Calling all bush lawyers - Fraudulently obtaining goods, do I have a case?

[Ragingrob]

Interested to hear what you have to say, my story:

Recently I received a "coupon code" to reduce an online item by $50. I went online and entered the code, I decided to enter it again and voila it reduced the price by a further $50, I discovered I could do this until the price was solely the shipping cost. No where at all did I come across any terms and conditions stating the use of coupons being limited to any number whatsoever. Each time I entered the code, the invoice appeared with separate voucher numbers, as if I had multiple $50 off vouchers which could have been possible.

The goods arrived to me at a grand total of $10, signed and checked off personally by employees of the company. Woohoo!

Today I received a rude email simply stating:



Return of goods fraudulently obtained.‏

Robert

I have had a Courier pack sent to your address – return the three watches you were sent in the bag provided.

An call or email me to confirm this will be actioned.



If I do not hear from you I will be following the matter up with the appropriate authorities.


Nowhere did it say that the coupon had a limited use. I reckon the company purely stuffed up its website design and I happened upon it.

I have replied stating my disconcern for his rather rude email offereing me no explanation at all, along with my opinion of not having acting fraudulently.

What ya reckon??

:lol:

[MSTRS]

It might not be ethical or in the spirit of the coupon offer, but I'd say the 'law' wouldn't really be interested.
A fair person would send the company the correct amount, less a single use of the voucher, for the purchase.

[EJK]

Today I received a rude email simply stating:......


So you are not the rude one?

[onearmedbandit]

So it states absolutely nowhere on any advertising, the coupon itself or their website a limit on how many times you can use the coupon? How about the wording of the coupon etc? For example, 'qualify for $50 off when using this voucher.'

[Jdogg]

what did your email say? but anyway it looks like a badly set-up website so really they should take the hit

[MisterD]

Send them an invoice for security checking their processes to the same value ;)

[cowboyz]

and then when a website doesnt do something or does something so that.. lets say, a motorbike, for instance.. gets less hits than you think it should get, maybe sells for .. lets say a grand or so less than what you want for it its not .. tough luck.. its all about the priniciple?

[davereid]

I would have returned the extra money or unwanted product if asked nicely. But after a shitty email, I'd possibly review my nice idea, and offer to sell em the watches. Maybe you could offer to sell em the watches back...

[Katman]

Psst, wanna buy a watch?

[Squiggles]

and then when a website doesnt do something or does something so that.. lets say, a motorbike, for instance.. gets less hits than you think it should get, maybe sells for .. lets say a grand or so less than what you want for it its not .. tough luck.. its all about the priniciple?

lololol :corn:

[CookMySock]

LOL thats funny. If it's in NZ yes I'd say you have to send it back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%26OE

Steve

[GOONR]

What's the url and the coupon number? :shifty:

[Mully]

Legally - I dunno.

Morally, yep you probably should give them back or pay the difference.

[Tank]

fraudulently obtained.‏

In order for something to be obtained fraudulently there need to some form of fraud. If there was no Terms and conditions on the coupon, and the system was setup to allow its use - then there is no fraud.

So they could try and call the police - but Im sure that they wont be interested and will say its between the 2 parties. I dont think there is any criminal action you have taken.

Morally - they have a point, but its their fuck up - I would suggest that they could be a little more polite in their communications.

I think the thing probably pissed them off is that you got 3 watches, one you might have got away with - but you may have pushed the envelope a little too much.

Your call - but Im guessing you know the right thing to do is to return them (Despite their email being rude and unhelpful).

[Ragingrob]

So you are not the rude one?

I was not rude in any way or form towards them, ya gotta take your opportunities when they arise right?


So it states absolutely nowhere on any advertising, the coupon itself or their website a limit on how many times you can use the coupon? How about the wording of the coupon etc? For example, 'qualify for $50 off when using this voucher.'

Nope, not at all... The coupon just says the $50 off and that's that.


what did your email say? but anyway it looks like a badly set-up website so really they should take the hit

I replied:


Hi Neil

This is a rather rude email to receive, with no explanation whatsoever. Why must I return the goods purchased? I have done nothing wrong.

Kind regards

Robert



and then when a website doesnt do something or does something so that.. lets say, a motorbike, for instance.. gets less hits than you think it should get, maybe sells for .. lets say a grand or so less than what you want for it its not .. tough luck.. its all about the priniciple?

