Seller sent wrong item; i kept it and asked for refund on original

[qwe123]

What is the name of your state? Califonia.

I won something through an auction company (let's call the item I won "Box A") who sent me the incorrect item by mistake (let's call this incorrect item "Box B"). I contacted the auction company and told them they did not send Box A and to send me Box A or to refund my money. I did not bother to tell the auction company that they sent Box B instead, nor did they ask if they sent something else by mistake.

Since the auction company didn't ask for Box B, i decided to keep it and later sold it.

Months later, the auction company found out that I sold Box B and contacted me and wanted me to pay for it and to also pay them for Box A (they could not locate Box A and had refunded my purchase price). As it turns out, the auction company sent my Box A to the winner of Box B, and vice versa.

Now then, am I legally obligated to pay them for the item they sent me by mistake? I admitted that I sold Box B but it is not as though I coerced Box B from their possession or broke into their property to remove it. All I did was open the box they sent to me and found Box B in place of what should have been Box A.

Does the auction company have any legal grounds against me if I don't repay them for Box B? What about for Box A? I'd be interested to get the legal opinion of those on this bulletin board.What is the name of your state?

 

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state? Califonia.

I won something through an auction company (let's call the item I won "Box A") who sent me the incorrect item by mistake (let's call this incorrect item "Box B"). I contacted the auction company and told them they did not send Box A and to send me Box A or to refund my money. I did not bother to tell the auction company that they sent Box B instead, nor did they ask if they sent something else by mistake.

Since the auction company didn't ask for Box B, i decided to keep it and later sold it.

Months later, the auction company found out that I sold Box B and contacted me and wanted me to pay for it and to also pay them for Box A (they could not locate Box A and had refunded my purchase price). As it turns out, the auction company sent my Box A to the winner of Box B, and vice versa.

Now then, am I legally obligated to pay them for the item they sent me by mistake? I admitted that I sold Box B but it is not as though I coerced Box B from their possession or broke into their property to remove it. All I did was open the box they sent to me and found Box B in place of what should have been Box A.

Does the auction company have any legal grounds against me if I don't repay them for Box B? What about for Box A? I'd be interested to get the legal opinion of those on this bulletin board.What is the name of your state?

Hmm, let's see. You sold something you didn't own, and now wonder if there's anything the actual owner can do to you? Is that your question?

 

[qwe123]

please elaborate from a legal perspective

I am trying to understand what you think I am "guility" of. I am not asking for your moral opinion. I agree that the moral answer is obvious. I posted my question to get a legal interpretation of the matter.

You stated that I sold something i didn't "own." I could just as easily claim that Box B was a gift since they willingly, albeit probably unintentionally, sent it to me and never asked that it be returned.

I can understand the auction company (not the orignal owner) can get mad at themselves for making a mistake. I could also see the person who consigned the item getting upset at the auction company for their blunder. But if the consigner entrusted the auction company to sell something for them and they essentially lost it, what am i guilty of? I can see how the auction company might be guilty of negligence. In my case, I was the unintended beneficiary of their error.

If you are able to more a more substantive legal explanation, please elaborate. thanks.

 

[You Are Guilty]

You answered your own question. You sold something you didn't own. You did not "gain" ownership of it by virtue of the auctioneer's mistake. (A gift requires an intent to gift the item. A mistake lacks that intent.) What you had, legally, was a short term bailment.

Where the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, as where property is accepted by the bailee as a favor to the bailor without compensation or other benefit to the bailee, the bailment is known as a gratuitous bailment. Where such a bailment exists, the bailee is not responsible for loss or damage to the property unless such loss or damage is caused by the gross negligence of the bailee. Gross negligence is defined as the failure to exercise a slight amount of care or diligence for the safety of the property. It may also be described as a great degree of negligence. For bailor to recover it is not necessary for him/her to show that the bailee wilfully or intentionally caused the injury or loss of the property, but it is necessary for you to find that the bailee did not exercise even a slight degree of care for the safety of the property.

So, that required you to, at a minimum, refrain from selling the item while in your possesion. Since you could not manage to do that, they are entitled to compensated for the loss of the item you sold. Plus court costs. Plus, potentially, attorneys fees. Plus, potentially, reporting your actions to the local DA for a criminal investigation. So the answer is a resounding Yes, they can do quite a few things to you.


And believe me, I haven't even gotten to the morality of what you did (yet).

