What's new

Dell keeps sending me monitors? (1 Viewer)

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


Yeah, but he shipped the replaced unit back when he received the first replacement. After that, he has gotten more "replacements". So he doesn't owe them anything for the replaced unit (which is what Jerry was writing about).
 

chris_everett

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Messages
403

How? The RMA was done. He sent his busted monitor back. If he had recieved additional monitors before he sent his back, I would see that as different, but that's not the case. The OP did nothing to defraud Dell.

If someone can point out a court decision, another law, or something in the terms of sale from dell that says otherwise, be my guest, but until then, I stand by my conclusion.
 

Paul Padilla

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
767
No...he's made it clear that this is just a game. Wait until they call...don't answer...get off on the surge of power, etc....he's far too amused.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


OK, so let's say he did go through the checkout line, he puts 5 items on the counter, and the clerk mistakenly only charges him for 1. He notices it, knows the clerk made a mistake (don't bring up any "what if..." scenarios, this what has happened in this case), but takes the 4 unpaid items anyway and leaves the store. Was it a crime?

EDIT: By the way, found this in the Arizona law:
---
13-1802. Theft; classification

A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:
...
4. Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates such property to the person's own or another's use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner
----


Fits the bill perfectly. I assume other states have similar laws? Case closed.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
I agree again with MickeS Most definitely.

Again, from the way I understood the law...The law is to stop people from sending you unordered merchandise and then expecting you to pay for them. (i.e. the merchandise is sent to you along with a bill).

I guess I was wrong before when I said that Dell would expect payment of the monitors, but I don't see any law that says you get to keep them.

The law will almost definitely require you to return the merchandise (in this particular instance). The one thing I'd be worried about is, since it does appear that companies aren't allowed to charge you for unordered merchandise, when Dell DOES contact you about the monitors, they are going to want them returned (which I'm sure they'll do on their dime with no hassle). If you refuse, they won't be able to make you pay for them, but I'm sure they'll press charges because, it must be considered stealing (i.e. in possession of non-purchased merchandise).
 

Colton

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
795


I see a problem with that. The monitors weren't "mislaid", "misdelivered", or "lost" - they were sent to the correct address and received by the owner of the house. The real problem is with Dell's handling of their shipping and inventory control. If their system doesn't spot the "missing monitors" and raises some red flags as to when merchandise goes AWOL - that's their problem.

- Colton
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
While I still don't think this can end well if he keeps them, it's pretty sad Dell doesn't have some kind of duplicate shipment control in place.

Seems like it would be easy to have an exception report spit out all the order numbers for which more than X units have shipped during Y timeframe.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058


I hate this sickening "blame the victim" mentality. Just because Dell is a huge corporation and made a mistake doesn't mean it's OK to take advantage of that mistake.

I can't for my life understand why everyone single one in this thread has not responded "Call Dell and see what they say". That is by now the only obviously morally and legally correct thing to do, IMO.

But as someone pointed out earlier, this thread was of course never about what was the right thing to do.
 

chris_everett

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Messages
403
Okay, thanks for actually pointing out a statute Mike

I'm not sure that that's case closed (they were addressed to him, I presume, so one could argue that he is the owner) But I admit that it makes it a wash...

two somewhat contradictory and somewhat unclear laws, as least as far as they apply to this.
 

Jason_Els

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Messages
1,096


Not to offend, but there is are a few problems with this assumption. The various states decide what constitutes a bailment, what constitutes abandonment of property, and what constitutes theft. There is, therefore, no guarantee that Arizona, the state with the fewest consumer protection laws, follows Illinois (a more liberal state).

We can count on common law only in 49 states and even then each state may determine what the legal states of these excess monitors are. Common law principles are guidelines at best. This is why it is essential that a lawyer be consulted. We can all argue what one state dictates or what our own ethical code demands, but right now we're dealing with a legal situation that cannot be resolved without greater knowledge of law. It's quite simple. Frustrating to be sure, but still, simple.

Common law could dictate that the monitors are held in bailment. Unsolicited bailments require the bailee to use "minimal care". This means that if you drop your car off at someone's house without the property owner's knowledge or consent, and a tree falls on it then the property owner cannot be held liable for any damage. Indeed, if that same car were stolen or moved with a bulldozer the property holder cannot be held liable for what happens to that property. "Minimal care" is objectively held to mean that the bailee should make no direct effort to damage the bailed property but if anything should befall that property, then the bailee cannot be held liable. And yes, this means that if you need a bulldozer to go from point A to point B on said property and that car's in the way then you can doze the thing with no liability. However, should the bailor (Dell) demand collection of said items then they may do so at any time. You could return them all broken or state you do not know the whereabouts of the items or tell Dell they're welcome to collect them providing they make every arrangement necessary to do so, but Dell is still the legal owners of the merchandise. Beware, the states are all over the map on this interpretation.

If, however, statute law states that willful retention of inadvertently maintained merchandise does not constitute a bailment but, instead, maintains that this is an act of theft, then our dear poster is a (legal) thief.

Illinois could also take a pro-consumer stance and state that the choice is yours and it is entirely up to you what to do with the monitors as they could be construed as receipt of unsolicited merchandise which qualifies as, in legal terms, a gift.

You do not know. It could be any of the three and each state is free to determine interpretation of these laws so long as such law does not contradict United States Code or the Constitution of the United States of America.

Find a lawyer who knows Uniform Commercial Code law and how it's applied in Illinois.
 

Linda Thompson

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
966
Real Name
Linda
How Dell supposedly handled a similar situation with a duplicate shipment (gist: customer charged, sees no resolution short of small claims court):

http://www.grohol.com/computers/dell.htm



The original poster hasn't posted in a while (since 10/25). I'd be very curious as to how the situation now stands (especially since another poster earlier declared an intention to attempt to bring this public thread to Dell's attention).
 

Dave Simpson

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 18, 1999
Messages
445
As anyone reading this thread already knows, the monitors don't belong to the OP, simple as that. The rest is up to him. Cheers.

DS.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
Jason_Els's post is EXACTLY why I would call Dell. No matter HOW much I read about the possibility that the monitors would legally be mine, there is always someone else out there who knows a LOT about the law and the fact that Lawyers know even MORE, means I'm screwed if I think I'm going to "put one over" on Dell, based on my limited knowledge. ;)
 

Adil M

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
922
Send Dell a Thank You note.
Make sure it's Hallmark, perceived quality counts here.


Maybe you should write "Paid in Full" on the back in small print and "No Returnsees" in Pig Latin.

That will get them.
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
Alright my "Case closed" comment should have had a question mark behind it. :)



Note that they don't included "misdelivered" like Arizona does, and also that he intends to deprive "permanently" the true owner of the property.
I would not be surprised if the Illinois legislature deliberately left out shipping-related errors in this becasue they have other laws covering it, or because federal law covers it (I don't know, but I assume in this case that the federal laws would take over).


This case is, IMO (and I know very little about American law so I could be completely wrong :)), not a "grey" area at all, except for theoretical discussions or arguing for the sake of arguing. In real life, I believe Dell could make Allen a very unhappy man.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
To those who think the monitors are considered a "gift", would you still stand by your answer if you found out that the monitors were purposely sent to Allen by a disgruntled employee? (i.e. An angry employee gets his revenge by changing the paperwork to 8 instead of 1)

Would this make things different? and if so, why would you change your view?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top