Yeah exactly, I got $700 more when the website gave me the services I actually requested... A rather decent amount I believe.


I would have returned the extra money or unwanted product if asked nicely. But after a shitty email, I'd possibly review my nice idea, and offer to sell em the watches. Maybe you could offer to sell em the watches back...


Psst, wanna buy a watch?

Nice! Yep Torpedo7.co.nz, the ironman watch, coupon code is Tough2010, go for it ;)


Legally - I dunno.

Morally, yep you probably should give them back or pay the difference.


In order for something to be obtained fraudulently there need to some form of fraud. If there was no Terms and conditions on the coupon, and the system was setup to allow its use - then there is no fraud.

So they could try and call the police - but Im sure that they wont be interested and will say its between the 2 parties. I dont think there is any criminal action you have taken.

Morally - they have a point, but its their fuck up - I would suggest that they could be a little more polite in their communications.

I think the thing probably pissed them off is that you got 3 watches, one you might have got away with - but you may have pushed the envelope a little too much.

Your call - but Im guessing you know the right thing to do is to return them (Despite their email being rude and unhelpful).

Yup I know that they fucked up and I took a chance going for it, my mate's got a couple and hasn't been hit up about it so oh well. I seriously could not believe the tone of the email. I'm awaiting his reply tomorrow, and he's kindly sent along his mobile number... So if his email is in the same tone I'll be ringing him and having a chat... I'm sure I am not in the wrong legally so I wanna ask him why he performs his service failure recoveries so badly, especially as the academic theory implies that service recoveries are the closest point of contact for consumer satisfaction.

[SS90]

You know, I was siding with you on this one, and the attitude of the guy is shocking, but, really, sorry mate, I view it as
stealing. Really there attitude needs a sort out, but, erm, "the price is an invitation to buy", and if something is mispriced (TV wrongly fitted with the price tag off a can of beans for example), then they are not obliged to sell it to you for the price of the can of beans.

I think they teach that in the first year of economic studies.

The same will be true for incorrectly priced/failing discount system, you got the item far far less than the INTENDED (ledger) price, and I think that you will find the law will actually be on their side, there will certainly be a civil case to answer, perhaps not criminal (it depends how the Police see it)

I am sure that if you simply swap price tags at a shop, and pay the smaller price, that is actually considered fraud.

The basic rule in determining fraud is INTENT, and you clearly, deliberately INTENDED to reduce the price by fraudulent means.

Their coupon was INTENDED to be used on one purchase (a reasonable person would accept that), and you INTENDED to defraud them (by re-using the coupon)

In the eyes of a JP (or Judge), I would put my money on the retailer in this case.

Shame on them for having a crap system (someone should have picked it up), Shame on you for defrauding them, AND Shame on the person who has contacted you for having a shit attitude...... (although I wonder how you would act if someone brought your bike off you with counterfeit money (same same in my book)

Give it back mate, it's the right thing to do.

[Gremlin]

Tis an interesting one, legally...

They provided the coupon, he used it. If the Terms and Conditions do not explicitly state terms or conditions of use, then the law gets rather black and white quite quickly. In the same vein, a contract that is unusual by normal standards is still a legally binding contract, regardless of norms (provided both parties understand and there was no deception).

SS90, you refer to Offer and Acceptance, the basics of forming a contract (which is what purchasing a can of baked beans in a supermarket is). The shop offers you a product at x price (displayed on the shelf) and you accept by taking it and buying it. Changing the price yourself and trying to trick the store is fraud, you knew the price, and set about changing it in an unauthorised way. Now, if the store provides a coupon to discount the product, and you use their coupon, there is no fraud. There are indeed examples of coupons (or specifically, coupon codes) being re-used, the first one I think of is online pizza ordering often uses it (but agreed, not in the exact same purchase). If he had changed their system, to accept his code multiple times, then there is definitely intent to defraud, but he simply used what was provided by the store (albeit in an unintended fashion).

Using fake money knowingly is completely different. You know its fake, its absolutely fraud.

Don't trust my word tho (see, a disclaimer!) :lol:

[Jonathan]

Really there attitude needs a sort out, but, erm, "the price is an invitation to buy", and if something is mispriced (TV wrongly fitted with the price tag off a can of beans for example), then they are not obliged to sell it to you for the price of the can of beans.