{edit - added the definition of constructive bailment to avoid the impending discussion on the different types}

 

[thepizzaguy]

If You Receive Unsolicited Merchandise (Civil Code section 1584.5)

It is illegal for a business to try to sell you something by sending you merchandise that you have not ordered or consented to receive. A business cannot send you unordered merchandise unless the merchandise is:

a free sample which is clearly and conspicuously marked as such, or
mailed by a charitable organization that is soliciting contribution and is marked as a gift.
If a business sends you something in the mail that you did not order or consent to receive, and has done so with the intention of selling it or another product or service to you, you have no obligation to either return the unordered item or pay for it. It is illegal for a company that sends unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or a demand for payment. (This rule does not apply where you have agreed with a business in advance to receive merchandise on a periodic basis, and it also does not apply to a good faith error on the part of the business that sent the merchandise.)

Remeber that old commercial with the The company that sent some Eskimos a fan through the mail?

 

[thepizzaguy]

I don't know which of you is the bigger idiot... you, for suggesting that this error was somehow 'unsolicited merchandise' or the poster for thinking that he gets to profit from someone elses mistake!!!

This was NOT unsolicited merchandise!!
It was sent in ERROR, by the merchant.
The OP owes the merchant for THEIR property that he sold. And if he doesn't, yes, they can sue him and will very likely get a judgment against him.

All I did was quote law, the OP can decide if it applies to his situation.

 

[Zigner]

All I did was quote law, the OP can decide if it applies to his situation.

Actually, what you did was muddy the issue. The "law" you quoted does NOT apply in this situation and only serves to confuse the OP.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Where'd JETX's post go?

 

[justalayman]

Where'd JETX's post go?

His is missing and yours doesn't show up as the last post on the main screen either.

 

[qwe123]

please elaborate further

You answered your own question. You sold something you didn't own. You did not "gain" ownership of it by virtue of the auctioneer's mistake. (A gift requires an intent to gift the item. A mistake lacks that intent.) What you had, legally, was a short term bailment.

So, that required you to, at a minimum, refrain from selling the item while in your possesion. Since you could not manage to do that, they are entitled to compensated for the loss of the item you sold. Plus court costs. Plus, potentially, attorneys fees. Plus, potentially, reporting your actions to the local DA for a criminal investigation. So the answer is a resounding Yes, they can do quite a few things to you.

And believe me, I haven't even gotten to the morality of what you did (yet).

{edit - added the definition of constructive bailment to avoid the impending discussion on the different types}

-----------

Before i begin, I'd like to start off by acknowledging that it was wrong to sell something that I obtained in error. There are some readers who don't seem to realize that I already understand that point. What I am trying to determine is if what I did was ILLEGAL.

So far, I have been told that the auction house could take several types of legal action against me. If there is someone with a trained legal background reading this, please elaborate on the actions from a clear, legal perspective. Simply saying, "they could sue your ass off!" doesn't help much. Explaining on what legal grounds they could use to file suit against me would be a lot more helpful.

Isn't the real reason why I have Box B is my possession is because they made a mistake. They didn't say, "here you go, this is a gift" but why could i have not legally interpretted it as a gift if there was no explanation that it wasn't a gift.

Whenever I go out to dinner, as a matter of habit, I leave some money on the table after I am done (usually in the range of 15-18% of the cost of the meal). I do not tell any of the restaurant staff, "this is a tip for you." Does that mean they are not suppose to take it, keep it and spend it?

If I did return Box B to them, I think everyone would agree that i'd be a nice guy for doing so as I would have saved the auction house from the cost (dollar loss and reputational loss) of acknowledging they screwed up as such an acknowledgment could significantly hurt their reputation. For example, who would want to consign a Van Gogh to Sotheby's if it was known they lost the last one that someone consigned to them?

______________________

I am interested in learning more about what the quoted answer meant. Let's start at the top, and discuss the issue of ownership. You say that i sold something i didn't own. Box B is not an automobile, piece of land, or structural property. There is no legal title to it. How can you say that ownership was not transferred to me when they mailed possession of it to me? They may not have intended to give it to me but how was i supposed to know that? Why can't i claim that i simply thought it was a gift for being a good, repeat customer.

