18650 batterys

5 day ago I Ordered two cheap(3.99) 18650 s for my ecig from ebay ,got a card from royal mail asking me to pick up a package it had been torn open and had been placed in a sucure bag by them, I got it On looking in side i counted 24 18650s the company who sent emailed me asking would i send them back 20 and keep two for my trouble now i have to find out the cost of this, i am quit sure it will be more than 4 pounds to post back 20 18650 batterys

Inform them that it's their responsibility to collect the 22 unordered batteries from you John, then do nothing. The so-called concession of wanting to give you two is just a ploy to avoid their responsibility.

 

If they haven't collected within a month, mail them and give them another clear month to do so, telling them that if that doesn't happen by then, you will scrap the surplus.

.

Did just that flecc no responce back from them,

Well, either they send you a prepaid envelope to return the batteries, or more likely, they have written them off.

As Flecc says, it is their responsibility to recover any unsolicited goods.

BUT,

You may wish to deal with them again in the future!

So, personally, I would get the cost of packing and posting, inform them and either ask them to remit you the cost or deduct the cost in batteries and send them the remainder.

The guy has made a genuine mistake. If you have any morals, you should cooperate with him to sort it out, but not so far as that you would be out of pocket.

 

A Chinese guy sent me the wrong thing one time, which would have cost too much to send back, so I sold it on Ebay and sent him the net proceeds. If those cells are any good, I'm sure people on the forum would buy them.

 

You shouldn't look to profit from someone's mistake. How would you feel if it were your mistake?

d8veh is so right.

 

Too often as consumers we exert our 'rights' often against & to the detriment of retailers who are trying hard just to make a living.

 

A bit of give & take is required.

John didn't indicate taking advantage and nor did I. The company could have offered to pay the return postage and still could.

 

Many companies are prepared to arrange no-cost collection even when something doesn't suit a consumer, so in this case where it was the company's mistake I see nothing wrong with them taking the responsibility for getting the surplus back.

 

Most companies in these circumstances are more generous in their response.

.

John didn't indicate taking advantage and nor did I.

flecc, not sure if that is aimed at d8veh, me or indeed either of us? However if you re-read my post I wasn't suggesting that either you or John were indicating taking advantage.

 

Don't think that was d8veh's intention either.

 

(Now that was difficult to put into words!)

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by Wander

flecc, not sure if that is aimed at d8veh, me or indeed either of us? However if you re-read my post I wasn't suggesting that either you or John were indicating taking advantage.

 

Don't think that was d8veh's intention either.

 

(Now that was difficult to put into words!)

 

d8veh said this:

 

"You shouldn't look to profit from someone's mistake."

 

I couldn't see why he posted that, prompting me to remind that we were not seeking to take any advantage in our posts.

.

d8veh is so right.

 

Too often as consumers we exert our 'rights' often against & to the detriment of retailers who are trying hard just to make a living.

 

A bit of give & take is required.

 

First of all there is no right to the goods. Either title hasn't passed, in which case they're just not John's, or a constructive trust has arisen with John as trustee and the seller as beneficiary, with John's duty under the trust being to surrender their goods or pay a monetary equivalent under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Of course this doesn't tell us anything about 'sending' the goods.

 

The law which says he might have a right to the goods, i.e. that governing unsolicited goods, UGSA 1971 and CCICACR 2014 s 39, regulates inertia selling (i.e. deliberately sending un-asked-for stuff, or demanding payment for stuff accidentally sent), and as d8veh rightly pointed out this is a genuine mistake. So that law doesn't apply.

 

As for causing retailers detriment, I have to be pedantic here and point out that detriment is the name of the game - in an economic exchange there is mutual detriment. The buyer's is to pay a sum. The seller's is to promise to provide. If what was promised doesn't materialise or endure as promised, then it's not additional detriment (or even unfair detriment imho) to ask that the retailer make good his promise. Yes if there's a manufacturer who has a separate warranty then it's good to go through them because they're better resourced for that. So I think you mean 'easily avoidable detriment' or 'unfair detriment'.

