Some will point out (and some have!) that I could have quite easily saved myself a lot of time, hassle, and lost earnings at this point by just quietly holding on to the extra Switch and saying nothing to Nintendo about it. It certainly would have saved me a lot of stress, but it was morally not something I’d ever consider.
That's his mistake right there. He was under no moral obligation to fix Nintendo's mistake for them. Nintendo had made a string of mistakes up to this point, and one of their mistakes was in his favor.
If you truly have a guilty conscience, then just throw the extra package out, because it is abandoned property.
I've had this happen occasionally. Just know that you are not responsible for stuff like this. My Dad had a similar experience, where spent weeks trying to get a company to honor a warranty, and in the end they sent him two replacement hard drives instead of one. I actually interpret this as a kind of karma. Sometimes good things land in your lap, don't reject them.
> That's his mistake right there. He was under no moral obligation to fix Nintendo's mistake for them......If you truly have a guilty conscience, then just throw the extra package out, because it is abandoned property.
Do you really want to live in a world where everyone does this?
Imagine you are a small start-up where every penny counts and make the odd mistake here and there and people take advantage of that, destroying you.
Or imagine people are kind and help point out your mistake and give back your ~$500 device.
You get to decide which world you live in, because you are creating it.
I think this kind of thing really does depend on whether you're dealing with a small startup or even an individual human that you're screwing over, or a giant implacable machine like a multinational corporation.
There's no obligation to be nice to the machine, it can't recognise it, and it won't be grateful to you.
+1. The machine analogy is excellent. You have moral obligation to humans. You may decide to have moral obligation to society if you like the one your in and want it to grow. But you have zero obligation toward a souless entity. It's a robot. Optimized for profiting from a service it failed to perform adequatly.
Agree on the moral obligation to humans, but think it's best to keep the focus on not having a moral obligation to corporations (beyond T&Cs or contracts you willingly consent to). Not that you're wrong with the "souless robot" concept, but with the advances in AI, I wouldn't the first one to play out like Chappie.
"Why you humans do this? Why you all lie?" - Chappie
Have you seen "the good place" ? There is a hilarious part where "janet", their omnipotent and omniscient anthropomorphic IA - with basically no concept of suffering - triggers a defense mechanism where she pretends she is scared to die.
You are not taking into account that Nintendo is not a small startup, or an individual. I always go out of my way to help people who need it. I've always found people who've lost cell phones, and I have returned incorrectly shipped items that I have gotten on Ebay and Etsy.
There is a world of difference between a startup or a person, and Nintendo. Nintendo can afford this loss, and maybe they will improve their delivery system because of it.
But if an international mega-corporation accidentally screws themselves instead of me for once, no, I am not going to help them. They would never do the same for me, and it doesn't matter because they are not a person they are just a system, and will not appreciate it anyway.
And also, again, they are abandoning property with me. Are you seriously saying that some corporation can send you something, and expect you to keep it in good condition and then send it back to them? Think about this in terms of responsibility.
Treat others as they would want to be treated. Humans should be treated with kindness, respect, and forgiveness. Hypercapitalisitc international conglomerates should be treated with apathy, taking any advantage of any loophole that you can possibly get away with legally. Given how "they" treat others, its only fitting.
You should also consider the time it would take the company to correct the mistake and whether it's actually worth their time to do so. I'm reminded of this [1] answer on Stack Exchange that sometimes going through customer support costs a company more than they get back from the resolution.
You could do everything right and make no mistakes, and still fail. That's life.
You have a point though, that an economy -- at its core -- is an indirect representation of its host society's morals and values, and throwing around moral indignation does seem appropriate, but it's hard not to side with the defeatists here. Doing the right thing (ie: being morally responsible) carries a risk that only the most steadfast can endure.
I've personally been inconvenienced by this abandoned property issue too.
I agree 100% with the "it is their problem let them discover and fix it" resolution.
Received 4+1 devices, contacted seller, shipped back, somehow I ended up paying for their shipping fee. Could have re-contacted them, did not, retained grudge instead.
Destroying you is harsh. Startups make mistakes all of the time if this is a constant issue it is probably better the issue is visible and can he fixed before scaling.
> He was under no moral obligation to fix Nintendo's mistake for them.
I'm not convinced this is true (well it may be true morally but I don't think it's true legally). IIRC duplicate shipments are not considered Unsolicited Goods and in the UK you are legally required to inform the sender and return them if the sender requests.
Edit: This article[0] seems to suggest the same, but the Citizen's Advice link is broken.
Edit 2: This article[1] is better and includes a proper source[2].
Quite often the reason for receiving two items is that the first got stuck somewhere in transit, the customer complained so the company sent out a second item, and eventually both turn up. It seems reasonable under those circumstances for the company to ask for the second one back (politely of course, threatening the customer is never right).
I disagree. The company is now imposing on you for something that is absolutely not your responsibility. They have money set aside for losses like this.
It sounds like Nintendo should ask the courier company to fix things, not you. In a way, he is also a victim of the courier company's bad service, except that the mistake was in his favor.
And also, think about what that implies. How far are you supposed to go if they screw up? What if they do it again, with something more valuable?
You can't apply human morality to large corporations. If someone on Etsy or Ebay made a mistake like that, then yes of course you should ship it back. But corporations of that size are just systems. They will not be hurt or offended if you don't return it, and they won't be gracious if you do.
In consumer law in the EU (which the laws of the UK are supposed to reflect), I believe entities that enter into a consumer contract are in principle, treated equally. That means you have to minimise their losses in the event of a dispute, in the same way that they have to minimise your losses. I would imagine that principle would apply here, though I don't happen to know the specifics of the law in this case.
Just checked UK law. If you receive an extra item as part of a replacement for a broken item or similar and use it the sender has the right to demand payment for the extra item. The correct course of action is to contact the sender who can then choose to collect at their own expense.
I was surprised by this - I thought it would constitute unsolicited goods but it does not due to the extra item having been sent as remedy for a broken item. If someone sends you something out of the blue and then demands payment it is unsolicited goods and you have the right to keep it.
In that scenario, I think it would be you would need to make reasonable effort to collect the item, otherwise you abandon it. If the customer refuses you to collect it, then you can demand payment.
But as the above comment says, you would have had to send the item as part of an existing engagement, such as a purchase or replacement.
No, but you might be required to make reasonable accommodations to allow them to fix it, or minimise the cost of repairing it for them (at their expense). As I understand it, you couldn't just pick the most expensive solution and charge it to them, or obstruct every attempt they made to rectify the problem, simply because you were annoyed/inconvenienced. You may also be required to do other things to minimise the losses they have to compensate you for.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your example. I read 10 TV as 10 Teravolts, i.e. they blew up your IT infrastructure with a massive electrical surge. Obviously I also mixed up who was sending the 10 TV and who was receiving. You can safely ignore my nonsensical reply. Yes, fortunately for you, if your IT system messes up and sends 10 TV (whatever that is), they cannot just keep the 10 TV. They are required to compensate you for them/it if they want to keep them/it.
If they were sent out of the blue you have no obligation to return them. If they were sent by mistake as part of a remedy of for example a faulty TV, and you decide to use them, the sender is entitled to ask you to pay for them. The correct course of action is to inform the sender, who then has 14 days (according to what I read) to collect them at their own expense.
As long as you don't use them the sender has no right to redress, only to ask for them back.
> I disagree. The company is now imposing on you for something that is absolutely not your responsibility
Ok. What if my payment processor has an issue, through no fault of the seller, and I end up getting charged twice? Do your rules still apply? It seems unreasonable to just assume a 'screw you' attitude from the get go.
At this point I'd sell the extra Nintendo Switch and pay back its price to Nintendo. Seems like it's less trouble than going through Nintendo themselves.
What do you mean by "pay back its price to Nintendo"? Sending them the money? It'd probably cost more in billable accountant time to process it than the amount being received.
That's his mistake right there. He was under no moral obligation to fix Nintendo's mistake for them. Nintendo had made a string of mistakes up to this point, and one of their mistakes was in his favor.
If you truly have a guilty conscience, then just throw the extra package out, because it is abandoned property.
I've had this happen occasionally. Just know that you are not responsible for stuff like this. My Dad had a similar experience, where spent weeks trying to get a company to honor a warranty, and in the end they sent him two replacement hard drives instead of one. I actually interpret this as a kind of karma. Sometimes good things land in your lap, don't reject them.