Dell keeps sending me monitors? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis*G]

haha.

This is just so darn interesting. I need another bag of popcorn!

 

[Adil M]

Thanks guys.
I just can't get this grin off my face.
This is humorous.

It's a Seinfeld episode and you are George Castanza or his dad.

Just wait it out. I am curious to see what Dell does. I see checkmate in four moves.

 

[Carlo_M]

Now browsing on my new 2001FP...man if they send me more...they ain't going back! This thing's a beauty!

 

[MickeS]

Show me that law. The stuff earlier in the thread indicated that if he contacts Dell and they don't take the monitors back at their expense, they're his. If he doesn't contact Dell, and has reason to believe they have sent them in error, I don't know any law that would protect him (I'm not sayind it doesn't exist, I honestly don't know any law that would not side with Dell in that case).

I just find this thread pretty sad, honestly. That someone is so attached to some free stuff that he knows he received in error that he can't even call and see if they want it back is just depressing.

I think I'll take it upon myself and contact Dell about this thread so we can find out what the law says about it...

 

[MarkHastings]

I've been pretty silent lately because I really can't seem to find proof either way if the law is clear or not.

Basically, I am no longer 100% positive, so I was being quiet... That's what I would believe. The previous links (and from the vast amount of research I've done) seem to indicate that the "Unsolicited Merchandise as a Gift" law is not the same thing as what's happening here.

The unsolicited merchandise law is when a company (that you've never spoken with or contacted) has sent you something and then bills you for it. The law was put in place to keep these "Crooks" at bay.

It sounds like the Dell situation may not fall under this category. I'm not saying that the law doesn't apply 100% to this case, but I don't know the law enough. It really doesn't seem like it does.

The monitors that came after the initial monitor may be 'technically' unsolicited, but in terms of the "unsolicited merchandise" law, is this the same thing???

Again, I highly doubt it and I wouldn't want to confuse the 2 situations because if I thought the "unsolicited merchandise" law applied in this case, and it DIDN'T, I'd be in some big time trouble.

Not only legally, but ethically.

 

[chris_everett]

Ask and you shall recieve:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+39USC3009

TITLE 39 > PART IV > CHAPTER 30 > § 3009

§ 3009. Mailing of unordered merchandise
Release date: 2005-10-11

(a) Except for
(1) free samples clearly and conspicuously marked as such, and
(2) merchandise mailed by a charitable organization soliciting contributions, the mailing of un*ordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45 (a)(1) of title 15.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
(c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications.
(d) For the purposes of this section, “un*ordered merchandise” means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.

 

[MarkHastings]

Chris, your post is what I was talking about:I have a feeling that this statement may not be the exact same thing as ordering something from a company and them delivering multiple items of the thing you ordered.

Again, it just sounds like the above law is meant for something completely different. In other words, if I sent out a bunch of things (that I made) to people I didn't know, and then sent them bills for the items. That's what the above law is meant for...

That's a lot different than the Dell situation and I'm sure a lawyer can prove that the above law does not apply in this case.

 

[MickeS]

Of course it's not. This law is to prevent scammers from charging you for items you never ordered, it is not to protect a consumer who receives multiples of an item he ordered, but is not charged for them. Not sure why people think this is applicable in this case.

It's like saying it's not theft if I pick something up in a store and walk out without getting caught... it's not my fault they didn't see me carrying it out or had a better alarm system, right?

 

[Paul Padilla]

People are beating me to this...but Chris...there is no mention of inadvertently duplicated shipments of requested merchandise. He did request the first screen as a replacement for a defective purchase. There is nothing air tight about that statute.

Personally, I've left the legalities far behind. Alan at least has some minute semblence of a loophole...not iron clad by any means, but there none the less. I'm still waiting to hear the "why". It's looking more and more to me like a power trip. A miniscule amount of power against the big bad corporation. Stick it to the man...or at least make him ask nicely.

 

[chris_everett]

The key word in the last line of the statute is "expressed" as I read it, that's pretty clear, but lets expand on it. I ordered a laptop from Apple some time ago. (2 years) If they send me another one now, out of the blue, do I need to send it back? I think it's clear the answer is no. How about if they sent me another one 1 week, or one month after I ordered it? The statute has no time limitations. It says "if not ordered or requested, it's a gift"
The OP did not order or request the monitors. Further they were recieved after the "RMA process" was resolved, which seems to make everything even clearer.
I admit, that's a somewhat broad reading of the statute, and yes, the law is meant to stop the scammers who would send things to people and then bill them months later with late fees, intrest and everything, but I don't see how it excludes mistakes. It _never_ talks about mistakes or errors in the statute, and it would be a _very_ narrow reading of the law to say that it excluded them(mistakes).

 

[MickeS]

Another thing: it would be probably be possible to convince a court that Allan implicitly consents to the sending of further screens by not contacting Dell after the first 2 incorrect shipments. It still would not constitute expressed consent as required in the law, if one assumes that it is applicable at all (not expressed to Dell, anyhow, even though he has clearly expressed consent, even anticipation, in this thread), but it certainly wouldn't tip the scale in his favor.

 

[MarkHastings]

But as MickeS and I are trying to argue, the law doesn't seem specific enough to relate to this exact case. While it seems to apply in general, I would assume there is some other law (that I have no idea about) that would negate the whole "it's a gift" law.

Let's bring in another example (like I did previosuly in this thread)...What if you were in the parking lot of Circuit City and an employee ran out and handed you a TV and said "Here! TAKE THIS QUICK!" - Does that mean it's a gift?