If the store mislabels a tv set with the price of a can of beans it is true that they are not obliged to sell it to you. But, If they don't notice the mistake and do sell it to you for that price, money exchanges hands (offer/acceptance/consideration) then they have no legal recourse to demand the TV back later. Except in the situation Gremlin describes above where it was a dishonest customer who switched the prices.

[SS90]

Tis an interesting one, legally...

They provided the coupon, he used it. If the Terms and Conditions do not explicitly state terms or conditions of use, then the law gets rather black and white quite quickly. In the same vein, a contract that is unusual by normal standards is still a legally binding contract, regardless of norms (provided both parties understand and there was no deception).

SS90, you refer to Offer and Acceptance, the basics of forming a contract (which is what purchasing a can of baked beans in a supermarket is). The shop offers you a product at x price (displayed on the shelf) and you accept by taking it and buying it. Changing the price yourself and trying to trick the store is fraud, you knew the price, and set about changing it in an unauthorised way. Now, if the store provides a coupon to discount the product, and you use their coupon, there is no fraud. There are indeed examples of coupons (or specifically, coupon codes) being re-used, the first one I think of is online pizza ordering often uses it (but agreed, not in the exact same purchase). If he had changed their system, to accept his code multiple times, then there is definitely intent to defraud, but he simply used what was provided by the store (albeit in an unintended fashion).

Using fake money knowingly is completely different. You know its fake, its absolutely fraud.

Don't trust my word tho (see, a disclaimer!) :lol:


I agree with the offer and acceptance concept, but what about the situation where a price that is on an item is actually incorrect (for example, the teenager who works after school mislabeled the TV with the price sticker from a box of CD-rom's.

If I went up to the counter with said "Cheap" TV, the sales person/casher will see that something is up, and most likely check to be sure, and notice that the price is wrong.

The shop is in no way obliged to sell the TV to me at the low (ticket) price, as, " A price is an invitation to buy", and, infact would simply not "honor" the price no matter how hard I pushed my case.

The law has to be like this to stop every one changing price tags at whim, and getting TV's for the price of a tin of beans (otherwise the whole system of priced goods would be null and void!

I am of the opinion that the OP has, knowingly and with full intention, defrauded the retailer, perhaps "using a document to gain a pecuniary advantage", and, under NZ law, that is indeed an offence.

[Taz]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

[CookMySock]

Though I would have thought if a human cashier was dumb enough to sell it to him for that price, the cashier should be dumb enough to eat the penalty. Certainly that applies if you were to fill your car with petrol and the employee only charged you half for it - said employee would be liable for the difference. Try working as a bank employee and say "oops my teller is out by -$1,100" and see what response you get. :yes:

The web site is set up basically as a robotic replacement for the cashier, since they deem it to be more cost-efficient than having a human one on the job 24/7, so if their cashier makes the error then they should pay for it, irrespective of a human or robotic teller. If they employed the wrong cashier (read - web developer) and it fucked up and cost them money, thats no ones fault but their own. When you buy a cheap web site you get a shit one, and that principle applies with anything. I bet it wasn't very "cost effective" in this particular case. :yes:

I bet they have already angrily approached their web developer, who I bet have already (very quickly) fixed it for no charge, and they are probably fucking lucky they don't get sued for costs IMO.

Steve

[MSTRS]

...
The shop is in no way obliged to sell the TV to me at the low (ticket) price, as, " A price is an invitation to buy", and, infact would simply not "honor" the price no matter how hard I pushed my case...




The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.

[Okey Dokey]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (or something like that)

Honour. Integrity. What do you see when you look in the mirror?

I realise you were asking what was 'legal", but really!!!

[CookMySock]

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.Agree completely.

It would be fascinating to fundraise and cover his legal costs in this case, just for entertainment value.

Steve

[Katman]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

He'd turn them into enough watches so that every starving child could have one.

[sugilite]

OK, to the original poster... when you decided to try the coupon again, and then proceeded to order 3 items using that method, you pretty much confirmed your pedigree. So, as long as you can look in the mirror and say "yep, I'm the kind of person that can and will rip off honest people if I possibly can" I guess you can carry on happy in the knowledge you are a dishonest person.

I run an online business and once accidentally put an item on for $0, which a regular customer from the States swooped on and did not email me about it. I was quite surprised as we had built up quite a repore over the years. I always sent a little freebie with orders anyway, with a little smiley face drawn on, for this 'freebie' I put a little sad face on. I never heard from them again, their loss as I'm the only website that offers the quality/price or can often even supply the rare crystals/rocks that they collect. So the money they 'saved' would be lost in their next purchase from another much more expensive site.

