I would have given you £3k for that. You just missed out on payday son.

It would have been easy for them to find out where it was delivered. To keep it would have been theft. That said, I’m sure Cashman returned it because it was the right thing to do.

Where was that too?

£170 to Leeds is madness, I'm not FL's biggest fan at the moment. They put a big hold in a print last time I used them and now this.

Trying to post Cannizaro pics to no avail ....urghh 

I drag and drop images from my desktop in to the pop-up box.  Works for me.

love those gobs of paint.

I was actually offered the chance to purchase it or return, so nobody else would have lost out.. there was a admin error in payment rather than shipping address.

Just a “so you know” asking for payment is actually against the law for unsolicited goods. Not that you’re doing the wrong thing for supporting a charity. So, good one, you definitely have a better conscience than me! 🙂

Everyone was going crazy for Andromeda, but this here seems like the blue to have.

My mistake, written after a quick bit of research. Do you know what would be classed as “Unsolicited goods”? It seems odd for this situation not to be, since they were delivered to the right address by the courier and the person did not actually agree to purchase them. While this was most likely an admin issue, I’m sure a determined lawyer could argue that this is trapping the customer by sending the goods and then asking for payment. Seems stupid to even discuss this on here, but I find consumer laws quite fascinating.

It’s also rather interesting that they put the onus on the customer. That seems quite like the situation of overpayments.

Thanks, quite interesting. If you were being a bit of an idiot about it you could make the argument of “prove the mistake”. Since they seem to have sent it to the right person as Carl said in his previous post, but just didn’t take payment (didn’t ask him for it either). Plus, he hasn’t made any other orders with them, nor had any contact regarding H5s apart from enquiring.

On the other hand, I also guess you could make the argument that they made a mistake of payment. However, it seems so odd that they could make that argument since they allocated it, didn’t ask for payment, didn’t reallocate and then continued to send it out. Unless they claim that they can’t manage or control their orders, but they should have at least one check in place. Not sure how far that level of ignorance will take them in that defense.

It’s would be quite interesting to see how a court could prove that a company is actually sending out unsolicited goods if the argument of mistake could be made.

I’m well out of my depth now, so just thinking aloud. Thanks for answering 🙂

Tbh they could probably argue that me applying in the first place is soliciting goods.

Interesting. Did you purchase one already or apply and not receive one?

Already ordered through my work email. This email was to my personal email account which I used to obtain info during the release weekend when I forgot my token and couldn't remote access.