Languish.org

As I notice an uptick in threads where people pontificate on their moral positions I thought I would share a situation from my personal life.

In early November I came home one day to find FedEx had delivered a case of wine to my front door. Now, I had not ordered a case of wine. In fact under the law in pretty much all States where wine can even be delivered, you aren't even supposed to drop it off without getting the signature of an adult who presents photo I.D. In fact, as I inspect the package I note that it's intended for an address in an entirely different city.

Being the good fellow that I am, I make a call to FedEx, and explain the situation. I ask if they can have their delivery man return for the wine. Well, this is where things take a turn. The woman on the phone basically acts as though I'm a dick for even bothering her with a phone call, and explains that "we can't just turn our driver's back around." Okay. I ask how I can get the package picked up, and she said that the shipper or recipient would have to contact FedEx and let them know the package had been mis-delivered, and FedEx would handle it from there. I asked if someone would be coming to get the wine, and she says "that'll depend on what the customers want here." Okay.

So not wanting to be morally bankrupt, I do a search on the recipient's name, unfortunately I can't ferret out a phone number or other contact information. All I have for him is an address, and it's a 30 minute one way drive from my house, in a direction I never go (not on the way to work or anywhere I normally shop.) Okay, sorry dude, your wine isn't worth an hour round trip of my time.

I put it inside the house beside the front door and leave it. Two days later, I get a phone call, it's FedEx. They want to let me know they are sending someone for the wine. I say, "okay, when do you think it should come so I know when to leave it out?" They act affronted by the question and say, "Well, we don't know when exactly, sometime in the next week or so." I don't really like leaving packages out in the front of my house for random intervals of time, so I (being annoyed) tell them "okay, well it'll be out front for 5 days, after that I'll dispose of it." They act like I have some responsibility for this wine, but I make it clear I did not ask for this package to be dropped on my property, but now that it is I certainly am not responsible for getting it to the recipient--it's their job to get packages to where they belong.

Over a week passes, and I move the wine into the house, open the package, and drink one of the bottles. A few days later, I drink another. The wine is of decent quality, so I unpack the case and put them in my wine racks down stairs, and throw away the box.

Then, around 8-9 days after I had last spoken to FedEx, they knock on my door wanting the wine. Not wanting to admit I've already started drinking it and thrown away the case, I just tell them it's gone. They seem incredulous, but I explain that "I left it out for awhile and now it's gone, not my problem."

Then the beginning of this week, an old man is knocking on my front door. I go out front, and it's the original intended recipient of the wine. He angrily asks where his wine is, and he says that FedEx told him that it was delivered to me and that they couldn't recover it. I tell him the same lie I told FedEx, and explain to him that I gave them a lot of time to come get the wine, and that there's a reason I don't like to leave packages out front for days and days on end. He clearly doesn't believe me, and basically says he knows I took his wine, and that I'm going to hell for being in violation of the Christmas spirit. I let him know that I'm "sorry I can't help you." And off he puffs.

So where do my actions fall here? Right, wrong, gray area?

No problem IMO.
If you had done everything in 100% by the letter of the law (...? It was delivered to you....) then the wine would have just stayed outside and been stolen, gone bad, had someone trip over it and smash it, etc...
You gave them a more than reasonable amount of time to collect it before you said you'd throw it away.

And of course waste is a sin. Throwing away perfectly good wine is wrong in so many ways. Might as well drink it rather than just put it in the bin.


Pretty bizarre that fedex would tell the guy your address.
Is it some sort of con where they knew you would drink the wine and will now try and scam you out of silly-money for it?
I couldn't imagine this sort of thing happening in Britain. It would all be the delivery company's fault.
Report the local branch to head office?

If I were him I'd be asking for my money from FedEx.

Only because I've actually had FedEx mis-deliver a package of mine before, I know that on their online package tracking it actually shows when they drop the package off the address they left it at. That's how when it happened to me I knew I just needed to walk one street over to my neighbor's house and pick it up. So that may be how the old man got my address, or maybe FedEx really did tell him where it was sent who knows. The whole thing felt weird because FedEx is a Fortune 500, ultra-established company and it felt like I was dealing with Bob's Discount Shipping Service, nothing felt professional about the whole thing.

It would not have been any noticeable inconvenience to leave it out front for 9 days, or month, or a year.  Plus you lied.

Two additional weeks in purgatory.

I over rule Yi's judgement. Otto is declared innocent due to Fed Ex Douchebaggery.

You gave them plenty of chances.  It's not your problem.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 12, 2014, 07:17:31 PM
You gave them plenty of chances.  It's not your problem.

Nor was it his wine.

Meh.  After days/weeks of waiting and no one showing up for it, why not?  Dude who ordered the stuff needs to take it up with FedEx, not Otto.  They're the ones who gave it to someone else, then acted like dipshits, then didn't show up to get it when they said they would.  It's not his responsibility to store shit for FedEx.

Yeah it was FedEx's responsibility and they messed up. I would have just left it outside forever and if it got stolen or broken it's not my fault.

And that old man who showed up all huffy on Otto's property? I would have given him 30 seconds to git.

I'd get tired of having it on my damn front porch after a few days.  It would either be on the street in the trash, or (in this case) part of my wine collection. 

It's not your wine to drink.  You were fine up to that point.

The fact you lied about it means you know this is true.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 12, 2014, 07:36:36 PM
Meh.  After days/weeks of waiting and no one showing up for it, why not?  Dude who ordered the stuff needs to take it up with FedEx, not Otto.  They're the ones who gave it to someone else, then acted like dipshits, then didn't show up to get it when they said they would.  It's not his responsibility to store shit for FedEx.

Personally I measure the time for that kind of stuff in years. If he'd kept the wine around for a few years, six months minimum, then yeah okay (and it's not like the wine would go bad). But a couple of weeks? Not cool. As evidenced by the fact that the guy whose wine it was came to pick it up within that timeframe.

Even then it could've been rectified by 'fessing up.

As it it stands, it's straight up theft.

That doesn't mean that FedEx isn't a bunch of useless idiots in this case, of course.

So is it legally kosher for Fedex to give out your address?

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 07:44:54 PM
Personally I measure the time for that kind of stuff in years. If he'd kept the wine around for a few years, six months minimum, then yeah okay (and it's not like the wine would go bad). But a couple of weeks? Not cool. As evidenced by the fact that the guy whose wine it was came to pick it up within that timeframe.

Even then it could've been rectified by 'fessing up.

As it it stands, it's straight up theft.

That doesn't mean that FedEx isn't a bunch of useless idiots in this case, of course.

Why would you allow yourself to be a storage service for someone else's stuff for months or years when they, or their delivery service, has been told it's going to be gone in a specified amount of time?  When it's gone after that period of time, regardless of how it's gone (yes, just drinking it/taking it is more "gray"), they don't get to bitch. 

And that guy shouldn't have gone to Otto's house.  That guy should have gone to FedEx. 

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 12, 2014, 07:47:59 PM
Why would you allow yourself to be a storage service for someone else's stuff for months or years when they, or their delivery service, has been told it's going to be gone in a specified amount of time?

Leave it out front. Turn it in to the police as lost and found. Just because something gets mis-delivered to you doesn't mean you get to keep it.

QuoteAnd that guy shouldn't have gone to Otto's house.  That guy should have gone to FedEx.

He was probably getting the same shitty service and runaround from FedEx as Otto was when Otto was trying to do the right thing, and he was probably hoping that Otto had done the decent thing and would give him his wine... which I expect Otto would have, if he hadn't decided to start drinking it by then.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 07:51:24 PM
Leave it out front. Turn it in to the police as lost and found. Just because something gets mis-delivered to you doesn't mean you get to keep it.

It was left out front.  It was left out front for as long as he told them it would be left out front.  The drinking it piece of this is the more problematic part of it, but again:  Otto's front porch is not a combo FedEx warehouse and loading dock.   After they didn't come back to get it in the time period they said they would, he doesn't have any obligation to just leave it there and hope maybe they come get it someday.  Would the cops give a shit if he turned it in to them?

QuoteHe was probably getting the same shitty service and runaround from FedEx as Otto was when Otto was trying to do the right thing, and he was probably hoping that Otto had done the decent thing and would give him his wine... which I expect Otto would have, if he hadn't decided to start drinking it by then.

Regardless, that's between the guy and FedEx.  As far as the dude who ordered it is concerned, FedEx took it to the wrong place and it's gone.  Whether Otto is drinking it, or some hobo wandered up and took it and is slamming it back while hanging out next to a nice trashcan fire, or it all broke and a dog licked it up, the wine is gone and it's FedEx's fault.   