[davereid]

I realise you were asking what was 'legal", but really!!!


"To understand what's Right and Wrong, the Lawyers work in shifts..." [The Clash]

[CookMySock]

I run an online business and once accidentally put an item on for $0, which a regular customer from the States swooped on and did not email me about it. I was quite surprised as we had built up quite a repore over the years. I always sent a little freebie with orders anyway, with a little smiley face drawn on, for this 'freebie' I put a little sad face on. I never heard from them again, their loss as I'm the only website that offers the quality/price or can often even supply the rare crystals/rocks that they collect. So the money they 'saved' would be lost in their next purchase from another much more expensive site.You were in no way obliged to sell it to him for that price. It's unfortunate that you sent it.

Steve

[wysper]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

Jesus better clean the coffee off my keyboard after that comment. LOL

[sugilite]

You were in no way obliged to sell it to him for that price. It's unfortunate that you sent it.

Steve

Yep, I knew that, but after discussing it with my staff, we decided to let it go and just send it more as a statement than anything. It was not a big item, because then my scottish bloodlines would of kicked in big time :lol:

[MSTRS]

OK, to the original poster... when you decided to try the coupon again, and then proceeded to order 3 items using that method, you pretty much confirmed your pedigree. So, as long as you can look in the mirror and say "yep, I'm the kind of person that can and will rip off honest people if I possibly can" I guess you can carry on happy in the knowledge you are a dishonest person.

I run an online business and once accidentally put an item on for $0, which a regular customer from the States swooped on and did not email me about it. I was quite surprised as we had built up quite a repore over the years. I always sent a little freebie with orders anyway, with a little smiley face drawn on, for this 'freebie' I put a little sad face on. I never heard from them again, their loss as I'm the only website that offers the quality/price or can often even supply the rare crystals/rocks that they collect. So the money they 'saved' would be lost in their next purchase from another much more expensive site.

So you realised ahead of despatch, but still honoured the sale? That makes you a 100% good guy. The buyer obviously had no ethics, but an acute sense of embarassment for having 'ripped you off'.
I'm not sure if the OP falls into this category. He seems only interested in whether his actions were legal. Legal - yes. Ethical - no. In your case of a long term repeat buyer, taking advantage of a seller's mistake is somehow worse.

[EJK]

<center><img src="http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/laughlines/thehugemanatee.jpg" /></center>

[EJK]

I was not rude in any way or form towards them, ya gotta take your opportunities when they arise right?


What do you do when you see a hot-dayum drunk lady all pissed on the street? Take her around the corner and rape her? Ya gotta take your opportunities when they arise right?

[sugilite]

So you realised ahead of despatch, but still honoured the sale? That makes you a 100% good guy. The buyer obviously had no ethics, but an acute sense of embarassment for having 'ripped you off'.
I'm not sure if the OP falls into this category. He seems only interested in whether his actions were legal. Legal - yes. Ethical - no. In your case of a long term repeat buyer, taking advantage of a seller's mistake is somehow worse.

Yep, we picked it up at the packing stage as we have stringent checks in place to make sure the customer gets the crystal they are ordering. It was not a big ticket item, about $30 usd from memory. It would have been embarrassing for me to bring it up with them, so the staff and I decided to leave the embarrassment with them.

I do kind of get the original posters intent, the thrill of the hunt and all that. But would they even of considered sending the items back without prompting? kinda like throwing the fish back after catching it, it would of been greater sport had they sent back at least two watches, with a note offering to make up the difference on the one they kept, and cheekily asked for a bigger discount for testing their website security or such. IMHO

[MSTRS]

I may have missed something, but was the sale for 3 watches, with a 1/3 off discount voucher? Or was it only one with a third off, that somehow become 3 sales with 3 uses of the voucher?
If the second scenario, I would return 2 of the watches, but keep the one I'd 'bought'. Caveat Emptor is a 2 way street...

[Tank]

What do you do when you see a hot-dayum drunk lady all pissed on the street? Take her around the corner and rape her? Ya gotta take your opportunities when they arise right?

