CWS
<b>Lead Moderator</b>
They have your credit card dude. It was a good decision.I'd have kept them.
My rationale? C-Bid is eeeeeeeee-vilitchfork
Hi Everyone, as mentioned in my introduction post, BOTL needs quite a bit of updating, patching and whatever else I might come across. Over the next few weekends BOTL may be unreachable on occasion as I do migrations or updates, etc. Just be patient - we'll be back! I'll generally try to keep these maintenances until later in the evenings.
They have your credit card dude. It was a good decision.I'd have kept them.
My rationale? C-Bid is eeeeeeeee-vilitchfork
They have your credit card dude. It was a good decision.
Moral/Karmic issues aside, that part doesn't matter.They have your credit card dude.
I dont think finders keepers works well in the real world. If he told them that he was misshipped, his choice was to return at their expense of pay for them. Now if he just didnt say anything.....but that is shaking the karma dogs.:rofl:Moral/Karmic issues aside, that part doesn't matter.
He's only liable for what he ordered and agreed to pay for.
Finder's keepers is exactly what works in this case. It was an unsolicited gift.I dont think finders keepers works well in the real world. If he told them that he was misshipped, his choice was to return at their expense of pay for them. Now if he just didnt say anything.....but that is shaking the karma dogs.:rofl:
Ah but you are twisting the law slightly my friend to make it work in this situation. This was not as the postal inspector statute states an unsolicited gift. This was a purchase in which an error was made. An honest mistake of commerce versus an attempt to defraud. I dont believe the postal statute would apply. After pointing out the error to the seller, the liablity shifts to the buyerr upon response from the seller I believe.Finder's keepers is exactly what works in this case. It was an unsolicited gift.
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/merch.htm
Otherwise, what's to keep companies from always sending you the "deluxe" version of whatever you ordered and then trying to charge you for it?
However, I agree about pissing off the karmic dogs.
Fully agree. That would be fraud. A consistant action on CI's part with intent. Easy to prove.Twisting the law is what lawyers get paid to do. :rofl:
I think it can be interpreted both ways. You could argue that the box was an unsolicited gift, as a fiver was what was solicited/ordered.
I think the responsibility is on the seller to make it attractive for the buyer to help them.
What's to stop CI from doing this every time somebody ordered a fiver, hoping that the buyer will pony up for the whole box?
A good deal is a good deal. Glad they made it worth your while.They were going to give them to me but after discovering the cost discrepancy they could not afford to. For which I do not blame them. They did however; give me the cigars at wholesale. That means I received a $95 box for about 61 bucks. I kept the box not necessarily to be nice but because I saw that beautiful box full of smokes and couldn't let them go.![]()