the error on the part of the seller. Again, see the FTC and USPS links provided in the thread linked to earlier.



(edit to add, for our book-collecting friend: My source is "Contract Law: Selected Source Materials" selected and edited by Steven J. Burton and Melvin A. Eisenberg, Thomson/West)
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top