Come on - some of them are asking for it:

http://collegecandy.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/i-heart-drunk-sex-copy.jpg

[Gubb]

LOL thats funny. If it's in NZ yes I'd say you have to send it back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%26OE

The web site is set up basically as a robotic replacement for the cashier, since they deem it to be more cost-efficient than having a human one on the job 24/7, so if their cashier makes the error then they should pay for it, irrespective of a human or robotic teller. If they employed the wrong cashier (read - web developer) and it fucked up and cost them money, thats no ones fault but their own.

Are you aware that within the space of 14 hours, you've completely contradicted yourself?

First you say "You are a thief", then you spout it's the Websites fault? What is it DB? Make up your fucking mind, and stop spouting your shithouse opinion on things you have a) no knowledge of, and b) can't even make up your fucking mind.

[neels]

I would have thought....

If there are no terms and conditions that prohibit multiple use of the discount code, then you can use it multiple times. They have processed the order and shipped the goods, so they have agreed to a contract between you and them. So you may be ok legally, although there are clauses in law dealing with what is 'reasonable' which may cover this type of thing, as in it's possibly not 'reasonable' to believe you can use a coupon to reduce the cost of something down to nothing.

Of course a compromise option as has been suggested might be to keep one of the watches and send the other 2 back, and email them telling them that you do not accept that you have done anything wrong, but as a gesture of goodwill on your part you are returning 2 of them. At least if it goes any further you are starting to look less like a bad guy in the deal.

[SS90]

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.

True, but again I will bring up the requirement for fraud "There must be a clear intent to defraud", as I see it, ragingrob clearly INTENDED to defraud, and the seller INTENDED for the voucher only to be $50 off the purchase price (not, add $50 every time you enter this number, when you reach the amount you want we will send you a prize)

It's all about what a "reasonable" person considers intent.

ragingron INTENDED to fraudulently obtain these goods, the seller INTENDED a $50 discount on the goods.

[Ragingrob]

Wow a few replies! Hmmm where to start. Ok... So yeah what happened was I heard about a code that acts as a $50 voucher when you redeem it. I did not get told anywhere that this was limited and it did not say throughout the purchase process. I was like hmmm that's interesting...

There were three watches available, totalling only $150 after the initial $50 if they had been bought separately with the voucher. I just thought "Haha let's see if this actually works as it would be funny if they actually get them shipped out to me. And yep, they arrived, with the receipt having 6 coupon code redemptions on it and having been ticked and signed by some employee.

So yes I intended to see if this company would send me the goods for a price they "offered" me through their system. I had no intent for criminal fraudulent behaviour, more of a chuckle if employees packed, checked, and signed off these goods for shipping.

The email I received had no discussion whatsoever about the case, no referral to me even getting my $10 shipping refunded, so why would I willingly send back the goods if I'm actually gonna end up being down on money because of it! If he replies sometime with a tad more of a personal message, actually explaining the problem and the intended solution, then hey I don't give a shit I don't even wear a watch so I'll be fine to send them back if I get my money refunded too.

This thread was yeah about the legalities... As if I have actually committed no crime then I am happy to sit and wait till they actually talk to me with some effort.

[Ixion]

So, if you had two separate vouchers (legitmately obtained) could you have used both of them for a total of $100 discount?

Or was there a "One voucher only per purchase" statement or such like ?



If so, then multiple voucher redemption was obviously intended. And I can't see it being the responsibility of the purchaser to debug their systems. Different matter if you somehow hacked into it.

[MSTRS]

True, but again I will bring up the requirement for fraud "There must be a clear intent to defraud", as I see it, ragingrob clearly INTENDED to defraud, and the seller INTENDED for the voucher only to be $50 off the purchase price (not, add $50 every time you enter this number, when you reach the amount you want we will send you a prize)

It's all about what a "reasonable" person considers intent.

ragingron INTENDED to fraudulently obtain these goods, the seller INTENDED a $50 discount on the goods.

I doubt that a charge of fraud would stick in this circumstance.
Regardless of intent, the seller's own system allowed the code/voucher to be used more than once on a single (in fact, multiple) items. It's not like the OP made his own voucher and convinced the shop to accept it. Taking advantage of someone's stupidity may be reprehensible, but there is nothing illegal about it.

[Ragingrob]

So, if you had two separate vouchers (legitmately obtained) could you have used both of them for a total of $100 discount?

Or was there a "One voucher only per purchase" statement or such like ?