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 12, 2014, 07:56:47 PM
It was left out front.  It was left out front for as long as he told them it would be left out front.  The drinking it piece of this is the more problematic part of it, but again:  Otto's front porch is not a combo FedEx warehouse and loading dock.   After they didn't come back to get it in the time period they said they would, he doesn't have any obligation to just leave it there and hope maybe they come get it someday.  Would the cops give a shit if he turned it in to them?

Yeah, Otto doesn't have any kind of obligations to anybody with that, but it's still not his wine to drink.

QuoteRegardless, that's between the guy and FedEx.  As far as the dude who ordered it is concerned, FedEx took it to the wrong place and it's gone.  Whether Otto is drinking it, or some hobo wandered up and took it and is slamming it back while hanging out next to a nice trashcan fire, or it all broke and a dog licked it up, the wine is gone and it's FedEx's fault.

Yeah, it's between him and FedEx. He was being a bit too optimistic there.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 12, 2014, 07:02:14 PM
Only because I've actually had FedEx mis-deliver a package of mine before, I know that on their online package tracking it actually shows when they drop the package off the address they left it at. That's how when it happened to me I knew I just needed to walk one street over to my neighbor's house and pick it up. So that may be how the old man got my address, or maybe FedEx really did tell him where it was sent who knows. The whole thing felt weird because FedEx is a Fortune 500, ultra-established company and it felt like I was dealing with Bob's Discount Shipping Service, nothing felt professional about the whole thing.

:hmm: If only FedEx had a way to cross-check the recipient address and the actual delivery address.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2014, 08:01:57 PM
Yeah, Otto doesn't have any kind of obligations to anybody with that, but it's still not his wine to drink.

And, I mean, I do agree with you there, but then again, at that point the choice is really between tossing it or drinking it (as he said he would throw it away), sooooo.....why waste it if it's any good? 

QuoteYeah, it's between him and FedEx. He was being a bit too optimistic there.

It seems weird that FedEx wouldn't come get it in a timely fashion.  Surely they have trucks in that area all the time and can just put it on a driver's schedule to pick it up real fast on the way to somewhere else.  They probably have "special" trucks or something for that though, I guess.

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2014, 07:41:59 PM
It's not your wine to drink.  You were fine up to that point.

The fact you lied about it means you know this is true.

:yes: FedEx were utter dicks, but that doesn't transfer over property rights.

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2014, 07:41:59 PM
It's not your wine to drink.  You were fine up to that point.

The fact you lied about it means you know this is true.

Technically, he didn't lie.  He said that he had left it sitting out front for the period of time he said he'd leave it, and now it's gone.  And that was all true.  He just left out the fact that it had gone into his wine racks (or his gullet).

QuoteSo where do my actions fall here? Right, wrong, gray area?

You're kidding right.  :lol:

It was Otto's wine from the moment they delivered it.  He tried to return his own wine as a good Samaritan, and FedEx dropped the ball on it.  After that, Otto was free to dispose of his own wine as he saw fit, including drinking it.

I don't even see a moral dilemma here.  FedEx fucked up and made a gift of wine.  That happens.  FedEx charges rates that include the loss of materials they give away for free.  Its a part of the way they do business, and doesn't involve Otto at all, except as the lucky recipient of an unintended gift.

Quote from: 11B4V on December 12, 2014, 08:39:06 PM
(http://sowheredomyactionsfallhere?Right,wrong,grayarea?)

You're kidding right.  :lol:

Who was that directed at?  Me, or someone else?

I pretty much agree with grumbler, but because I'm an excellent person I wouldn't have drunk the wine myself.  I would have just left it on the front porch indefinitely.

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:45:18 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 12, 2014, 08:39:06 PM
(http://sowheredomyactionsfallhere?Right,wrong,grayarea?)

You're kidding right.  :lol:

Who was that directed at?  Me, or someone else?

OvB

Quote from: Caliga on December 12, 2014, 08:45:46 PM
I pretty much agree with grumbler, but because I'm an excellent person I wouldn't have drunk the wine myself.  I would have just left it on the front porch indefinitely.

I'm not sure that he's legally correct, though.  Legally, if a business ships something to you that you didn't order, you're entitled to consider it a gift and keep it without any obligation to pay for it.  But in this case, the wine wasn't shipped to him, but rather to the person that ordered it, and was simply misdelivered.  I'm not sure that's the same thing legally--in fact, I'm fairly sure it's not.

Quote from: 11B4V on December 12, 2014, 08:49:44 PM

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:45:18 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 12, 2014, 08:39:06 PM
(http://sowheredomyactionsfallhere?Right,wrong,grayarea?)

You're kidding right.  :lol:

Who was that directed at?  Me, or someone else?

OvB

IAW he was too cheap to go buy his own wine and sharped an old man's booze.

I'm w/ BB on this.

You don't have a good-faith argument that it is or quickly your property when the box clearly specifies it is intended for someone else.  But you don't have any legal duty to take care of it. 

Taking the package and drinking it seems to have been a pretty clear act of criminal larceny.  What lawful possession could you have thought you had over the property?  There is no way it could be considered abandoned in that amount of time.

You are wrong for drinking the wine, any wine as a matter of fact,  beer is better.

Seriously?  Over a half-hour drive?  I would have just taken it over.  That said, FedEx may have fucked themselves over (and saved Otto's bacon) by refusing to rectify the situation when they were made aware of it.  At that point, they knew they screwed up, the only reason they could have for making that excuse is that they were hoping it would blow over because the buyer was forgetful or a pushover.

As was pointed out, this particular misdelivery was even a violation of the law.  If the first person home had been a 19-year-old who really liked wine?  Or how about dropping something off with a lithium ion battery on the hottest day of the year?  To couriers, liability is king, so when dealing with packages with known restricted contents, they should be making damn sure that package gets to its intended recipient, not passing the buck.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 13, 2014, 12:40:18 AM
FedEx may have fucked themselves over (and saved Otto's bacon) by refusing to rectify the situation when they were made aware of it.  At that point, they knew they screwed up, the only reason they could have for making that excuse is that they were hoping it would blow over because the buyer was forgetful or a pushover.

Frankly, I can't understand why on earth they didn't send somebody for it right away.  I can see them not sending someone back for it the same day it was delivered, but I can't think of any good reason they didn't pick it up the next day.

I would have returned the wine, because I have nothing better to do.  I certainly wouldn't have drunk it.

Some things never change though.  Never leave booze around Otto.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2014, 12:58:59 AM
Some things never change though.  Never leave booze around Otto.

:thumbsup:

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 12, 2014, 08:06:35 PM
And, I mean, I do agree with you there, but then again, at that point the choice is really between tossing it or drinking it (as he said he would throw it away), sooooo.....why waste it if it's any good?

Not to make too big of a point out of it, but assuming this was what, 6 or 12 bottles of wine, the case must have not been big - so there was also a choice to keep it in some closet/basement where it would probably not be too much of an obstacle.  ;)

Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2014, 08:40:22 PM
It was Otto's wine from the moment they delivered it.  He tried to return his own wine as a good Samaritan, and FedEx dropped the ball on it.  After that, Otto was free to dispose of his own wine as he saw fit, including drinking it.

I don't even see a moral dilemma here.  FedEx fucked up and made a gift of wine.  That happens.  FedEx charges rates that include the loss of materials they give away for free.  Its a part of the way they do business, and doesn't involve Otto at all, except as the lucky recipient of an unintended gift.

I don't know what laws you have in the states, but that would not be Otto's wine, legally, in Polish legal system at least. When talking about movables, you can only acquire a title to them this way if you are acting in good faith - which Otto clearly wasn't, as he knew the wine was not his.

Now, his liability if the wine is destroyed or improperly stored is very limited (almost non-existent - essentially you are only liable if you intentionally destroy or damage the wine, but not for any form of carelessness or negligence) and he can charge a storage fee but that does not legally allow him to drink it.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 12, 2014, 10:03:44 PM
You don't have a good-faith argument that it is or quickly your property when the box clearly specifies it is intended for someone else.  But you don't have any legal duty to take care of it. 

Taking the package and drinking it seems to have been a pretty clear act of criminal larceny.  What lawful possession could you have thought you had over the property?  There is no way it could be considered abandoned in that amount of time.

Ok, so US law is pretty much the same as Polish law, and grumbler is full of shit and talking out of his ass about something he has no idea about?

Man, the world is full of surprises.

If it was Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm, the next act would be about Otto being hit by remorse and replacing the wine he drank with the same kind of wine he bought at a store, while claiming he found the case. Hilarity would ensue when it became apparent that the wine company mistakenly shipped the wrong vintage to the old guy - and now he is accusing Otto of trying to swindle him by replacing the better vintage he allegedly drank with a cheaper and worse kind.