 

Struck through because it's off-topic nonsense.

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by jonathan75

I have to be pedantic here and point out that detriment is the name of the game - in an economic exchange there is mutual detriment. The buyer's is to pay a sum.

Mmm well when I did my law studies what you refer to as 'detriment' we referred to as 'consideration'.

 

But, in true 'points of view' language YOYOYOY are we even considering & quoting the law here? I once attended a testimonial dinner for a solicitor celebrating, I think it was, 50 or 60 years in practice. A very eloquent speaker made a speech which included the words that not only did said solicitor 'do things right' he also 'did the right thing'.

 

Sometimes we need to all step back & not start quoting the law, but actually, in the words of that speaker, 'do the right thing'.

Mmm well when I did my law studies what you refer to as 'detriment' we referred to as 'consideration'.

 

But, in true 'points of view' language YOYOYOY are we even considering & quoting the law here? I once attended a testimonial dinner for a solicitor celebrating, I think it was, 50 or 60 years in practice. A very eloquent speaker made a speech which included the words that not only did said solicitor 'do things right' he also 'did the right thing'.

 

Sometimes we need to all step back & not start quoting the law, but actually, in the words of that speaker, 'do the right thing'.

 

I really meant that it's not quite right to talk of detriment as bad, because as you say, it is consideration. I think you must have meant unfair detriment. Oh I can't remember what my thought was. Maybe i went off topic.

 

I'm all for your talk of doing right not just doing 'rights'. The thing is that imho this doesn't often apply for the consumer. The typical situation I see is consumers feeling guilty about asking for what they've already paid. But I'm off topic.

 

Anyway I think if you're describing doing more than surrendering the batteries or sending them back once he's received a payment from the seller to cover the postage costs, then I thik that amounts to an act over and above his actual moral duty. The law is indeed as you say not always a guide to what's right and wrong but it's a great starting point for thinking about it often. Especially in the commercial context.

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by jonathan75

Jeese I thought we were talking about john h sending back a few over delivered batteries. Seems like his washing machine has gone wrong now. Not really his week is it!

 

Edit, this won't make much sense now, jonathan75 has edited his post .

Edited April 3, 201511 yr by Wander

Having read Through this thread( and laughing) my only thought has been to return to sender from the outset, as i cant use that amount of batterys and dont want them around the house or out buildings , i was going to post them at the cost of 7.55 po but that would mean i would be out of pocket, so i mailed the sender telling him this and asked him to to have them up lifted by courrier, he still has not got back to me yet i agree with what flecc and d8veh both said, The funny thing is this also happened to me in jan this year, i bought a 750 watt jig saw they sent 3 i told them there mistake they said they have two uplift still waiting on that happing. why me i am one of those people whom if i borrowed a pound from some one i would hunt them down to paye it back

I've had two cases of excess over order supplies John, but both retailers told me to keep the extra. Im surprised your battery company didn't do the same since the cost of all 24 to them was probably only about £20. Since they'd already had £4 from you and it would cost several pounds to return the surplus, it really wasn't necessary to pursue it further.

 

Most companies making a mistake are far more generous, the most notable example I've known being Giant Bicycles.

 

They sent a dealer a replacement £500 Panasonic crank unit for the Lafree, something he'd never ordered since he wasn't their e-bike agent, just an agent for their unpowered bikes. He mailed their Netherlands centre to ask if they'd prefer him to return it to them or send it on to whoever had ordered it.

 

Their response was to tell him not to go to the trouble of returning it, suggesting he might like to sell it and donate the proceeds to the charity of his choice. He put it on ebay and I bought it, for £16.

 

On another occasion when I received a double order, the value of the extra item being about the same as your oversupply, the retailer, a small company, replied:

 

Thank you for informing us of this. Since it was our mistake please accept the addition with our compliments.

.