If so, then multiple voucher redemption was obviously intended. And I can't see it being the responsibility of the purchaser to debug their systems. Different matter if you somehow hacked into it.

Yeah well that's how it seemed... Each time I clicked redeem, the invoice appeared with another -$50 each with a unique voucher code. It was as if somebody had given me six $50 off vouchers for my birthday.

There was no statement at all about the usage of any coupon codes, I could have told anybody in the world the code off the top of my head and the site didn't have any terms.

[Ixion]

I note the $10 'delivery charge'. Which was not discounted. There are people (been some on Trademe), who offer cheap goods at "massive" reductions, to the point they are effectively giving the stuff away. And then actually make a bit of money on it, by throwing in a steep compulsary 'delivery charge" , or "postage and packing fee" (I think Trademe frowns on it).

Not saying that is the cas ehere, but it does exist, so a system that enabled the buyer to discount down to zero would not necessarily indicate that something was amiss.

Myself, given the rude nature of the correspondance, I'd tell them to go jump. Or, that I'd return the "extras" in return for a contract to audit their systems, which obviously need auditing. After all, white hats get paid for their work.

[scott411]

i would say the fact that they shipped the goods the accepted the use of the codes, you accepting the price does not complete the sale, them shipping the good or taking the money does.

if they had caught it and not shipped the goods you could not have forced them to do so,

[Swoop]

And I can't see it being the responsibility of the purchaser to debug their systems. Different matter if you somehow hacked into it.
Just like the multiple boarding passes issue, at Air NZ, Jet*, etc, airline self check-in.

This has been exposed in the media and the airlines are now fixing the system.




If someone packaged the goods, accepted your payment and filled out the docket... they have the problems.

[SS90]

I doubt that a charge of fraud would stick in this circumstance.
Regardless of intent, the seller's own system allowed the code/voucher to be used more than once on a single (in fact, multiple) items. It's not like the OP made his own voucher and convinced the shop to accept it. Taking advantage of someone's stupidity may be reprehensible, but there is nothing illegal about it.

Fraud is all about INTENT, based on "A reasonable persons understanding of a situation"

Ragingrob INTENDED to abuse a faulty system, the seller never INTENDED to give away watches for free.

A reasonable person can see that in my opinion.

YOu may well not see it as fraud, but I am sure a JP or Judge would.

It's then a matter of value.

Pretty small really, so I doubt much would happen, only disputes tribunal......

[Gremlin]

from what he has now said, it sounds more like the system gave him a unique code each time he asked for it. Its even less his problem, as it was the system happily handing out codes. I agree on the tone of correspondence. I've played with an insurance company for a year, intending to pay, but making it super difficult

[SS90]

from what he has now said, it sounds more like the system gave him a unique code each time he asked for it. Its even less his problem, as it was the system happily handing out codes. I agree on the tone of correspondence. I've played with an insurance company for a year, intending to pay, but making it super difficult

That brings up another point. The attitude of the seller is really shit, and, I think a few people can relate similar stories (regarding attitude) from insurance companies.

Personally, I have had good AND bad experiences when dealing with an insurance company's when they consider that you are at fault.

The letters are really rude, straight to the point, and very intimidating and threatening.

1st time, I was not at fault (witness's etc), but the contact form the other guys insurance company was 2 hours after the incident, by phone, threatening and intimidating "you are at fault" (etc), trying to scare a 24 year old guy into paying...... I stood my ground on the phone, submitted my version of events, and never heard back.

I suspect that in this case (although I see it as morally wrong), I do believe that if the OP stood his ground, they may well just drop it, because it is too much hassle for such a pittance.

2nd time I was in the wrong, and the insurance company bent over backwards to help me..........

I guess what I am trying to say to the OP is "Karma can be a bitch!".

Come on mate, hand the goods back.

[MSTRS]

I guess what I am trying to say to the OP is "Karma can be a bitch!".

Come on mate, hand the goods back.
Agreed. But keep one as a reward. He was 'enterprising' and the seller was stupid, so deserves to be out of pocket.

[Max Preload]

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.

Not quite. The Contractual Mistakes Act (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0054/latest/DLM443634.html) covers genuine errors.

[Ragingrob]

Well I've boxed up the goods and they're ready to go. However, I replied to his initial email politely asking for an explanation of why I've gotta return them, it's been about a week now and he hasn't bothered replying. Why should I bother returning them if he hasn't even bothered explaining to me the problem? Maybe I should email him again asking for an explanation, but I don't feel like doing much at all when he's told me to do something with no explanation, especially as it's their fuck up.