Biscuit is not Jewish so he's not going to have Jewish father figure issues.

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:50:51 PM

Quote from: Caliga on December 12, 2014, 08:45:46 PM
I pretty much agree with grumbler, but because I'm an excellent person I wouldn't have drunk the wine myself.  I would have just left it on the front porch indefinitely.

I'm not sure that he's legally correct, though.  Legally, if a business ships something to you that you didn't order, you're entitled to consider it a gift and keep it without any obligation to pay for it. 

Is that true? I had no idea.  :huh:

Isn't he Catholic though?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2014, 03:07:26 AM

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:50:51 PM

Quote from: Caliga on December 12, 2014, 08:45:46 PM
I pretty much agree with grumbler, but because I'm an excellent person I wouldn't have drunk the wine myself.  I would have just left it on the front porch indefinitely.

I'm not sure that he's legally correct, though.  Legally, if a business ships something to you that you didn't order, you're entitled to consider it a gift and keep it without any obligation to pay for it. 

Is that true? I had no idea.  :huh:

Me neither. I thought this only applies to things that they ship to you intentionally (this is to curb the practice of "ambush deliveries"), not when they ship it to you by mistake.

Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2014, 03:07:30 AM
Isn't he Catholic though?

I think he might be.  Catholics have mother figure issues though, not father figure issues.

I don't have a major problem with Otto's handling of the situation. ClownEx fucked up badly, Otto is not their fucking servant.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2014, 03:09:42 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2014, 03:07:30 AM
Isn't he Catholic though?

I think he might be.  Catholics have mother figure issues though, not father figure issues.

I don't agree. Both Jews and Catholics have both types of issues. It's always an overprotective mother and a distant father - both judging you.

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:50:51 PM
I'm not sure that he's legally correct, though.  Legally, if a business ships something to you that you didn't order, you're entitled to consider it a gift and keep it without any obligation to pay for it.  But in this case, the wine wasn't shipped to him, but rather to the person that ordered it, and was simply misdelivered.  I'm not sure that's the same thing legally--in fact, I'm fairly sure it's not.

I yield to your logic and knowledge, and retract my statement.

My take on it was I was justified in eventually drinking the two bottles, but not justified in lying when FedEx and the old man showed up.

The way I see it, some of you are disregarding my rights as property owner. No one has the right to put refuse on my property against my will. A package I did not order and did not want on my property, I believe legally would be no different than if a neighbor threw a bag of trash in my yard. I do not believe there is any legal requirement of care for the refuse, and I would have been justified in dumping the entire wine box in the trash on day one.

It was not found in a public place, and thus not akin to "found money" out in public or other such, where you have a duty to turn it over to a police station.

Legally I would view this wine the same as I would a neighbor's apple tree where the branches hang over my yard and some of the apples fall into my yard. In that scenario who has legal claim to those apples? Can I eat them, or no? Do I have to give my neighbor traverse through my property to collect them? Am I required to leave them on my yard until my neighbor feels like collecting them?

I don't know the answers to those questions legally, but morally I feel like consumables that fall into my property are by right mine, regardless of what the law says.

Morally I felt bad when the old man showed up, but at that point I had 10 bottles of unboxed wine, and didn't want to admit I was the sort to break open a misdelivered wine box and start drinking the bottles.

I had a package delivered to me by mistake. Fedex told me to fuck off, and to contact the seller or locate the rightful owner if I cared that much.  I managed to find a number for the seller and finally found the owner who was in the same building.  They are a bunch of jagoffs.

I've dealt with FedEx before and it's usually been fine, I think situations like this "short-circuit" how their whole system works. For example if you have a FedEx account and schedule a (paid) package pickup, they come by reliably and pick up whatever you've paid them to pickup. I think when done this way it goes into their system and becomes automatically a part of the driver's route for that day, so gets handled well.

But something like this, there is no payment for FedEx involved and it isn't going through their normal shipment request system. So you literally have to have someone contact a driver who will be in that area, and actually add a pick up to his route. A pick up that he won't be able to scan in because there will be no (valid) FedEx shipping label (since the one on the package already delivered is an old/used one.)

On top of all of that, it's my understanding that UPS drivers are all UPS employees. FedEx drivers though, I believe are more like franchisees. They essentially "buy into" an area and get to run routes in that area, and are required to pay for their own vehicles and etc. There's a FedEx driver who lives on the road that leads to my wife's parent's house and his FedEx truck is always parked in his driveway when he's not working. So it could also be that a "delivery fix" like this may be outside of what the driver "has" to do, and it's more like a FedEx dispatcher can call and sorta nag him to do it, but it's not really part of his route responsibility or on his route schedule as a delivery/pickup so instead of dealing with it promptly he just deals with it "when he feels like it."

Where did you get the idea of the FedEx drivers as franchisees?  I worked for FedEx as a temp ~20 years ago and I am almost certain that was not the case then.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 13, 2014, 08:33:15 AM
My take on it was I was justified in eventually drinking the two bottles, but not justified in lying when FedEx and the old man showed up.

The way I see it, some of you are disregarding my rights as property owner. No one has the right to put refuse on my property against my will. A package I did not order and did not want on my property, I believe legally would be no different than if a neighbor threw a bag of trash in my yard. I do not believe there is any legal requirement of care for the refuse, and I would have been justified in dumping the entire wine box in the trash on day one.

Dumping trash on your property is a different matter as there there is a clear intention of the owner of the trash to be rid of it - so it becomes a nobody's property. Here the thing is clearly not left with an intention to alienate the property by the owner.

As I said before, you can charge someone for storage costs in such case as - and here you are right that they do not just have a right to leave it there - but that does not mean it becomes your property.

QuoteIt was not found in a public place, and thus not akin to "found money" out in public or other such, where you have a duty to turn it over to a police station.

If the Fed-Ex driver by mistake left his wallet on your property, why would that be different than if you found his wallet in a street? The duty is the same.

QuoteLegally I would view this wine the same as I would a neighbor's apple tree where the branches hang over my yard and some of the apples fall into my yard. In that scenario who has legal claim to those apples? Can I eat them, or no? Do I have to give my neighbor traverse through my property to collect them? Am I required to leave them on my yard until my neighbor feels like collecting them?

Most legal systems actually have special provisions dealing with branches or fruit falling across the property boundaries and the like. Leaving one's thing on someone else's property by mistake is not one of those special cases. Under Polish law (which is based on French and German civil law), in such case you can give someone a reasonable deadline for removing the apples - and if they do not meet it, you can remove them and charge him for the expenses. You can charge reasonable costs of storage as well (and usually, if the thing you are keeping is valuable, you can keep the thing in lien until such costs are paid). You can also keep the apples if it is clear they would get spoiled if he does not remove them (but obviously this is not the case with something more durable like wine). Likewise, you can charge him for any damage that his branches and fruit falling on your property caused to your property. You are NOT automatically becoming the owner of anything that inadvertently enters your property - that would be quite insane.

QuoteI don't know the answers to those questions legally, but morally I feel like consumables that fall into my property are by right mine, regardless of what the law says.

Good for you.

It would be a bummer to go to gaol for drugs dropped on your lawn by a young man running from the law.

Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2014, 10:21:30 AMGood for you.

Well this is more of a moral issue even though the legal topic has interesting elements to it, there is no chance this matter sees the inside of a court, and in fact given the legal advice made in this thread I feel compelled to increase the pace of consumption of this wine to remove any evidence.

Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2014, 10:34:00 AM
It would be a bummer to go to gaol for drugs dropped on your lawn by a young man running from the law.

About that, can I get those back from you now? <_<

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2014, 10:42:27 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2014, 10:34:00 AM
It would be a bummer to go to gaol for drugs dropped on your lawn by a young man running from the law.

About that, can I get those back from you now? <_<

Prank poster! Prank poster!

Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2014, 10:49:30 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2014, 10:42:27 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2014, 10:34:00 AM
It would be a bummer to go to gaol for drugs dropped on your lawn by a young man running from the law.

About that, can I get those back from you now? <_<

Prank poster! Prank poster!

:weep:

I would have popped open the box and stole the whole lot on day 1.

Quote from: sbr on December 13, 2014, 10:10:37 AM
Where did you get the idea of the FedEx drivers as franchisees?  I worked for FedEx as a temp ~20 years ago and I am almost certain that was not the case then.

