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

[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: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.

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 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:Me]

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:Me]

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:Me]

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:Me]

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.