If it was a genuine error that I came upon, you'd think the manager would be trying to fix it all up rather than demanding the return with threats of legal activity.

[sil3nt]

Surely they have your contact details so wait for a phone call.

Torpedo 7 are a pack of wankers.

[The Stranger]

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.


Some have claimed that there is a contract, though from the original post I doubt that there is. There are a few elements to a contract. For a start there must be offer and acceptance - which it would appear that there has been on the face of it. However 2 other elements that are also required - intent and remuneration. These are not optional. From the OP it would appear that certainly there was no remuneration for the goods, only for the postage and despite the exchange taking place, I doubt that would constitute intent to proceed.
That said, if there is in fact a contract then it would fall under the contract mistakes act. Under the contract mistakes act it is sufficient that a raging rob should have known (not that he did know, but I'm sure he did anyway) that there was an error. To proceed with a contract in such cases means that a remedy may be applied.
On the face of it much of the consumer law appears to be somewhat at odds with contract law at times. However even under consumer law there is provision for good mislabelled and/or mistakes - which I think it would be hard to argue this was not.

But hey, what are morals?
I always thought they were codes you live by. However these days it appears these days morals are what you think you can get away with.
Now where's that ministerial credit card, I want some lobster whilst watching my porn.

[motor_mayhem]

True, but again I will bring up the requirement for fraud "There must be a clear intent to defraud", as I see it, ragingrob clearly INTENDED to defraud, and the seller INTENDED for the voucher only to be $50 off the purchase price (not, add $50 every time you enter this number, when you reach the amount you want we will send you a prize)

It's all about what a "reasonable" person considers intent.

ragingron INTENDED to fraudulently obtain these goods, the seller INTENDED a $50 discount on the goods.

Well I would have thought to be fraud you would have to be breaking a law or contract etc. If they knew it was wrong why didn't they just not send him the watches and refund what ever he had paid the delivery? Potentially they possibly continued to send the watches in the hope they could scare him for paying all three? Personally I wouldn't have ordered them but I wouldn't condemn Rob for ordering them. I despise people trying to force their morality onto others. Offer as opinion yes but force no.

[MSTRS]

Some have claimed that their is a contract, though from the original post I doubt that there is. There are a few elements to a contract. For a start there must be offer and acceptance - which it would appear that there has been on the face of it. However 2 other elements that are also required - intent and remuneration. These are not optional. From the OP it would appear that certainly there was no remuneration for the goods, only for the postage and despite the exchange taking place, I doubt that would constitute intent to proceed.
That said, if there is in fact a contract then it would fall under the contract mistakes act. Under the contract mistakes act it is sufficient that a raging rob should have known (not that he did know, but I'm sure he did anyway) that there was an error. To proceed with a contract in such cases means that a remedy may be applied.
On the face of it much of the consumer law appears to be somewhat at odds with contract law at times. However even under consumer law there is provision for good mislabelled and/or mistakes - which I think it would be hard to argue this was not.

But hey, what are morals?
I always thought they were codes you live by. However these days it appears these days morals are what you think you can get away with.
Now where's that ministerial credit card, I want some lobster whilst watching my porn.

Yes, there was. The discount voucher formed that 'remuneration'. The shop offered $50 off through use of the voucher. They did not say it was a one time use. So RR simply applied the voucher until the balance owed equalled zero. Then he did it again for extra watches. The shop processed that and despatched the order. They were under no pressure (as in a pushy customer standing in front of the clerk, distracting him/her or telling him to hurry up) so one can only wonder why they honoured the sale.
I'm not saying RR is in the right, morally, but I think he'd have a good legal case to keep the watches. All of them. As it is, I reckon he should return 2 of them. He gets rewarded for his enterprise and the shop wears some loss for their mistake.

[avgas]

Hmmmmmm I thought the Torpedo7 guys were more up to the play than that. Why the hell did they send the goods?

[avgas]

Fraud is all about INTENT, based on "A reasonable persons understanding of a situation"

Ragingrob INTENDED to abuse a faulty system, the seller never INTENDED to give away watches for free.

A reasonable person can see that in my opinion.

YOu may well not see it as fraud, but I am sure a JP or Judge would.

It's then a matter of value.

