Hacker News Reader

Comment by apostacy | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. The company is now imposing on you for something that is absolutely not your responsibility. They have money set aside for losses like this.

It sounds like Nintendo should ask the courier company to fix things, not you. In a way, he is also a victim of the courier company's bad service, except that the mistake was in his favor.

And also, think about what that implies. How far are you supposed to go if they screw up? What if they do it again, with something more valuable?

You can't apply human morality to large corporations. If someone on Etsy or Ebay made a mistake like that, then yes of course you should ship it back. But corporations of that size are just systems. They will not be hurt or offended if you don't return it, and they won't be gracious if you do.

View on HN

In consumer law in the EU (which the laws of the UK are supposed to reflect), I believe entities that enter into a consumer contract are in principle, treated equally. That means you have to minimise their losses in the event of a dispute, in the same way that they have to minimise your losses. I would imagine that principle would apply here, though I don't happen to know the specifics of the law in this case.

Just checked UK law. If you receive an extra item as part of a replacement for a broken item or similar and use it the sender has the right to demand payment for the extra item. The correct course of action is to contact the sender who can then choose to collect at their own expense.

I was surprised by this - I thought it would constitute unsolicited goods but it does not due to the extra item having been sent as remedy for a broken item. If someone sends you something out of the blue and then demands payment it is unsolicited goods and you have the right to keep it.

So if my IT system messes up and sends you 10 TV, you have to pay for it or get out of your way to fix it ?

No, but you might be required to make reasonable accommodations to allow them to fix it, or minimise the cost of repairing it for them (at their expense). As I understand it, you couldn't just pick the most expensive solution and charge it to them, or obstruct every attempt they made to rectify the problem, simply because you were annoyed/inconvenienced. You may also be required to do other things to minimise the losses they have to compensate you for.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your example. I read 10 TV as 10 Teravolts, i.e. they blew up your IT infrastructure with a massive electrical surge. Obviously I also mixed up who was sending the 10 TV and who was receiving. You can safely ignore my nonsensical reply. Yes, fortunately for you, if your IT system messes up and sends 10 TV (whatever that is), they cannot just keep the 10 TV. They are required to compensate you for them/it if they want to keep them/it.

In that scenario, I think it would be you would need to make reasonable effort to collect the item, otherwise you abandon it. If the customer refuses you to collect it, then you can demand payment.

But as the above comment says, you would have had to send the item as part of an existing engagement, such as a purchase or replacement.

If they were sent out of the blue you have no obligation to return them. If they were sent by mistake as part of a remedy of for example a faulty TV, and you decide to use them, the sender is entitled to ask you to pay for them. The correct course of action is to inform the sender, who then has 14 days (according to what I read) to collect them at their own expense.

As long as you don't use them the sender has no right to redress, only to ask for them back.

> I disagree. The company is now imposing on you for something that is absolutely not your responsibility

Ok. What if my payment processor has an issue, through no fault of the seller, and I end up getting charged twice? Do your rules still apply? It seems unreasonable to just assume a 'screw you' attitude from the get go.

At this point I'd sell the extra Nintendo Switch and pay back its price to Nintendo. Seems like it's less trouble than going through Nintendo themselves.

What do you mean by "pay back its price to Nintendo"? Sending them the money? It'd probably cost more in billable accountant time to process it than the amount being received.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com