Link (http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/companies/fedex-driver-lawsuit/index.html)

Im fairly certain that ovb has comitted the perfect crime. How can he be prosecuted for stealing wine when the wine is gone? :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2014, 05:30:34 PM
Im fairly certain that ovb has comitted the perfect crime. How can he be prosecuted for stealing wine when the wine is gone? :hmm:

GOOGLE SEARCH+FEDEX MISSING WINE

5TH Result.  :lol:

Full admission, Prosecution  rests.

 :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on December 13, 2014, 03:08:41 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2014, 03:07:26 AM

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2014, 08:50:51 PM

Quote from: Caliga on December 12, 2014, 08:45:46 PM
I pretty much agree with grumbler, but because I'm an excellent person I wouldn't have drunk the wine myself.  I would have just left it on the front porch indefinitely.

I'm not sure that he's legally correct, though.  Legally, if a business ships something to you that you didn't order, you're entitled to consider it a gift and keep it without any obligation to pay for it. 

Is that true? I had no idea.  :huh:

Me neither. I thought this only applies to things that they ship to you intentionally (this is to curb the practice of "ambush deliveries"), not when they ship it to you by mistake.

If you get a package that you didn't order, with your name and address on it, how would you possibly know if it was a good faith mistake instead of an "ambush delivery"?  To be honest, if you haven't ordered something from a company, I'm not sure how they could mistakenly send anything to you in the first place, though some companies are so poorly run that it probably does happen.  (Unless you're talking about a situation where you did order something, and they sent you the wrong thing.  That's a different case from what I'm referring to.).

Yeah that's what I meant. For example, recently I was ordering groceries online and got everything I ordered twice (but only paid for one order). I only realised that when the delivery guy was gone so I called them and they collected the extra stuff on the next day.

What happened to me once is that I placed an order, cancelled it afterwards, but the company still sent me the merchandise without charging me. I offered to return it as long as they provided the shipping (it was their mistake after all, I had canceled my order well within their time limit), but they told me to keep it. It was 100 $ worth of merchandise.

Pity it wasn't anything particularly useful,  just props for a short film I was working in.

Quote from: celedhring on December 14, 2014, 11:48:52 AM
What happened to me once is that I placed an order, cancelled it afterwards, but the company still sent me the merchandise without charging me. I offered to return it as long as they provided the shipping (it was their mistake after all, I had canceled my order well within their time limit), but they told me to keep it. It was 100 $ worth of merchandise.

Good will is probably worth more than the cost of dealing with the paperwork from their point of view. Amazon has done the same thing for me, though not for 100 bucks worth.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 13, 2014, 04:57:43 PM

Quote from: sbr on December 13, 2014, 10:10:37 AM
Where did you get the idea of the FedEx drivers as franchisees?  I worked for FedEx as a temp ~20 years ago and I am almost certain that was not the case then.

Link (http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/companies/fedex-driver-lawsuit/index.html)

Ah, FedEX Ground.  I knew their were some differences between the two, but I didn't know the Ground drivers were contractors.  I am almost positive that the Express drivers are still regular hourly employees that get regular (but not great) benefits and drive company owned vehicles.

Not that any of this really matters, I have no idea how either company handles mis-deliveries.  I was just surprised about the contractor/franchisee comment but that is sorted out now.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 14, 2014, 11:55:05 AM

Quote from: celedhring on December 14, 2014, 11:48:52 AM
What happened to me once is that I placed an order, cancelled it afterwards, but the company still sent me the merchandise without charging me. I offered to return it as long as they provided the shipping (it was their mistake after all, I had canceled my order well within their time limit), but they told me to keep it. It was 100 $ worth of merchandise.

Good will is probably worth more than the cost of dealing with the paperwork from their point of view. Amazon has done the same thing for me, though not for 100 bucks worth.

Probably not just good will, I would bet it would cost more than $100 for them to go back, pick up the package, return it to where ever, re-shelf it, update the records/inventory etc. 

It's a write-off for them.  All these big companies, they write off everything

That too yes. It might even have to be marked down as 'used' or whatever, and they'd lose money on the deal.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 14, 2014, 12:08:44 PM
That too yes. It might even have to be marked down as 'used' or whatever, and they'd lose money on the deal.

It is also possible that the person on the phone wasn't following some sort of big company logic and just didn't want to do any extra work that would cut into internet surfing time.

Well, we learned that it is unwise to go near Otto's house.  The fact that his moral compass is broken and that he has open contempt for law is not surprising though.  I remember back during the Iraq war when he argued an act was legal simply by the virtue committed by the President of the US.

Quote from: 11B4V on December 13, 2014, 05:39:10 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2014, 05:30:34 PM
Im fairly certain that ovb has comitted the perfect crime. How can he be prosecuted for stealing wine when the wine is gone? :hmm:

GOOGLE SEARCH+FEDEX MISSING WINE

5TH Result.  :lol:

Full admission, Prosecution  rests.

:lol:
This story could take an interesting turn if the guy does the logical thing and searches the internet for what to do and finds languish

Well only if he connects an anonymous poster on this forum with some guy living Fredricksburg, Maryland.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 02:15:12 AM
Well only if he connects an anonymous poster on this forum with some guy living Fredricksburg, Maryland.

Now he can. Thanks Raz.  :hug:

Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:36:44 PM
Well, we learned that it is unwise to go near Otto's house.  The fact that his moral compass is broken and that he has open contempt for law is not surprising though.  I remember back during the Iraq war when he argued an act was legal simply by the virtue committed by the President of the US.

Lol no, I think you're confusing me for Richard Nixon in the 1970s.

Fredericksburg isn't in Maryland, though.  It's in Vajinyah.

Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2014, 11:28:43 AM
Fredericksburg isn't in Maryland, though.  It's in Vajinyah.

Fredericksburgtown.

What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2014, 09:50:59 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2014, 05:36:44 PM
Well, we learned that it is unwise to go near Otto's house.  The fact that his moral compass is broken and that he has open contempt for law is not surprising though.  I remember back during the Iraq war when he argued an act was legal simply by the virtue committed by the President of the US.

Lol no, I think you're confusing me for Richard Nixon in the 1970s.

No, this was you in 2005.

Americans suck. :weep:

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Can you count the amount of Americans who have made this claim?

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Can you count the amount of Americans who have made this claim?

Yes

I once drove off from the McDonald's window with a bag that wasn't my order after I had paid, but a lot better.   I fault McDonald's for not giving me the right bag.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:46:15 PM
I once drove off from the McDonald's window with a bag that wasn't my order after I had paid, but a lot better.   I fault McDonald's for not giving me the right bag.

At least you didn't lie to anyone afterward. 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:46:15 PM
I once drove off from the McDonald's window with a bag that wasn't my order after I had paid, but a lot better.   I fault McDonald's for not giving me the right bag.

Basically a murderer

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 04:44:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Can you count the amount of Americans who have made this claim?

Yes

I acknowledge that some Americans here have posted things that would support your view, but others have not, and, without looking back through the thread, I think some of the posts suggesting that what OvB did with the wine was A-OK were by non-Americans.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 04:50:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:46:15 PM
I once drove off from the McDonald's window with a bag that wasn't my order after I had paid, but a lot better.   I fault McDonald's for not giving me the right bag.

Basically a murderer

Yeah.  A murder...of fries!

Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 04:50:43 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 04:44:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2014, 03:49:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:48:02 PM
What we have learned from this thread is that a lot of Americans here seem to think that if they are inconvenienced they have a lawful right to cheat, lie and steal.

Well you were never the best here as far as reading comprehension. :(

By American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Can you count the amount of Americans who have made this claim?

Yes

I acknowledge that some Americans here have posted things that would support your view, but others have not, and, without looking back through the thread, I think some of the posts suggesting that what OvB did with the wine was A-OK were by non-Americans.

Fair point.  Languish has attracted a number of people who seem to think theft is ok.

Probably better to just destroy it all.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:19:04 PM
Probably better to just destroy it all.

That, at least, would have been more morally defensible than simply stealing it by drinking some and storing the rest then claiming it had all simply vanished.

Better still, he could have just kept it until Fed Ex got things straightened out.   If he really couldn't do that, at the point the owner came by he could have been honest and simply explained his frustration with Fed Ex and offered to buy another case.  But lying about it.  That is reprehensible.

I'd have donated it to a homeless shelter.

But in his rage CC forgot the riddle of wine and left it on the battlefield.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:26:47 PM

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:19:04 PM
Probably better to just destroy it all.

That, at least, would have been more morally defensible than simply stealing it by drinking some and storing the rest then claiming it had all simply vanished.

Better still, he could have just kept it until Fed Ex got things straightened out.   If he really couldn't do that, at the point the owner came by he could have been honest and simply explained his frustration with Fed Ex and offered to buy another case.  But lying about it.  That is reprehensible.

It's not really that big of a deal.  Compared to people from countries where they do things like, say, beat baby seals to death, he's pretty much a saint. 

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:33:12 PM
It's not really that big of a deal.  Compared to people from countries where they do things like, say, beat baby seals to death, he's pretty much a saint.

Never took you to be a Greenpeace supporter.

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 05:35:38 PM
Never took you to be a Greenpeace supporter.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbabyanimalz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F09%2FBaby-Seal2-500x375.jpg&hash=670e459df7314c742c13bc03fe787c40eccab7e3)

:( Please stop hitting me  :(

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F98%2F988898e44b69e09c33ad5569e92a7d2a9779352ccabc96389e509edc1c3ffd7c.jpg&hash=cf5556514f7d18b79c6d5a5bc585eb85f8f1ff66)

Clubbing seals is an honest profession.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:33:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:26:47 PM

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:19:04 PM
Probably better to just destroy it all.

That, at least, would have been more morally defensible than simply stealing it by drinking some and storing the rest then claiming it had all simply vanished.

Better still, he could have just kept it until Fed Ex got things straightened out.   If he really couldn't do that, at the point the owner came by he could have been honest and simply explained his frustration with Fed Ex and offered to buy another case.  But lying about it.  That is reprehensible.

It's not really that big of a deal. 

Yeah, at least he didn't shoot the guy who was looking for his wine in defense of his property rights.  There is so much to be thankful for.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 05:37:41 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F98%2F988898e44b69e09c33ad5569e92a7d2a9779352ccabc96389e509edc1c3ffd7c.jpg&hash=cf5556514f7d18b79c6d5a5bc585eb85f8f1ff66)

:D

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:38:28 PM
Yeah, at least he didn't shoot the guy who was looking for his wine in defense of his property rights.  There is so much to be thankful for.

Good point.  That guy should have thanked Otto for not immediately zapping him right there on the porch.  What a dick. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:38:28 PM

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:33:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 05:26:47 PM

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 05:19:04 PM
Probably better to just destroy it all.

That, at least, would have been more morally defensible than simply stealing it by drinking some and storing the rest then claiming it had all simply vanished.

Better still, he could have just kept it until Fed Ex got things straightened out.   If he really couldn't do that, at the point the owner came by he could have been honest and simply explained his frustration with Fed Ex and offered to buy another case.  But lying about it.  That is reprehensible.

It's not really that big of a deal. 

Yeah, at least he didn't shoot the guy who was looking for his wine in defense of his property rights.  There is so much to be thankful for.

The old dude was white, and therefore not likely to mug him?  Maybe he had a confederate flag pin?

Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2014, 05:38:02 PM
Clubbing seals is an honest profession.

It certainly is what it says on the tin.

Baby seals are pretty cute, it's hard to deny.

Then tell your government to stop murdering them.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
Then tell your government to stop murdering them.

Governments don't murder baby seals, clubs do.

Then close the fucking clubs on zoning violations.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ljfi4eLXes1qdey1zo1_500.jpg&hash=59a9f096bc773b0f42b88e7821be85e9e2f4f25f)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
Then tell your government to stop murdering them.

But they're cute;  how can he have them mounted on his walls without killing them first?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:51:01 PM

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2014, 04:50:35 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 04:46:15 PM
I once drove off from the McDonald's window with a bag that wasn't my order after I had paid, but a lot better.   I fault McDonald's for not giving me the right bag.

Basically a murderer

Yeah.  A murder...of fries!

If you are going to steal something to eat, better a murder of fries than a murder of crows.

We all have to eat crow eventually.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
Then tell your government to stop murdering them.

Is that still going on? I thought the market for baby seal fur was destroyed a while ago, and whatever seal hunt is still going on is primarily indigenous. I was under the impression that the days of drunken Newfies clubbing baby seals with wild abandon were gone.

... excuse me while I power up my google machine.

They don't murder the littlest fluffy baby seals, but once they get a bit older they're apparently considered fair game.

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
They don't murder the littlest fluffy baby seals, but once they get a bit older they're apparently considered fair game.

Let's hear it for seal adolescence.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:31:24 PM
Then close the fucking clubs on zoning violations.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ljfi4eLXes1qdey1zo1_500.jpg&hash=59a9f096bc773b0f42b88e7821be85e9e2f4f25f)

:lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:31:24 PM
Then close the fucking clubs on zoning violations.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ljfi4eLXes1qdey1zo1_500.jpg&hash=59a9f096bc773b0f42b88e7821be85e9e2f4f25f)

I'd hit it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 07:42:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
They don't murder the littlest fluffy baby seals, but once they get a bit older they're apparently considered fair game.

Let's hear it for seal adolescence.

It's a rough time, adolescence.

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 08:35:18 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 07:42:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
They don't murder the littlest fluffy baby seals, but once they get a bit older they're apparently considered fair game.

Let's hear it for seal adolescence.

It's a rough time, adolescence.

Would be better off going to Europe to find themselves, but I doubt they'd make it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 08:45:28 PMWould be better off going to Europe to find themselves, but I doubt they'd make it.

:lol:

Hey Otto, hurry to NJ all kinds of free stuff,maybe you could finish off your Xmas shopping

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2FWABC_fedex_kab_141215_16x9_992.jpg&hash=c16872e801676151d94ee083e8cd3ef4d5ee3b81)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-highway-crash-sends-fedex-packages-flying-10/story?id=27610996

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 07:13:22 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:13:55 PM
Then tell your government to stop murdering them.

Is that still going on? I thought the market for baby seal fur was destroyed a while ago, and whatever seal hunt is still going on is primarily indigenous. I was under the impression that the days of drunken Newfies clubbing baby seals with wild abandon were gone.

... excuse me while I power up my google machine.

As if drunken Newfies really care what they hit with clubs.

Quote from: dps on December 15, 2014, 09:31:36 PMAs if drunken Newfies really care what they hit with clubs.

You may have a point.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PMBy American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PMBy American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

I'm confused, if you didn't think what you did was wrong, why didn't you fess up when the owner came looking?

Probably waiting for the right time to shoot him.  MAH GROUND

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 10:55:30 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PMBy American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

I'm confused, if you didn't think what you did was wrong, why didn't you fess up when the owner came looking?

Yeah, that's the fatal flaw in OVB's moral reasoning.  If he truly thinks he did no wrong he should have no problem admitting it to the old man.

And Otto, I couldn't give a proper legal analysis to the wine since there were all kinds of bailment issues going on, but if you find a gold bar on your land, it is yours UNLESS the rightful owner shows up, in which case it still belongs to that person.

Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2014, 11:08:08 AM
And Otto, I couldn't give a proper legal analysis to the wine since there were all kinds of bailment issues going on, but if you find a gold bar on your land, it is yours UNLESS the rightful owner shows up, in which case it still belongs to that person.

Pfft, that legal argument fails when challenged by the ironclad defense of "finders keepers, losers weepers", BB. 

The old man was never in any danger of being shot, he wasn't even trespassing since you're generally allowed to walk up to someone's door and knock on it.

Note BB, I never actually said I was morally justified in taking the wine. Just laid it out there. My primary reason for not fessing up was simple, embarrassment. It's pretty low on the etiquette scale to admit you've boorishly broken up some guy's wine box and started drinking it. If I hadn't opened it yet, I would've returned, but there was no way to do so and avoid the shame of the situation.

Morally I feel I was wrong not to return the 10 bottles and just deal with the opprobrium about the missing 2, but I don't feel it was unethical to have opened the box and drank the two bottles initially.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:15:48 AM
The old man was never in any danger of being shot, he wasn't even trespassing since you're generally allowed to walk up to someone's door and knock on it.

Note BB, I never actually said I was morally justified in taking the wine. Just laid it out there. My primary reason for not fessing up was simple, embarrassment. It's pretty low on the etiquette scale to admit you've boorishly broken up some guy's wine box and started drinking it. If I hadn't opened it yet, I would've returned, but there was no way to do so and avoid the shame of the situation.

Morally I feel I was wrong not to return the 10 bottles and just deal with the opprobrium about the missing 2, but I don't feel it was unethical to have opened the box and drank the two bottles initially.

Fair enough.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating. :P

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 06:31:24 PM
Then close the fucking clubs on zoning violations.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ljfi4eLXes1qdey1zo1_500.jpg&hash=59a9f096bc773b0f42b88e7821be85e9e2f4f25f)

:D :D :D

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:17:41 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating. :P

It has that meaning as well in English.  Trust me 1st year law students tend to giggle in Torts class until you get used to the legal meaning of the word.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2014, 07:42:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2014, 07:18:23 PM
They don't murder the littlest fluffy baby seals, but once they get a bit older they're apparently considered fair game.