Pretty small really, so I doubt much would happen, only disputes tribunal......
Very true - however you have forgotten the key component here. Something that holds all the company's liability in its hot little hand.
The system.
What was the Intent of the system?
Was it suppose to add voucher codes together? Was it suppose to supply multiple codes? Were the goods suppose to be shipped with a zero $ consignment? (this would be illegal if it was overseas)

To simply say that the company is only its employees would mean that you forgo with no legal argument against any other component of the company. You have to take every part of the company into consideration - this includes faulty websites.

Case and point - Amazon getting sued over its "1-click purchase system"

This is basic corporate law - the corporation is an entity on to itself. And can be charged likewise.

[The Stranger]

Yes, there was. The discount voucher formed that 'remuneration'. The shop offered $50 off through use of the voucher. They did not say it was a one time use. So RR simply applied the voucher until the balance owed equalled zero. Then he did it again for extra watches. The shop processed that and despatched the order. They were under no pressure (as in a pushy customer standing in front of the clerk, distracting him/her or telling him to hurry up) so one can only wonder why they honoured the sale.
I'm not saying RR is in the right, morally, but I think he'd have a good legal case to keep the watches. All of them. As it is, I reckon he should return 2 of them. He gets rewarded for his enterprise and the shop wears some loss for their mistake.

There must be actual payment for the goods for there to be a contract. At the time RR made his offer it was for zilch. ACTUAL payment needs to be made (or agreed to) for a contract to exist, hence we see situations where say large parcels of land may change hands for $1.00. Obviously the sum is not important in such a deal, however no contract could exist without it. Were it as simple as you suggest one would simply give the other a voucher for $1.00.
That said, were a judge to find one (a contract) actually exists ( In fact, were I the sellar I would be claiming there was a contract regardless), it clearly qulaifies for relief under the contract mistakes act. Problem solved RR needs to make good.

[MSTRS]

And I propose that the voucher was substitute for actual money changing hands. The voucher's value as determined by the seller was $50 (each time) it was applied to a purchase.

[Ragingrob]

Very true - however you have forgotten the key component here. Something that holds all the company's liability in its hot little hand.
The system.
What was the Intent of the system?
Was it suppose to add voucher codes together? Was it suppose to supply multiple codes? Were the goods suppose to be shipped with a zero $ consignment? (this would be illegal if it was overseas)

To simply say that the company is only its employees would mean that you forgo with no legal argument against any other component of the company. You have to take every part of the company into consideration - this includes faulty websites.

Case and point - Amazon getting sued over its "1-click purchase system"

This is basic corporate law - the corporation is an entity on to itself. And can be charged likewise.

The funny thing here being that the Manager who has emailed me is the "Systems Manager", so far he's failed at managing his systems and customers in a very proactive manner.

[wysper]

Surely they have your contact details so wait for a phone call.

Torpedo 7 are a pack of wankers.

Really? I have heard good things about them. What makes them so bad? (serious question)

[The Stranger]

And I propose that the voucher was substitute for actual money changing hands. The voucher's value as determined by the seller was $50 (each time) it was applied to a purchase.

Sure, but as I note, you can't forgive a debt and still have a contract - hence the $1.00 type payments as noted and things like trust deeds (not contracts) creating trusts where debt is to be forgiven.
But hey, have it your way - in which case it falls under the auspices of the contract mistakes act so I'm sure the seller will be happy with your decision.

[MSTRS]

... so I'm sure the seller will be happy with your decision.

Hey! I didn't say he was right to do what he did. Just don't think it was illegal.

[Taz]

Wow this thread is still going............ Why?

[The Stranger]

Wow this thread is still going............ Why?

Education of course. I realise some are averse to that, but it rarely does any harm.

[Taz]

Shouldn't need some motorcycle site to tell you the difference between right and wrong. Your mum and dad would have taught you this before you reached school age (unless you're maori)

[The Stranger]

Shouldn't need some motorcycle site to tell you the difference between right and wrong. Your mum and dad would have taught you this before you reached school age (unless you're maori)

I'm sure his parents did a fine job. Unfortunately however whilst parents can do their best it becomes a little difficult to hold your children to a high standard when they are bombarded with our "leaders" repeatedly get away with such low standards and little or no consequence. But I digress.

[Gremlin]

Education of course.
Education on KB (ok, useful education)... My oh my... what is this world coming to :wacko: