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

[MSTRS:Me]

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]

[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:Me]

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:Me]

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:

[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:Me]

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,