PDA

View Full Version : Wee bit of legal advice needed


G-ALAN
3rd Oct 2006, 13:35
Two weeks ago I purchaced a little trampoline for my 1 year old son as he is at the stage where he loves to bounce on things ie, the sofa, the bed, inflatable toys, daddy's chest/stomach/nether regions whilst I'm asleep :ouch: Anyway The trampoline was delivered Last week along with a slide, garden swing, climing frame and kiddie tent, all of which I did NOT order! I did not sign for any of this stuff, including the trampoline and I have not been charged for any of it. The whole lot was simply sitting outside my front door when I returned from work on Friday afternoon. What should I do now? Obviously I would like to remain hush and keep everything the large well known children's toy store has sent me but I am reluctant to do so as I fear I may be accused of stealing if they find out. I have kept everything, but the trampoline, in it's packaging, in the living room just incase they come round and ask for it back.

woolyalan
3rd Oct 2006, 13:40
The simplest thing to do would be to ring and see what happens, if they care they will pick it up, if not, you keep it, you cannot be accused of stealing as YOU did not take it, and you could even say you told them about it. Besides, they could claim off their courier :)

Unwell_Raptor
3rd Oct 2006, 13:46
You don't need legal advice.

You need to make a moral decision (remember those?)

It isn't yours, you know it isn't yours, and all you need to do is ring them up and tell them you have got the stuff. They will either collect it, or tell you you can keep it, and I guesss that will depend on the value.

Easy call. If you deliberately keep it knowing it isn't yours then you are a thief, whatever the lawyers make of it.

Mr Lexx
3rd Oct 2006, 13:49
Legally, it does not belong to you and you have a duty to inform the toy store of their mistake. This runs along the lines of the double delivery of Tesco shopping in a previous thread. Ring them, tell them that they have delivered incorrectly. It is then up to them to sort it out.

gingernut
3rd Oct 2006, 13:58
Unfortunately, it'll probably be some low paid minion who gets the bo+*ocking when the mistake gets picked up in an audit trail.

Legally, I'll guess the store will find it difficult to recover their costs.

woolyalan
3rd Oct 2006, 13:59
...And then keep it when they do nothing :} as after you inform them you are on solid legal/moral ground

ORAC
3rd Oct 2006, 14:01
You know it belongs to them, so you have an obligation to inform them about it, otherwise you could be accused of theft for failing to attempt to return it. Similiarly, you should keep it it in the original packaging, otherwise you could be accused of theft for using it in an unauthorised way.

That does not mean that they are without their own responsibilities. You are under no obligation to incur any expense or undue aggravation in returning it. They should agree for it´s collection at a mutually agreeable time.

I can vagually recall a situation, I believe it was over a set of dictionaries or Time books or somesuch, where the "customer" disposed of them after receiving no response within about 3 months to a registered letter and threw them out. When they took him to court for payment it was thrown out. but you have to prove you made a legitimate attempts to have them returned for a reasonable period.

angels
3rd Oct 2006, 14:04
Unwell - An interesting quote.

whatever the lawyers make of it.

I am a great admirer of your posts and your blog. But when you sit on the bench do you really adopt the 'whatever the lawyers might say' attitude?

As I understand it, the OP has been delivered goods which he did not order. Not his fault. The company's fault.

He calls them and informs them. If they don't pick the goods up within six months (I think), the goods are his, they were placed on his doorstep without his permission or order form.

This also begs a question. What if a burglar saw the goods on his doorstep and realised no-one was in and decided to do the place? Would G-ALLAN have a complaint against the vendors/deliverers in that they advertised he wasn't in??

Not having a go with the latter paragraph, just interested in what the law is.

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 14:33
you are a thief, whatever the lawyers make of it.

I agree with all of your posting, Unwell, save that, with angels, I pause at the part just quoted.

Many, many times in these threads I have seen dishonesty imputed to lawyers. Many, many times in these threads I have seen dishonesty proposed, as here, by that group in society known as "clients". Never, never in these threads have I seen dishonesty proposed by a lawyer. I ask you to cite even one example, if you can.

The profession is ruthless with practitioners caught in dishonesty. An inquiry, even by telephone, by the ethics committee of the Bar Association is never regarded lightly. It is social and professional death for one thing, and perhaps worse, even to be mentioned in the same breath as dishonest practice. In over forty years I have personally known one lawyer who yielded to temptation, and he spent five years in jail for it.

