"Free" services without request

seamus

Bit of a strange one this, but bear with me.

Let's say, par example that a person wakes up every Sunday morning to find a national newspaper in his letterbox. He has never requested that this be delivered, he has no other such services being provided (e.g. daily papers or magazines), nor has he ever had any such service provided.

No bill has ever been issued, nor any communication in relation to this service. It is not possible to identify who (either person or company) is delivering the item - it's delivered around 2am.

Taking into account the first item - that no bill or communication has been issued, would it be reasonable to assume that these items are being delivered free of charge?

If not, taking into account that the service provider cannot be identified, does the service provider have a right to issue bill at any point for the cost of all papers so far delivered? That is, I'm aware that if something is delivered to your home, you are obliged to either pay for it or return it to the person who sent it. If say three years down the road, the service provider decided to issue a bill, would they be entitled to bill for three years of the service, or only the last X months? Given that they could not be identified (and so the items could not be returned to them), would they be entitled to bill at all?

hullaballoo

Surprisingly, there's a section in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 that deals with this very problem quite neatly.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0047.html#zza16y1980s47

S 47 SOGA 1980 wrote:

—(1) Where—


( a ) unsolicited goods are sent to a person with a view to his acquiring them and are received by him, and


( b ) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them,


and either—


(i) during the period of six months following the date of receipt of the goods the sender did not take possession of them and the recipient did not unreasonably refuse to permit the sender to do so, or


(ii) not less than 30 days before the expiration of that period the recipient gave notice to the sender and during the following 30 days the sender did not take possession of the goods and the recipient did not unreasonably refuse to permit the sender to do so,


then the recipient may treat the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him and any right of the sender to the goods shall be extinguished.


(2) The notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall state—


( a ) the recipient's name and address and the address at which the sender may take possession of the goods (if not the same) and


( b ) that the goods are unsolicited.


(3) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any business, makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent to another person with a view to his acquiring them, shall be guilty of an offence.


(4) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment in the course of any business and with a view to obtaining any payment for what he knows or ought to know are unsolicited goods—


( a ) threatens to bring any legal proceedings,


( b ) places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaulters or debtors or threatens to do so, or


( c ) invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so,


shall be guilty of an offence.


(5) In this section—


"acquire" includes hire,


"send" includes deliver,


"sender" includes any person on whose behalf or with whose consent the goods are sent and any other person claiming through or under the sender or any such person,


"unsolicited" means, in relation to goods sent to any person, that they are sent without any prior request by him or on his behalf.

The only part of that subject to a potential misinterpretation that I can see is where under sub-s 1 it purports to describe the situation under which the goods may be treated as an unconditional gift.

Here, if you don't draw the sender's attention to the fact that you have received unsolicited goods, after six months, you can take the unconditional gift.

Or.

If you do give notice to the sender, who does not stake his claim within 30 days thereafter, you can take the gift. The reason why the first time period (i.e., six months) is addressed here is so that whichever event takes place first in time (either the 6 month period expires or the 30 day period does) will be the crucial event.

Does that clarify the position?

seamus

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Does that clarify the position?

Actually, it looks like it does

I thought the expiration was 6 months, but the recipient was obliged to notify the sender after 5 months. However reading that, it would seem that the recipient can opt to notify the sender, and then claim the goods after 30 days, or they can opt to say nothing and 6 months later, the goods are theirs.

So in this case, the sender would be only be permitted to request to take back the last six months of goods, or seeing as the goods would be destroyed, they're only permitted to bill for the previous six months.

Makes sense.

CantGetNoSleep

one of my friends used to pass a shop on his way home from a night out, the papers would be bundled outside for the next morning (usually sunday) and he hated the shopowner so he'd throw a paper into every garden on his way home, maybe this is where they came from

Victor

You could of course try to make a complaint against them for littering.

Shane80

Its can be found from the Law of Torts (I and II) and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 ,

*** CHECK YOUR MAIL ***