Let's hear it for seal adolescence.

Yeah. Imagine being a baby seal and hearing all those horror stories from the Canadian baby seal Holocaust survivors - then you get to adolescence, think you are out in the clear and BAM, some murdering Canadian lawyer clubs you to death.

Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2014, 11:08:08 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 10:55:30 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PMBy American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

I'm confused, if you didn't think what you did was wrong, why didn't you fess up when the owner came looking?

Yeah, that's the fatal flaw in OVB's moral reasoning.  If he truly thinks he did no wrong he should have no problem admitting it to the old man.

And Otto, I couldn't give a proper legal analysis to the wine since there were all kinds of bailment issues going on, but if you find a gold bar on your land, it is yours UNLESS the rightful owner shows up, in which case it still belongs to that person.

The legal analysis is really very simple.  Otto had possession but no legal right to the wine.  He knew he was not in legal possession so he tried to return the wine to the rightful owner.  His patience for doing the right thing was limited and so he unlawfully took the wine for himself both by consuming part of it and unlawfully storing the rest of it.  He then lied to both the courier company and the rightful owner about what had happened.  There are a number of civil wrongs (including conversion and fraud) and potentially criminal acts (including theft and fraud) but what we for the purposes of Languish what we have learned is that Otto isn't trolling when he takes immoral positions.

If Otto had an honest belief in his somewhat deluded logic developed after the fact that he was lawfully in possession then we, and the law, would cut him some slack.  But it is apparent from his description he knew what he was doing was wrong and that is why he lied about what happened to the wine.  It is there we find the intent both for the criminal act of theft and the intentional tort of conversion.

That and lying is simply reprehensible conduct no matter what the excuse.

And I only brought up the gold bar to explain the spectrum of behavior. Something really valuable like a gold bar on my property, I ain't telling anybody I found it, that shit be worth money. But that's also finding essentially pure gold unpacked in my yard, a different scenario entirely.

Something like wine, which I enjoy, but isn't insanely valuable or anything is just in "peril" of being consumed if the delivery company doesn't properly rectify the delivery.

Any non-consumable there would be a sliding scale. Something of low value, I'd try for a bit to get it to the right place, then throw it away if I couldn't. Something like a computer or something I'd keep it until it was sorted out, but wouldn't seize it for my own purposes.

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:17:41 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating. :P

Yes, but most lawyers, even from civil law countries, know what a tort is in the common law.  It is sort of a fundamental concept. ;)

Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2014, 11:08:08 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 10:55:30 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 10:51:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PMBy American standards perhaps.  But most everywhere else in the civilized world if one knowingly takes the property of another for their own purpose it is theft or at the very least the tort of conversion.  I suppose its just peachy that some Americans think the statute of limitations is Fex Ex not picking up the package within an arbitrary period selected by the would be thief.

Well this is stuff that essentially fell into my property. If I found a gold bar in my yard I wouldn't have even made a good faith effort to find the rightful owner. I'd consider it a case of "too bad, so sad" for whomever was foolish enough to deposit gold bars on my land.

I'm confused, if you didn't think what you did was wrong, why didn't you fess up when the owner came looking?

Yeah, that's the fatal flaw in OVB's moral reasoning.  If he truly thinks he did no wrong he should have no problem admitting it to the old man.

And Otto, I couldn't give a proper legal analysis to the wine since there were all kinds of bailment issues going on, but if you find a gold bar on your land, it is yours UNLESS the rightful owner shows up, in which case it still belongs to that person.

And again, in many legal systems there are special regulations about finding "treasures" in the land.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:24:41 AM
And I only brought up the gold bar to explain the spectrum of behavior. Something really valuable like a gold bar on my property, I ain't telling anybody I found it, that shit be worth money. But that's also finding essentially pure gold unpacked in my yard, a different scenario entirely.

Something like wine, which I enjoy, but isn't insanely valuable or anything is just in "peril" of being consumed if the delivery company doesn't properly rectify the delivery.

Any non-consumable there would be a sliding scale. Something of low value, I'd try for a bit to get it to the right place, then throw it away if I couldn't. Something like a computer or something I'd keep it until it was sorted out, but wouldn't seize it for my own purposes.

I don't think you need to confess your immorality any further. ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:24:53 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:17:41 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2014, 03:51:48 PM
the tort of conversion

In Polish, the word "tort" means "torte" (or a fancy cake). So "tort of conversion" sounds like a magical consummable which would turn you Jewish upon eating. :P

Yes, but most lawyers, even from civil law countries, know what a tort is in the common law.  Its is sort of a fundamental concept. ;)

I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny. :P

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny. :P

:huh:

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

I dispute that the initial consumption of wine was immoral, lying was immoral--it almost always is, Kant would say it always is, in fact. But I lie when it suits me, most people lie if they have to do so. Some are white lies, and I don't usually lie about things of great import or anything like that. Unless someone here claims they've never lied they are hypocrites to even judge it.

The initial consumption of the wine, I had no ethical obligation to store someone's property against my will. Since it was ethically fine to destroy it, it was also ethically fine to consume it. When the old man came, I should have made it right by giving him his ten bottles. But I didn't, that's where I see the moral failing. You see it in taking the two bottles, and I see no moral problem there. I didn't ask that they be put on my property, I didn't want them to be, and I gave reasonable time frames for the courier to correct the issue, we're talking over ten days total this situation persisted before I drank wine.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:27:26 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny. :P

:huh:

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:29:07 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:27:26 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny. :P

:huh:

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

They are really too numerous to list.  Suffice to say there is a reason there is a Languish Meme that you are not really a lawyer.  You have seemed so obtuse about law in common law countries.  I always just assumed it was because your legal training didn't give you exposure to this area. 

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 11:28:48 AM
I dispute that the initial consumption of wine was immoral, lying was immoral--it almost always is, Kant would say it always is, in fact. But I lie when it suits me, most people lie if they have to do so. Some are white lies, and I don't usually lie about things of great import or anything like that. Unless someone here claims they've never lied they are hypocrites to even judge it.

The initial consumption of the wine, I had no ethical obligation to store someone's property against my will. Since it was ethically fine to destroy it, it was also ethically fine to consume it. When the old man came, I should have made it right by giving him his ten bottles. But I didn't, that's where I see the moral failing. You see it in taking the two bottles, and I see no moral problem there. I didn't ask that they be put on my property, I didn't want them to be, and I gave reasonable time frames for the courier to correct the issue, we're talking over ten days total this situation persisted before I drank wine.

The lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:32:12 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:29:07 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:27:26 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
I also know what it means - I attended a two year English common law course run by Cambridge. I just thought the expression is funny. :P

:huh:

Then why have you been so completely unaware of most common law concepts over the years.  Just playing dumb?

Care to give any examples?

They are really too numerous to list.  Suffice to say there is a reason there is a Languish Meme that you are not really a lawyer.  You have seemed so obtuse about law in common law countries.  I always just assumed it was because your legal training didn't give you exposure to this area.

That "meme" is limited to you being insulting (plus an occasional troll from Raz and grumbler). Admittedly, my studies were focused mainly on English contract and corporat law and I do not have US constitutional law (or generally, US common law) training and this is what gets discussed mainly here when law is being discussed - and I also argue from the position of what law should be (as I believe arguing from the position of what law is in an international crowd is pretty useless, since it is obviously different everywhere). That does not mean I do not understand legal concepts.

I think what we are witnessing in this thread is an illustration of the moral and spiritual degradation of the west point man that has led to military struggles overseas and a 13 game losing streak against the midshipmen.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:33:20 AMThe lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

Doesn't follow, all you really have to support that is that if I needed to lie about it, then it must have been immoral. But many acts which are not immoral can be lied about.

The intrinsic morality of the act was neutral. I had no duty to the owner of the wine, he did not order it from me nor did I agree to ship it to him. FedEx had a duty to the wine owner. I would accept that I had some duty societally to FedEx. They had made a good faith mistake and given me property they did not intend to give me. I feel that I satisfied my duty to FedEx, and thus my moral obligations in the initial matter, by working hard and giving them a large window of time in which to come collect the wine. FedEx failed in its duty to the owner of the wine. I failed in my duty to the owner of the wine only in that I lied to him, as I have a duty to others to not lie.

I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 01:35:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 11:33:20 AMThe lying is simply evidence that you knew what you had done was wrong.  The lying was wrong yes.  But so was the act you felt compelled to cover up by lying.