What I mean is, if you really look at that law, how do you differntiate between a gift and stealing??? In the above example, wouldn't Circuit City (technically) be giving you mercahndise you didn't order?

What if it didn't happen in the parking lot? What if an employee dropped off a tv at your doorstep. Do you think you'd be allowed to keep it then???

I just don't see how that law can hold up when there are other laws that contradict it.

 

[Jon_Are]

I cannot believe, Allen, that you have not sent these back, or at least contacted Dell and informed them of their error.

Have a good night's rest tonight.

And tomorrow night.

etc.

Jon

 

[Bryan X]

I'd make them actually come to my house to pick them up at a time that was convenient to me, but I'd definately call them.

 

[Jerry Klawiter]

I had something strange take place with Dell a while ago.
Yep the same 24” monitor.
I asked Dell to ship out a replacement monitor within days after receiving the original order.
When Dell sends out a replacement, they apply an order number to that exchange.

Payment Terms: EXCHG 10 DAYS

With this order number, Dell also applies an Electronic Certified Copy invoice that can be viewed on line within your Dell account. Normally Dell places full or near full value on the exchange product.
In my case, Dell applied a value much less than full value; actually, it was a very attractive price. Also on this invoice is a statement that reads as:


IF YOU HAVE RETURNED THE PRODUCT THIS PART REPLACES PLEASE DISREGARD THIS INVOICE. IF IT IS NOT RETURNED WITHIN 10 DAYS, THIS INVOICE IS PAYABLE. FOR SHIPMENTS TO CALIFORNIA, A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FEE UP TO $10 PER ITEM WILL BE ADDED TO INVOICES FOR ALL ORDERS CONTAINING A DISPLAY GREATER THAN 4 INCHES. DELL CATALOG SALES AND GLOBAL PRODUCTS COLLECT TAX:CA,FL,ID,IL,KY,MI,MN,MO,NC,NJ,NV,OH,O
K,PA,TN,TX,VA,WA&WI. ADDTL STATES APPLY ONLY TO 3RD PRTY SVC CONTRACTS. BUYER:RESPONSIBLE FOR REMIT ADDTL TAX TO TAX AUTHORITIES.

Then just below this is an invoice with info as

DETACH AT LINE AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT

MAKE CHECK PAYABLE/REMIT TO:
DELL CATALOG SALES L.P.
PO BOX 676032
C/O DELL USA L.
DALLAS, TX 75267-6032


Invoice Number: xxxxxxxx
Customer Number: xxxxxxxx
Purchase Order: xxxxxxxx
Order Number: xxxxxxxxx

Ship. and/or Handling $0.00
Subtotal $xxx.00
Taxable: $xxx.00Tax: $xx.xx
ENVIRO FEE $0.00
Invoice Total$xxx.xx

Balance Due$xxx.xx
Amount Enclosed

If the price on your invoice looks like a deal, send Dell a check for each, sell them for lesser profit, and sleep well at night. If not, you may want to hold onto them for some longtime, since Dell can and just May come back to you for payment in full what ever was listed within the online invoice.

I am sure you have been logging into your online Dell account at least once or twice since this first started, Dell can also see your online account logging in activity over the past weeks-months.

Does each monitor have the same order number?
Is there more than one exchange entry within your Dell online account?

 

[Jerry Klawiter]

Keep in mind, at some point this deep pocket Dell may have you spending much more on legal fees then what its all worth.

 

[MickeS]

Jerry, a friend of mine had the same thing happen as you did (with the same monitor). That is a different thing though, since it concerns a replacement that you requested. What Dell does is, to reduce handling costs and hassles for them, they offer to sell to you the replaced monitor at a discounted price. If you accept, you have bought it.

If that's what has happened to Allen, he's in for a surprise, I guess. But it is my understanding that his is a different situation.

 

[Jason_Els]

Allen,

Lucky you! Maybe.

Contact a lawyer. The cost of a consultation will be less than a quarter the cost of one of these monitors (OK, maybe half). This is if you don't have any friends who are lawyers. You don't need to hire F. Lee Bailey either. When you speak to the lawyer deal exclusively in hypotheticals unless or until asked if you are the party involved.

Then you can either keep them, ebay them, give them as Christmas presents, hang them in the bedroom, bathroom, or whatever or contact Dell and work out something. You will know nothing for certain until you speak to a lawyer in the state where the business was transacted. This also solves the converse issue of what Dell can legally do should they discover the mistake and come after you for the full price of the monitors. If they do so, then they won't be able to scare you and you'll have the I-better-check-the-statement monkey off your back. We have enough stress as it is.

As to the ethics of the thing, that's between you and your conscience.

Let us know how it goes.

P.S. - Bring a copy of the RMA terms and the Terms of Sale. The laws of the state will override anything Dell claims in these contracts but it's good to know where you stand. Can't contract an illegal act. Period.

 

[Holadem]

If you truly intend on keeping these things (I wouldn't) then Jason's advice is best.

--
H

 

[Paul Padilla]

MickeS...this is precisely the situation. This whole thing began with Allen requesting a replacement.

The value that Dell affixes to cross ship RMAs is really just more of an incentive for the individual to return the original part. For convenience, they'll ship the replacement in advance along with an airbill. All you have to do is put the defective part in the same container with all the packing materials and call or go online to DHL and have them pick it up for return. I've had to do this with several different kinds of parts from Dell over the years...fans...motherboards as well as LCD monitors. It takes an extraordinarily small amount of effort. Again...Sophie's Choice, this ain't.