Now getting to this "short term bailment" term which you used to describe the situation, who am i supposed to be? The bailee? In any event, your legal definition refers to gross negligence. In my experience, i have noticed that it is difficult to prove in court that a person or firm was grossly negligent. When i read the definition, i get the impression that it is implying that I am supposed to act as a good samaritan/custodian for the item that arrived unexpectedly and protect it's value and ultimately return it.

Now then, why would i have to do so? For all i know, Box B could have been some sort of esoteric packaging materials that the auction house was using in place of foam pellets or bubble wrap. In my case, i realized Box B had value and tried to realize that value. If I did not recognize the value of Box B and ended up throwing it away, would i be guilty as well (according to those who think i'm guilty of a crime).

I think it is probably important to point out here that Box B (item received in error) has no intrinsic value to it. It is simply a piece of paper on which some people place a high value (think of a collectible cancelled postage stamp or old comic book)

 

[thepizzaguy]

Actually, what you did was muddy the issue. The "law" you quoted does NOT apply in this situation and only serves to confuse the OP.

I don't believe I "muddied" the issue. How do you know that the company didn't send it through the mail to see if he would like it and buy it?

That is the reason why that law exists. Too keep companies from pulling off unscrupleous (boy I hope I spellled that one right) tactics.

All I did was point out law that may or may not pertain to the OP's dilemma. It was food for thought.

He didn't ask for moral advice and I am not going to give any. A lot of posters on this forum become way too personaly involved with the morality of a topic and fail to simply point out the legality of a topic. Just stick to law and let the OP deal with his own concience.

Oh and as far as JETX's missing post. It doesn't take a bunch of lawyers to figure that one out.

 

[Zigner]

I don't believe I "muddied" the issue. How do you know that the company didn't send it through the mail to see if he would like it and buy it?

That is the reason why that law exists. Too keep companies from pulling off unscrupleous (boy I hope I spellled that one right) tactics.

All I did was point out law that may or may not pertain to the OP's dilemma. It was food for thought.

He didn't ask for moral advice and I am not going to give any. A lot of posters on this forum become way too personaly involved with the morality of a topic and fail to simply point out the legality of a topic. Just stick to law and let the OP deal with his own concience.

Oh and as far as JETX's missing post. It doesn't take a bunch of lawyers to figure that one out.

You did muddy the issue - you bring up the issue of unsolicited goods in a matter that involves a clerical error.

 

[You Are Guilty]

You did muddy the issue - you bring up the issue of unsolicited goods in a matter that involves a clerical error.

Absolutely. The very definition cited for unsolicited goods rules this particular situation out. Bringing it up is only giving the poster false hope, and reporting JETX for saying so is beyond childish.


And to touch on a few of the points the OP raised, your actions can have repercussions both civilly and criminally. A few potential civil causes of action off the top of my head: conversion, theft, possibly fraud, unjust enrichment. I am certain there are criminal statutes to cover this as well, but I don't have the time to comb through them to determine which they might be.

And as far as gorss negligence goes, yes, it happens to be a very high standard. However, selling the item will easily satisfy it. Had you stored it somewhere and it was stolen, you might be able to wiggle away. But you took deliberate actions, (and profited from them!) and so don't expect this to be a defense.

Finally, it doesn't matter if the goods were a loaf of bread, a stock certificate or a Picasso, possession does not equal ownership. Two very different interests.

 

[qwe123]

thanks

Thanks to everyone who contributed their two cents to my original post. I appreciate it. The mental exercise did not generate the type of answer that i'd hoped, but it did stimulate some further thinking on the matter. It seems as though more than one post couldn't get past the idea that what i did was wrong and therefore didn't address the legality of the action. In other cases, several posts assumed it was an error on the part of the auction company (myself included) although i am not sure such an assumption could be made in determining the legality of the action. In any event, i've enjoyed tossing the mental football around with the people that participated.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks to everyone who contributed their two cents to my original post. I appreciate it. The mental exercise did not generate the type of answer that i'd hoped, but it did stimulate some further thinking on the matter. It seems as though more than one post couldn't get past the idea that what i did was wrong and therefore didn't address the legality of the action. In other cases, several posts assumed it was an error on the part of the auction company (myself included) although i am not sure such an assumption could be made in determining the legality of the action. In any event, i've enjoyed tossing the mental football around with the people that participated.

Let's bottom-line it for you.
The company sent your stuff to a different person, and sent that person's stuff to you. That is an error.
What you did was wrong, both legally and morally.

Can't be much clearer than that