Doesn't follow, all you really have to support that is that if I needed to lie about it, then it must have been immoral. But many acts which are not immoral can be lied about.

The intrinsic morality of the act was neutral. I had no duty to the owner of the wine, he did not order it from me nor did I agree to ship it to him. FedEx had a duty to the wine owner. I would accept that I had some duty societally to FedEx. They had made a good faith mistake and given me property they did not intend to give me. I feel that I satisfied my duty to FedEx, and thus my moral obligations in the initial matter, by working hard and giving them a large window of time in which to come collect the wine. FedEx failed in its duty to the owner of the wine. I failed in my duty to the owner of the wine only in that I lied to him, as I have a duty to others to not lie.

I fear you are past hope if you view taking property you know is not yours and then lying about it is in any way morally neutral.

Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

They'll steal your corn.

Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2014, 02:11:57 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

They'll steal your corn.

20 lashes from the overseer then.

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:12:51 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:12:51 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

Otto, there is an important distinction between lawful and unlawful possession.  What you did is worse than finding property and claiming it as your own.  You knew the property belonged to someone else and took it as your own then lied about it to hide your misdeed.

I'm not talking about the law, though.

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:28:17 PMOkay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:50:30 PM
I'm not talking about the law, though.

No, you are trying to create an artificial justification for your unlawful and unethical acts.  You knew what you were doing was wrong but you did it anyway and you are now engaged in a ex post facto justification exercise.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:51:44 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:28:17 PMOkay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 02:54:47 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:51:44 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:28:17 PMOkay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

What if he didn't like the wine?

Quote from: sbr on December 16, 2014, 02:55:51 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 02:54:47 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 02:51:44 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 02:28:17 PMOkay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

What if he didn't like the wine?

It would still be wrong* but wouldn't rankle me as much. :D

*But yes, I guess that really boils it down to - treating the object as if it was yours even though you had it within your means to give it back. Then compounded by denying that you have it when the owner comes looking.

I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 04:09:50 PM
I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

He still keeps trying to put up a defense of his actions. :contract:

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 04:13:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2014, 04:09:50 PM
I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

He still keeps trying to put up a defense of his actions. :contract:

Of course. Most people have an ego.

Over the years, I've put in a fair amount of time and energy trying to rectify situations like this, to get things to their rightful recipients.  Moral (and legal) obligations sometimes just land on you out of the blue -- certainly not every duty is contracted for.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2014, 02:54:27 PM
No, you are trying to create an artificial justification for your unlawful and unethical acts.  You knew what you were doing was wrong but you did it anyway and you are now engaged in a ex post facto justification exercise.

I'm only justifying that which wasn't unethical--drinking the wine, I've not tried to justify lying, which I knew was unethical but chose to do anyway.

I think the majority of individuals who responded have felt it was either okay or not a big deal to drink the wine. It's just the 2-3 that disagreed are more engaged on the topic.

I would say it's resolved that if it'd be okay to drink the wine after say, a year, then that's no different than after a week. That's just an artificial construct at that point, no true ethical truism.

The point about knowing where he lives is also irrelevant, unless you think I would be obligated to deliver the package anywhere on Earth. Why not Syria? North Korea? Liberia? That part is irrelevant  because I had no duty to deliver the package, FedEx did.

I would have poured it out in front of the old man. Then gave him 10 seconds to get off my property. That is how you deal with plebs.

Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
I would say it's resolved that if it'd be okay to drink the wine after say, a year, then that's no different than after a week. That's just an artificial construct at that point, no true ethical truism.

I think time matters as far as reasonable expectations on when a situation should be resolved. If the man had shown up in 6 months time, very different story.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
The point about knowing where he lives is also irrelevant, unless you think I would be obligated to deliver the package anywhere on Earth. Why not Syria? North Korea? Liberia? That part is irrelevant  because I had no duty to deliver the package, FedEx did.

I don't think so, though if you have an address - shouldn't be that hard to get a phone number. Not that you are obligated to do any of that - but drinking the wine when you knew it wasn't yours and had enough information to know/find out who the proper owner makes this different for me.

Sort of like the difference of finding a wallet with ID and taking the money you find, vs. encountering a 20 dollar bill on a crowded sidewalk.

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

I guess he could have looked up the tracking info online, which might have displayed the actual delivery address.

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 04:52:21 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2014, 04:52:21 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
Maybe it was mentioned in the thread but how did the guy get your address? Surely not through FedEx?

Hey, Tim, trying reading the OP where that question is answered.

Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

That's America - they have laws that make them free-er than every other country in the world, which means service providers can freely share your personal data with anyone. :P

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

GODDAMN AMERICA

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Great Asperger response. :)

Awesome.

I think Otto's choice was morally and legally wrong, possibly criminal.  Just because something ends up on your property doesn't necessarily make it yours.  If a heavy wind blows your neighbor's grill onto your lawn, you've got to give it back.  The whole "what about my rights as a property owner?" argument is a canard.  While you may gather all the Lockean acorns you wish on your land, you are not entitled to benefit unjustly when that same wind blows your neighbor's Lockean acorns over the fence onto your land.

There was a really simple solution to this problem that would have been the obvious choice had Otto not been so sinful in his avarice and gluttony.  The solution is just leave the box where it was left, or at the nearest convenient place.  Inform FedEx.  Forget about it.

Once the property is delivered, I think you become the involuntary bailor of the property, so you just need to not 1) smash it with a bat and 2) steal it for drinking; you can manhandle it and store it like shit if you want.  It becomes legally abandoned after a certain amount of time, and then you have free reign over it.

If Otto knew the old guy's address, but couldn't find his phone number, why not send him a note by US mail?

Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2014, 08:09:41 PM
If Otto knew the old guy's address, but couldn't find his phone number, why not send him a note by US mail?

A: the price of a stamp is unreasonable to expend on fixing FedEx's mistake.

(and it would mean he couldn't drink the wine himself)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Besides it would be weird if FedEx wouldn't admit to where they dropped off a package that went to the wrong place...

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2014, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2014, 08:09:41 PM
If Otto knew the old guy's address, but couldn't find his phone number, why not send him a note by US mail?

A: the price of a stamp is unreasonable to expend on fixing FedEx's mistake.

(and it would mean he couldn't drink the wine himself)

Yeah, Otto shouldn't have to spend 49 cents to be denied a right to drink free wine! :angry:

Can't we all agree Otto is worse than Hitler?

Quote from: katmai on December 17, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
Can't we all agree Otto is worse than Hitler?

No, as stealing wine isn't at all comparable to mass executions, Marti.

Quote from: katmai on December 17, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
Can't we all agree Otto is worse than Hitler?

HEY NOW. That is my title. :mad:

Quote from: katmai on December 17, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
Can't we all agree Otto is worse than Hitler?

I'm not sure.  Otto is a very bad person, no doubt, and what he did is beyond the pale, but it's not like Hitler was a saint either.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 17, 2014, 12:17:45 AM
HEY NOW. That is my title. :mad:

No, no, no... you're "LITERALLY worse than Hitler."

Otto's just "worse than Hitler."

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: katmai on December 17, 2014, 12:11:58 AM
Can't we all agree Otto is worse than Hitler?

No, as stealing wine isn't at all comparable to mass executions, Marti.

Besides, Hitler didn't drink much, so he probably wouldn't have stolen the wine.

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:07:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Besides it would be weird if FedEx wouldn't admit to where they dropped off a package that went to the wrong place...

I would be pretty fucking upset if a company gave out my name and address to their customers.

Who said they gave out the name? And again, I don't see why it would be a secret for them to tell where they had left a package.

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:15:24 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:07:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Besides it would be weird if FedEx wouldn't admit to where they dropped off a package that went to the wrong place...

I would be pretty fucking upset if a company gave out my name and address to their customers.

Even if they didn't give the Otto's name out? To be honest, I don't see how saying "we dropped your wine at address X" constitutes giving out your address to someone. Personal data is only relevant if it is connected to other personal data (e.g. "A lives at address X"). Simply naming your address without any reference to your other personal data is not in any way problematic, imo.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
I would have poured it out in front of the old man. Then gave him 10 seconds to get off my property. That is how you deal with plebs.

Take a sip first. Spit it out in disgust Tell him the wine is impertinent and that while he might well be the kind of imbecile  amused by its rustic pretensions, you most certainly are not. Then the above but aim a kick at his arse on the way out.

Quote from: Martinus on December 17, 2014, 11:24:44 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:15:24 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:07:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2014, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM
Thanks. That's insane though, doesn't FedEx protect the privacy of the public at all?

People's addresses are printed in the phone book.  The fact that Hiram von Biscuit lives at 2001 Coonkiller Lane is not shielded by the right to privacy.

Besides it would be weird if FedEx wouldn't admit to where they dropped off a package that went to the wrong place...

I would be pretty fucking upset if a company gave out my name and address to their customers.

Even if they didn't give the Otto's name out? To be honest, I don't see how saying "we dropped your wine at address X" constitutes giving out your address to someone. Personal data is only relevant if it is connected to other personal data (e.g. "A lives at address X"). Simply naming your address without any reference to your other personal data is not in any way problematic, imo.

Is this Asperger central? Oh right, I'm on Languish.

1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

That it isn't OK for companies to give out my information to their customers is ridiculous to you?

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:49:29 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

That it isn't OK for companies to give out my information to their customers is ridiculous to you?

Yes because it seems irrelevant here. Your address, sans name, isn't a secret. It is just a record of where they made the drop.

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:50:58 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:49:29 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

That it isn't OK for companies to give out my information to their customers is ridiculous to you?

Yes because it seems irrelevant here. Your address, sans name, isn't a secret. It is just a record of where they made the drop.

Aspie conspiracy. OK I'll try to slowly walk you through it. If the company gives out information that lets one of their customers knock on my door then that is not OK. The information may have been my name and address, or just my name, or just my address (or something completely different that somehow lets the customer find me). Exactly which amount of information that is enough to track me down depends on both my name and my address. I may have a very common name, or a very uncommon or even unique name. I may share an address with lots of people or it's just my house. Obviously I expect that a company doesn't share enough information about me for one of their customers to track me down. That's basic privacy stuff.

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:56:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:50:58 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:49:29 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

That it isn't OK for companies to give out my information to their customers is ridiculous to you?

Yes because it seems irrelevant here. Your address, sans name, isn't a secret. It is just a record of where they made the drop.

Aspie conspiracy. OK I'll try to slowly walk you through it. If the company gives out information that lets one of their customers knock on my door then that is not OK. The information may have been my name and address, or just my name, or just my address (or something completely different that somehow lets the customer find me). Exactly which amount of information that is enough to track me down depends on both my name and my address. I may have a very common name, or a very uncommon or even unique name. I may share an address with lots of people or it's just my house. Obviously I expect that a company doesn't share enough information about me for one of their customers to track me down. That's basic privacy stuff.

Strangely, you keep noting your concerns about your name - while both Marti and I were speaking about address only and how that isn't a problem. Customers should be able to know where their packages were delivered (pretty standard feature on online trackers), so I don't think it is a violation of your privacy if someone knows that their package at XX Swedish Fish Lane. I do agree that it does ruffle me a bit if the company were to say "We delivered your package to XX Swedish Fish Lane to a Mr. Brian Goat." The latter then takes an address and links it to you. Telling a customer where their package was delivered (address only) does not violate your privacy.

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:06:28 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:56:32 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:50:58 AM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:49:29 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
1) You aren't Seeds so don't start.
2) You have adopted a ridiculous stance.

That it isn't OK for companies to give out my information to their customers is ridiculous to you?

Yes because it seems irrelevant here. Your address, sans name, isn't a secret. It is just a record of where they made the drop.

Aspie conspiracy. OK I'll try to slowly walk you through it. If the company gives out information that lets one of their customers knock on my door then that is not OK. The information may have been my name and address, or just my name, or just my address (or something completely different that somehow lets the customer find me). Exactly which amount of information that is enough to track me down depends on both my name and my address. I may have a very common name, or a very uncommon or even unique name. I may share an address with lots of people or it's just my house. Obviously I expect that a company doesn't share enough information about me for one of their customers to track me down. That's basic privacy stuff.

Strangely, you keep noting your concerns about your name - while both Marti and I were speaking about address only and how that isn't a problem. Customers should be able to know where their packages were delivered (pretty standard feature on online trackers), so I don't think it is a violation of your privacy if someone knows that their package at XX Swedish Fish Lane. I do agree that it does ruffle me a bit if the company were to say "We delivered your package to XX Swedish Fish Lane to a Mr. Brian Goat." The latter then takes an address and links it to you. Telling a customer where their package was delivered (address only) does not violate your privacy.

Your position is noted and I disagree completely.

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
Your position is noted and I disagree completely.

One thing I would say though is that is probably not a good idea for a company to divulge said information when they deliverer a package to the wrong address. After all, they essentially setup the whole adversarial confrontation between Otto and the old man as they sent the old man there.

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
Your position is noted and I disagree completely.

One thing I would say though is that is probably not a good idea for a company to divulge said information when they deliverer a package to the wrong address. After all, they essentially setup the whole adversarial confrontation between Otto and the old man as they sent the old man there.

Precisely. The guy could have been HA or whatever. I don't want FedEx's drama.

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 12:12:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2014, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
Your position is noted and I disagree completely.

One thing I would say though is that is probably not a good idea for a company to divulge said information when they deliverer a package to the wrong address. After all, they essentially setup the whole adversarial confrontation between Otto and the old man as they sent the old man there.

Precisely. The guy could have been HA or whatever. I don't want FedEx's drama.

Understandable, I just don't think that's a privacy concern. Really more of a it is bad business to send a heated customer to ostensibly a bystander (assuming Otto hadn't drank the wine...). :)

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2014, 11:56:32 AM
If the company gives out information that lets one of their customers knock on my door then that is not OK.

The guy could, in theory, knock on your door without any information from the company--he could just go around knocking on doors randomly, asking whoever answered if they have his wine.

Quote from: Gups on December 17, 2014, 11:29:05 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 16, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
I would have poured it out in front of the old man. Then gave him 10 seconds to get off my property. That is how you deal with plebs.

Take a sip first. Spit it out in disgust Tell him the wine is impertinent and that while he might well be the kind of imbecile  amused by its rustic pretensions, you most certainly are not. Then the above but aim a kick at his arse on the way out.

:lol:

There's a few things being missed on the address debate. First, to see tracking information you need the tracking number. This is like a 26 digit number; the old man had it because when you order something in the United States the company that sold it to you frequently forwards the tracking number to you, so that you can track delivery. Presumably when he saw a delivery message for my address he probably called FedEx on the other end (and likely the FedEx people I spoke with never spoke with the same FedEx people he spoke with.)

So it's not exactly public information. Yes, anyone with a tracking number can find out where a package is delivered, however, all that gives them is extremely vague information--address, delivery time, and typically the weight of the package and/or sometimes a message from the driver with brief notes ("Left around back behind the garage") or something of that nature.

It doesn't link to me personally. Secondly, in the United States property ownership is a matter of public record. If you know either my name OR my address, you can go to our county's property assessor website. Using nothing more than First/Last Name OR address, you can get:

1. How much I paid for the house
2. What bank holds the note on my house (if it was mortgaged still)
3. Square footage of the house / acreage of the lot
4. Number of bedrooms
5. The annual property tax assessment
6. Whether or not I am in arrears in my property tax payments
7. Name of owner(s) of the house.
8. A picture of the house

That's all put out there by the government. Your address, your name, and real estate you own are explicitly not-private information in the United States. The search is also on either property owner name OR address, so if one of my neighbors doesn't know my name but knows my address (which is posted out front, so they would know my address) they can find information on the owner.

 :D

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
There's a few things being missed on the address debate. First, to see tracking information you need the tracking number. This is like a 26 digit number; the old man had it because when you order something in the United States the company that sold it to you frequently forwards the tracking number to you, so that you can track delivery. Presumably when he saw a delivery message for my address he probably called FedEx on the other end (and likely the FedEx people I spoke with never spoke with the same FedEx people he spoke with.)

So it's not exactly public information. Yes, anyone with a tracking number can find out where a package is delivered, however, all that gives them is extremely vague information--address, delivery time, and typically the weight of the package and/or sometimes a message from the driver with brief notes ("Left around back behind the garage") or something of that nature.

It doesn't link to me personally. Secondly, in the United States property ownership is a matter of public record. If you know either my name OR my address, you can go to our county's property assessor website. Using nothing more than First/Last Name OR address, you can get:

1. How much I paid for the house
2. What bank holds the note on my house (if it was mortgaged still)
3. Square footage of the house / acreage of the lot
4. Number of bedrooms
5. The annual property tax assessment
6. Whether or not I am in arrears in my property tax payments
7. Name of owner(s) of the house.
8. A picture of the house

That's all put out there by the government. Your address, your name, and real estate you own are explicitly not-private information in the United States. The search is also on either property owner name OR address, so if one of my neighbors doesn't know my name but knows my address (which is posted out front, so they would know my address) they can find information on the owner.

It is fun seeing how much coworkers paid for their homes.

And who didn't pay their taxes.