Not many, many times in my own practice, but quite often for sure, have I been invited directly or indirectly to promote or share in dishonesty. I recall one colleague, long gone, who received such an instruction from a client, whose parting words (since he had been invited to leave right now) were: "For Goodness' sake, are you lawyer or learning to be lawyer". Do you really share that view?

Once at a social dinner, one wife of a Dean of Faculty (not of law) asked me how much of my income I made through bending the law and taking advantage of "opportunities". That dinner ended right there. I could as well have asked how often her husband scr*w*d patients.

Would you be pleased if I were to ask how often you take bribes to fix sentences, to which I know the answer is "Never!"

XXTSGR
3rd Oct 2006, 14:43
Hmmmm - I tend to agree with U_R and Davaar.

But last time I checked, the words "Criminal Lawyer" were still two words and not one.

Nonetheless, you still have to let out the odd sly chuckle when hearing two lawyers talking, and referring to their client as "we/us". e.g.:-

"How did you get on in that fraud case?"
"Oh - sadly we were found guilty and sent down for eight years" :p

gingernut
3rd Oct 2006, 15:10
So, legal speak aside, is G-ALAN a thief, through his ommission?

And if so, do people actually get prosecuted?

And is law anything to do with justice?

green granite
3rd Oct 2006, 15:18
Unsolicited Goods Act
It is illegal for a trader to threaten you for payment of goods that you have not ordered. It is this Act which protects you.

If you receive unsolicited goods, then you can:

Keep them for six months before disposing of them
Contact the seller and tell them about delivery. The retailer then has one month to recover the goods. Always keep a note of all communication with the trader.

slim_slag
3rd Oct 2006, 15:49
So, legal speak aside, is G-ALAN a thief, through his ommission?No of course he isn't. It's a ridiculous thing to suggest. The law says the supplier has six months to collect or 30 days if he notifies them. You cannot be called a thief if you haven't broken a law.

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 15:55
No of course he isn't. It's a ridiculous thing to suggest. The law says the supplier has six months to collect or 30 days if he notifies them. You cannot be called a thief if you haven't broken a law.

This is not lawyer speak, this is crafty client speak. Pilgrim's Progress would recognise it as from Mr Legality or Mr Worldly Wiseman, but then no one reads Pilgrim's Progress these days, so who would know?

ORAC
3rd Oct 2006, 15:58
My apologies, they are yours to do with as you will. DTI: Unconditional Gifts (http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/unsolicited/index.html).

"Buying & Selling Unsolicited Items"

Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf.

Someone who receives goods in these circumstances may retain them as an unconditional gift, and does not have to pay for or return any unwanted goods. Anyone who receives a demand for payment for unsolicited goods should report the matter to their local Trading Standards Department.

However, in the case of unsolicited goods received before 1 November 2000, the recipient is required to give notice to the sender to collect them within 30 days, or otherwise to wait for 6 months, before being able to treat the goods as their own property.

slim_slag
3rd Oct 2006, 16:09
Well Davaar, one has been advised never to call somebody a thief or a liar in a public place, unless you are quite sure the person is indeed a thief or a liar. Otherwise it could get quite expensive, and in the UK the burden is on the one who utters the claim to prove his case. No constitutional right to free speech in this part of the world.

So, would you call this man a thief in a public place? Which piece of legislation would you use to prove your case in your defence of his libel suit?

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 16:53
So, would you call this man a thief in a public place?

Slim, slim, slim! Don't be foolish. You are so predictable it is like takin' toffee affa a wean. I wondered how long it would take you to produce that question. Not long.

I have most carefully avoided sticking any label on G-ALAN, and I shall so continue. My post was prompted by Unwell_Raptor.

The answer to G-ALAN is implicit in his question.

He is asking himself, and now us: "Am I dishonest?" and then the close cousin of that question: "And can I get away with it?"

I leave it to him to answer those.

With respect to the calumny by Unwell on lawyers, though, I well remember a former justice tell me that when he was in practice: "If I ever had to ask myself, 'Do I have a conflict?', I considered it no further, because I knew I had a conflict".

In what kind of circumstance would you find yourself ask (if ever, of course): "Am I being dishonest?".

The "close cousin" question, sadly, as soon as it is asked gives more information about the questioner than I really want to have.

Grainger
3rd Oct 2006, 17:26
Davaar: The only person who has used the word "dishonest" is yourself.

G-ALAN stated very clearly that he was reluctant to keep the goods, and has kept them safe in case the store wants them back. The only question he asked is "what should I do now ?"

Your ". . . avoided sticking any label . . ." comment falls very flat when it is immediately followed by attributing to someone two statements that they did not make.

Since you introduced the word into the debate, the only dishonesty I can see is the rephrasing and misrepresention of what the thread starter said.

The legal position as referred to by ORAC appears to be that he does not have to do anything. He can let the store know of the mistake if he so chooses but he is not obliged to do so. On the face of it it is impossible in this situation for G-ALAN's to be either dishonest or a thief and I am somewhat shocked at supposed legal experts making such statements.

Instead of accusations and distortions, what would be useful from those more familiar with the law than ourselves would be a sensible opinion on what actually constitutes "Unsolicited Goods", and clarification of whether the act applies to goods delivered in error as appears to have happened here.

Taildragger67
3rd Oct 2006, 17:31
In this case it appears the Unconditional Goods Act may well apply...

... and from this, it indeed appears they're yours, mate:
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/goods-service/scams/fs_u01.shtml

especially:
"... you may feel guilty about keeping the item without paying for it. Don't feel guilty! It's yours, and you are under no obligation to pay anything if you did not order the goods."

and

"Any goods delivered can be kept, for free, by the consumer."

The idea behind this law appears to be to stop 'inertia selling', whereby a 'gift' is sent, the recipient feels guilty and contacts the sender to pay. As the law stands, it seems it's not theft to keep something you've been sent unsolicited.

But to prove you didn't order it, it'd be a good idea to retain all paperwork to do with the order and delivery.

Info from a local lawyer:
http://www.jcpsolicitors.co.uk/10727/12361.html

On the 'theft' point: s.1, Theft Act 1968 defines theft as:

dishonestly | appropriating | property | belonging to another | with the intention | of permanently depriving | the other of it.

All terms (as denoted by the inserted breaks) have to be satisfied in order for an act to be an act of theft.

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 17:32
Here is a direct quotation from G-ALAN:

QUOTE:

Obviously I would like to remain hush and keep everything the large well known children's toy store has sent me but I am reluctant to do so as I fear I may be accused of stealing if they find out.

UNQUOTE

Grainger
3rd Oct 2006, 17:36
Davaar: Thank you for clarifiying that.

So you now confirm that G-ALAN did not ask either of the two questions you erroneously attributed to him earlier, and that he did not use the word "dishonest".

Seems he was right to be concerned about being falsely accused of stealing though :rolleyes:

ShyTorque
3rd Oct 2006, 17:43
Don't the words "intend to permanently deprive the legal/rightful owner" or something like them describe the act of theft?

This sounds like a silly mistake by a delivery driver, rather than a case of unsolicited goods. I would inform the company immediately but also inform them that I could take no responsibility for weather protection, or theft by others, of the goods incorrectly delivered. Having said that, if I had space in my garage I might place them in there (but I certainly would not predjudice my own stuff by moving my car outside, for example, if my insurance company required the car to be garaged). I would give them a time and date for collection to suit myself.

In UK, finders are NOT keepers.

slim_slag
3rd Oct 2006, 17:46
Slim, slim, slim! Don't be foolish. You are so predictable it is like takin' toffee affa a wean. I wondered how long it would take you to produce that question. Not long.You are a clever man, obviously more clever than I, as the question you refer to was an afterthought and snuck in just before the 'edited at' message appears. So what is your answer?

My post was prompted by Unwell_Raptor.So why did you quote my post in full, and not quote a single word of Raptor's?

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 17:59
So why did you quote my post in full, and not quote a single word of Raptor's?

Please see my post # 9 above.

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 18:09
Davaar:
Seems he was right to be concerned about being falsely accused of stealing though :rolleyes:

Despite your alteration to G-ALAN's text he was not "concerned about being falsely accused of stealing though :rolleyes", with or without the rolling eyes.

He was concerned about being accused of stealing, and the "falsely accused" is your own quite misleading addition:

QUOTE

Obviously I would like to remain hush and keep everything the large well known children's toy store has sent me but I am reluctant to do so as I fear I may be accused of stealing if they find out.

UNQUOTE.

ExSimGuy
3rd Oct 2006, 18:29
But to prove you didn't order it, it'd be a good idea to retain all paperwork to do with the order and delivery.

Kinda tricky to keep paperwork to do with the order if you didn't order it!:confused: ?

However, G-ALAN has, or should have, two concerns:
Legal - Can I be accused of theft?
Moral - Should I do it?

Legal - The law regaring unsolicited deliveries was never intended to cover this situation and, if it can be applied here, it is a faulty law.

A simple case of a mistake with a delivery address - by the company's driver or courier contractor. Nobody is trying to "con" G-ALAN into paying for something he didn't order.

Moral - If you want the trampoline, why not buy one yourself? Will you always be able to look back on your actions and feel that you are an "honest" person (hopefully you do care about the answer to that question!)

However, when you call/write to the store and tell them that you have their wrongly-delivered goods, you might want to suggest that they perhaps would like to reward your honesty by giving you and extra-special discount on a trampoline like the one that they mis-delivered (and could have lost to a less honest citizen), as you always wanted one like that for the Little One - I would ;)

Grainger
3rd Oct 2006, 18:31
Davaar: Since we appear have established that receiving goods that you did not order does not amount to stealing, then any accusation of stealing cannot be other than false.

As I read the statement that you keep quoting, the possibility of keeping the goods is offered only as a hypothetical. Which part of "I am reluctant to do so" are you struggling with anyway ?

Why don't you quote the bit where he says that the goods have been kept safe in case the company comes to claim them back? If they come and ask for them back, they will get them back. Hardly amounts to intent to permanently deprive the owner of them, does it ?

ESG: As you rightly say, it is by no means obvious that the Unsolicited Goods Act is intended to cover goods delivered in error. Like yourself, I think this situation is slightly different.

I agree that we need clarification as to whether G-ALAN is under any obligation to inform the company. If the goods do qualify as Unsolicited Goods, the answer is apparently not. Before accusations of stealing get flung about, perhaps one of our legal experts can point to any legislation that clearly defines them as something else.

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 18:56
1. Since we have established that receiving goods that you did not order does not amount to stealing,

2. then any accusation of stealing cannot be other than false.

I shall repeat G-ALAN yet again:

QUOTE

Obviously I would like to remain hush and keep everything the large well known children's toy store has sent me but I am reluctant to do so as I fear I may be accused of stealing if they find out.

UNQUOTE

The concern in G-ALAN's mind at the time was as he states it very clear "I fear I may be accused of stealing".

The "falsely accused" is your very own addition.

If G-ALAN had thought he could not be validly accused of stealing, why does he continue immediately after with "if they find out"? If he had thought his proposed conduct was -- let me search for a word... Got one! "Honest"! -- why should he be concerned about their "finding out"?

I have tried without success to find a copy of the UK statute, so I ask, does it state, as you do, that: "receiving goods that you did not order does not amount to stealing"? Or does it state that it is an offence for the person who delivers the goods to demand payment?

If a Fatal Accidents Act prohibits a claim more than one year after the death, that makes the person who caused the death proof from a judgment; but does it make him the less negligent?

This thread perfectly illustrates the point I put to Unwell, that the weaseling attributed to lawyers should better be aimed at clients. I already stated that I was excluding Mr Legality and Mr Worldly Wiseman. The sea-lawyers here latch on to one statutory exclusion to justify moral dereliction.

I'll quote it yet again:

QUOTE

Obviously I would like to remain hush and keep everything the large well known children's toy store has sent me but I am reluctant to do so as I fear I may be accused of stealing if they find out.

UNQOTE

Where on earth could I have picked up the notion that G-ALAN was addressing dishonesty?

rugmuncher
3rd Oct 2006, 19:08
"Finding" goods which haven't been ordered but keeping them may constitute an offence under the term

"Theft by Finding".

It exists and can be quite serious if the complainer realy pushes it !

slim_slag
3rd Oct 2006, 19:17
Please see my post # 9 above.Oh my, and I thought you were talking about post 17. So when you cannot muddle people mind's with your wonderful prose, you try to muddle us with numbers - which you aren't quite as wonderful with :)

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 19:24
I am so sorry. I do not usually post an index. Does anyone? How right you are about the figures. I reached the same conclusion and left accountancy to those who like it.

Grainger
3rd Oct 2006, 19:25
Davaar: The use of the subjunctive mood in the statement you are so fond of quoting indicates supposition, not intent. I'm surprised that a language scholar such as yourself would have failed to notice that.

Unwell_Raptor
3rd Oct 2006, 19:26
I am a great admirer of your posts and your blog. But when you sit on the bench do you really adopt the 'whatever the lawyers might say' attitude?


Of course I don't. That's real life. This is the Internet, which has very different rules.

The joy of the anonymity that comes from shoving words through a modem is that you can say what you think. In our public lives, of whatever nature, we do not often enjoy that luxury.

It's only the Internet, after all.

slim_slag
3rd Oct 2006, 19:39
Slim, slim, slim! Don't be foolish. You are so predictable it is like takin' toffee affa a wean. I wondered how long it would take you to produce that question. Not longGot another one for you, but would like you to tell me what it is first. If you get it right I'll admit it, promise :ok:

Grainger
3rd Oct 2006, 19:50
Love the mixture of Glasgow and Eton accent:like takin' toffee affa a wean Shouldn't that be tablet ?

Davaar
3rd Oct 2006, 23:54
My Glasgow ,Grainger, came with me from Glasgow. Next time, if there is a next time, I'll try “toffee” in phonetic spelling. That may help you puzzle out its meaning. It did not have the central importance me that it appears to have for you. Do you spell and pronounce "Jock" as in "Jock" and if you mean "Jock" locally do you pronounce it "Joke" but write it "Jock" as in Pie-Jock?

No, it should not be “tablet”. If tablet were appropriate at all it would be “taiblet”, but I never heard tablet used in the idiom I used. Perhaps you have.

Then the sneer about language, I have been posting here since about 2001 and in that time I have seen many abuses of the English language and many self-appointed critics who set up to correct the grammar and spelling of others. I invite you to find any contribution to that traffic from me. How would you like me to write? Not grammatically? Should I toss in the occasional, no, make that frequent, misspelling just to establish myself one of the lads?

I am not "fond of" quoting the repeated excerpt from G-ALAN, but I am forced to it since your short-term memory is so very short you cannot go from one post to another without yet another undeclared emendations.

What is this tarradiddle about the subjunctive? The principal, indicative, active, finite verb is “I am (reluctant) to (keep)” the unsolicited goods, and we know very well Why? I know and you know. It was conditioned on a very clear “fear”, the fear of prosecution. Does that fear puzzle you as much as toffee? You are so immersed, perhaps, in grammar that you cannot perceive he fears the accusation of theft? Why does he fear that accusation, indicative or subjunctive? What bizarre concern that none of us can see is troubling him?

There are many here who are multi-lingual, but Alas! I am not one of them. I wish I were. I have a fair knowledge of English, some French, some Latin, a smattering of German, plus of course some Glesca and a fair bit of Angus and the Mearns. Does that trouble you? Where have I claimed to be, as you put it, a “language scholar”? Does it upset you that sometimes I indulge in word play?

Is it envy that moves you? Is it jealousy that dredges up your allusion to Eton? Do you think I went to Eton? Where does your Eton come from? What is its relevance here? What a silly question. What does relevance matter.

Slim slag dislikes my “wonderful prose”. The thoughts come to my head and I write the words with my hands. How does he do it?

I wrote here because Unwell_Raptor made a comment I thought unwarranted. He has not answered my post save with the hackneyed evasion that this is not all that serious any way. I can quote him too:

QUOTE

The joy of the anonymity that comes from shoving words through a modem is that you can say what you think. In our public lives, of whatever nature, we do not often enjoy that luxury. It's only the Internet, after all.

UNQUOTE

Still, what he wrote was what he was thinking. Ipse dixit.

eal401
4th Oct 2006, 07:02
If you deliberately keep it knowing it isn't yours then you are a thief
Gosh, I didn't know you could be a thief without physically taking the items yourself!

ORAC
4th Oct 2006, 08:14
This sounds like a silly mistake by a delivery driver, rather than a case of unsolicited goods. I would have thought to the contrary. A driver with delvery notes would rapidly have discovered he was several parcels short and returned. Much more likely to a be a mistake on the order at the company dispatching the items.

The issue then would be if an internal error at the company nullified the concept of the goods being unsolicited. The company still sent them unsolicited, is the recipient supposed to be able to divine their intent? The law was changed in 2000 to delete the requirement to contact the sender and hold the goods, it would seem the intent of the change was to put the onus on the sender.

Gosh, I didn't know you could be a thief without physically taking the items yourself! That was what someone claimed after spending money deposited into their bank account in error. I believe they ended up with enough time on their hands to learn otherwise.... :hmm:

slim_slag
4th Oct 2006, 08:37
Slim slag dislikes my “wonderful prose”.What meaning of the word "wonderful" makes you come to that conclusion? You still haven't told me what my next question is.

Why are people in legal positions the first to make moral judgements? The guy asked for legal advice and instead has been called a thief and dishonest. Guilty until proven innocent, how often do we get that attitude on here from people who should know better.

ORAC, I think there is a law which specifically says if you find extra money in your account you need to tell the bank, think it's something like ten years in jail if you don't. So that is a special case. Strange how The Law protects banks, it's long been said that The Law considers stealing money off a bank to be a worse crime than mugging somebody in the street.

Unwell_Raptor
4th Oct 2006, 09:20
it's long been said that The Law considers stealing money off a bank to be a worse crime than mugging somebody in the street.

It may have been said, but it's totally wrong.

slim_slag
4th Oct 2006, 09:48
It may have been said, but it's totally wrong.As always, best to look at the facts when examining your claims.

2006 Definitive Sentencing guidelines for Robbery (http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/robbery-guidelines.pdf) are in in a PDF.

For street robbery (mugging) using a weapon to threaten and if pleading not guilty the starting point is 4 years custody, Sentencing range is 2-7 years custody. Found on page 11.

What about stealing money off a bank? The guidelines are found on page 15.The Court of Appeal said it had ‘come to the conclusion that the normal sentence for anyone taking part in a bank robbery or in the hold-up of a security or a Post Office van should be 15 years if firearms were carried and no serious injury done.’ The Court also said that 18 years should be about the maximum for crimes which are not ‘wholly abnormal’ (such as the Great Train Robbery)

In cases involving the most serious commercial robberies the Court has imposed 20-30 years (15-20 years after a plea of guilty).

So mug somebody in the street with a weapon and you are looking at 2-7 years. Rob a bank with a weapon and you are looking at 15 years.

I therefore suggest that stealing money off a bank is indeed viewed as a more serious crime than mugging somebody on the street.

rustle
4th Oct 2006, 09:57
It may have been said, but it's totally wrong.

Is that a "real life" view or an "internet (words down a modem) view"?

FTR, it doesn't tally with most people's "real life" views ;)

G-ALAN
4th Oct 2006, 10:53
Good grief! I didn't mean to start a riot! Thanks to all for the advice. To be honest I didn't really think of it as a moral dilemma until it was mentioned here. I'm still getting used to this being a daddy and requiring a moral conscience. My original dilemma was, 'can I legally be accused of stealing if I keep goods which I had not ordered?' If not then I was going to keep them but after forcing myself to think about the moral implications of the situation I decided that it would be wrong and dis-honest of me not to contact the company about the un-ordered items. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to teach my son to have a decent moral fiber yet allow him to play with toys which were not aquired in a dis-honest way. Anyway the company have been contacted and I have since learned the climbing frame, tent and slide delivered to my address were actually intended for the nursery a few doors along. Apparently the delivery driver got confussed by having two deliveries on the same street :rolleyes:

ExSimGuy:

Moral - If you want the trampoline, why not buy one yourself? Will you always be able to look back on your actions and feel that you are an "honest" person (hopefully you do care about the answer to that question!)


The trampoline was mine. I had already purchased the trampoline two weeks ago. It was all the other stuff that was delivered along with it that wasn't mine.

G-ALAN
4th Oct 2006, 10:59
Why can't I edit the above post? Is this some new pprune thing?

edited to say 'not aquired in an honest way'

and change confussed to confused.