mat@hou4b.UUCP (08/23/84)
I've been under the impression that if someone sends you something
in the mail, it cannot place you under any obligation to reply
or return or ... unless of course an obligation exists beforehand (eg
you receive a bill for something that you bought last month ...)
I also understood that this was a provision of Federal law and as such
would supersede all state law.
I received a letter from my church today. In the typical style of
Catholic parishes, we are supporting our school with gambling: weekly bingo
and twice-a-year raffles. I have in front of me an envelope with 12 chances
and a letter. The letter ends with
``N.B. New Jersey State law requires that all chances, sold or unsold,
be returned.''
Now this would suggest that I have been placed under obligation to return
these (by virtue of State law) where U.S. law seems to forbid any such
obligation from being served on me in this fashion.
Does anyone know the real scoop? If I fail to return these, who is in
violation of what law ?? (General complaints about Catholiscism, churches,
religion, etc, should be sent to /dev/null.)
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (08/23/84)
> I've been under the impression that if someone sends you something > in the mail, it cannot place you under any obligation to reply > or return or ... This is true. Anyone know if this only applies to *mail* or does it apply to anything that shows up on your doorstep? Anything that appears unsolicited at your TV antenna? Hmmm -- _____ /_____\ how in blue blazes do they expect a EE to cook on a gas stove? /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (08/23/84)
I received a letter from my church today. In the typical style of Catholic parishes, we are supporting our school with gambling: weekly bingo and twice-a-year raffles. I have in front of me an envelope with 12 chances and a letter. The letter ends with ``N.B. New Jersey State law requires that all chances, sold or unsold, be returned.'' Now this would suggest that I have been placed under obligation to return these (by virtue of State law) where U.S. law seems to forbid any such obligation from being served on me in this fashion. Perhaps the church, in sending out the "chances", is now responsible for collecting them from you. This certainly seems more reasonable than allowing the church to pass that responsibility on to you without you agreeing to it.
stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (08/29/84)
> I've been under the impression that if someone sends you something > in the mail, it cannot place you under any obligation to reply > or return or ... unless of course an obligation exists beforehand (eg > you receive a bill for something that you bought last month ...) > I also understood that this was a provision of Federal law and as such > would supersede all state law. My "People's Court" understanding of the law is that if someone sends you a letter (particularly if it's certified) stating a legal position (e.g., that you are violating their rights, owe them something, etc.), the fact that you receive it and do not respond can be interpreted by the court as having implicitly agreed to its interpretation. An example that comes to mind is that a certain graduate student had developed a piece of software. His understanding upon enrollment were that he had rights to anything he developed there as a graduate student. Certain members of the university administration, however believed that they had marketing rights and began selling it. The university was sent a letter an from attorney of the company to which the graduate student had transferred marketing rights stating that they had no business selling it. Had the university failed to respond, it would have been (almost?) as bad as admitting that they did not have marketing rights. (The graduate student won out in the end in this case, anyway.) Steve Vegdahl Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (08/31/84)
> My "People's Court" understanding of the law is that if someone sends you > a letter (particularly if it's certified) stating a legal position (e.g., > that you are violating their rights, owe them something, etc.), the fact > that you receive it and do not respond can be interpreted by the court as > having implicitly agreed to its interpretation. This had certainly better be wrong. All I would have to do is to flood people's mailboxes with claims that they owed me money and if they didn't happen to have time to respond to them all I could then haul them into court and collect? No thanks! -- _____ /_____\ 9 out of 10 dentists recommend oral sex /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert (must be true, I saw it on the tee-shirt of a dentist!)