"... but received only about $13,000 in merchandise."

No problem. Lowe's should send them a letter apologizing for a computer glitch causing a delay in their billing, and attach an invoice for $13,000.

This is a story where we need a much better followup with some real reporting before we can have any confidence that we know anything more solid than that they have been arrested and arraigned.

So if you are that interested, maybe you should find a better article about the alleged theft.

And a cursory DDG search reveals a much better article from FoxNews.

A lot of states do have laws covering this type of fraud.

Looks like Deckard and his girlfriend.

I wish I looked that good - I have less hair.

A guy could do worse than her, she's kinda cute.

[Comment to article] Hey, what's the issue here. It is up to companies to fix these glitches. I could see Lowe's canceling an order made due to a glitch. But it is not stealing IMHO if they honor the order and ship the merchandise.

- - - - - - - - - -

[#2] Law enforcement officials alleged that they exploited a gap in the store’s website that enabled them to have merchandise shipped to their home without making payment.

In the case of a seller mistake, as here, where someone finds a way to obtain shipment without payment, and exploits that mistake, there is no valid contract between seller and buyer.

The crime is larceny.

It is well settled that the recipient of the mistaken delivery who appropriates the property commits a trespass in the taking, and so is guilty of larceny, if, realizing the mistake at the moment he takes delivery, he then forms an intent to steal the property.

Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, 4th ed., pg. 930

the mistaken delivery

There was no "mistaken delivery", they were delivered to the party that Lowe's shipped them to.

Now Lowe's admits that they're guilty of initiating mistaken delivery. The cops arrested the victims, instead of the perps. They have Lowe's confession, now book 'em Danno!

The crime is larceny.

The crime is what New Jersey law says it is.

It is well settled that the recipient of the mistaken delivery who appropriates the property commits a trespass in the taking, and so is guilty of larceny, if, realizing the mistake at the moment he takes delivery, he then forms an intent to steal the property.

Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, 4th ed., pg. 930

There was no "mistaken delivery" here. The intent was clear to take delivery via deception without paying for the merchandise received. And the crime was repeated many times, further establishing their guilt.

[hondo68 #6] There was no "mistaken delivery", they were delivered to the party that Lowe's shipped them to.

- - - - - - - - - -

[TooConservative #7] There was no "mistaken delivery" here.

The mistake was caused by some unexplained computer glitch that the couple exploited. They knew about it and there was no valid purchase or sale. There was a series of deliveries without payment. Lowe's made a mistaken delivery based on the mistaken belief that there had been a purchase and a payment.

The couple will be convicted. They will likely plead guilty because there will be a nice, undeniable data trail documenting whatever it was that they did.

The Uniform Commercial Code works in New Jersey and elsewhere.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-12a/section-12a-1-304/

2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 12A - COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Section 12A:1-304 - Obligation of good faith.

Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 12A:1-304 (2013)

12A:1-304. Obligation of good faith.

12A:1-304. Obligation of Good Faith.

Every contract or duty within the Uniform Commercial Code imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement.

L.2013, c.65, s.1.

The couple did not act in good faith.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-12a/section-12a-2-301/

2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 12A - COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Section 12A:2-301 - General obligations of parties

Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 12A:2-301 (2013)

12A:2-301. General obligations of parties

The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

L.1961, c. 120, s. 2-302.

Aw shit, the buyer didn't pay. He unlawfully caused shipment, and accepted delivery, and now he has been arrested. That is positively shocking.

Commercial law has developed for centuries or millenia. A computer glitch, exploited by a theiving customer, will not evade the law.

The bad guy never obtained title to any of the property he did not pay for, but turned around and sold at a bargain price. He kept what did not belong to him, and then he sold what did not belong to him.

A contract consists of an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a lawful purpose. No consideration passed from the buyer to the seller. There was no valid contract for the selling and purchasing of the goods.

Claiming a lack of contract does not help the buyer. If you exercise unlawful control over somebody else's property, with intent to deprive him of it, that is theft. That's where the criminal law comes in.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-20-3/

2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 2C - THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Section 2C:20-3 - Theft by unlawful taking or disposition

Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 2C:20-3 (2013)

2C:20-3. Theft by unlawful taking or disposition

a. Movable property. A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.

b. Immovable property. A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers any interest in immovable property of another with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:20-3, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

The couple will be convicted. They will likely plead guilty because there will be a nice, undeniable data trail documenting whatever it was that they did.

You got that right. Sounds like it is the conniving bitch who really schemed this up, dragging down some poor horny white guy with her con job.     : )

Aw shit, the buyer didn't pay. He unlawfully caused shipment, and accepted delivery, and now he has been arrested. That is positively shocking.

Commercial law has developed for centuries or millenia. A computer glitch, exploited by a theiving customer, will not evade the law.

I'd add "the buyer repeatedly didn't pay, repeatedly caused shipment, repeatedly accepted delivery".

That's where the prison time will come from. Not just doing it once or a couple of times but going whole hog for high-dollar items.

And evidence that this was fraud for profit? They set up their own little online auction site via Facebook ads.

There is no defense attorney good enough to get you off on this kind of behavior. The best they can do is plead down. If they can find a family member or friend to pay off the merchant, maybe they could get off. Barring that, there'll be at least a few years in prison.

Some states are very very strict about certain financial crimes. I know in my state, I traveled about 300 miles some years back and saw a car I liked. I started buying it and was surprised that they not only took a check but didn't even request a photo ID. They told me that the state was so strict about fraudulent checks that they didn't worry about it and neither did any of the other local car dealers.

It is true that people still bounce some checks. But outright check fraud in many states is quite rare other than some small transient criminal element.

Taking a strict line against financial fraud does a lot to keep a state's finances in order. It's good business for everyone. We rely on a commons, on making square and voluntary deals. And the commercial and criminal code reflect this.

In the case of a seller mistake, as here, where someone finds a way to obtain shipment without payment, and exploits that mistake, there is no valid contract between seller and buyer.

The same is true for things like this:

And the crime was repeated many times, further establishing their guilt.

And they failed to recognize their guilt. They made two errors. They are flawed and imperfect and have not corrected that by sterilization. They made three errors.

They need to execute their prime function.

You know how much I crave that closure. LOL

Hopefully, we'll find out eventually what their sentences are.

Repay Lowes. 100 hours community service (each). 2 years probation.

We'll see how close I am.

The male gets less than a year, possibly just fines and community service. Still, he did operate as a fence so I may be softpedalling his crime.

Some of it will depend on how much pressure Lowes and other businesses are putting on the prosecutor.

The female gets sentenced to 3-5 years, gets out on parole in two. The male gets less than a year, possibly just fines and community service.

Maybe in 1960. Not today.

It'll take months and we'll forget about it by then.

We can't! Leslie Nielsen is counting on us to remember.

And his comedy roles are the only things anyone remembers now. Nielson's success inspired a ton of old has-been actors to try to come out of retirement and cash in but none of them had his success.

Forbidden Planet. It was easily the biggest sci-fi pic

A classic. One of my favorites.

He did get some hooch out of Robbie the Robot who went on to lesser roles like battling Robot in Lost In Space. Dr. Smith and Robot were the stars of that show. Check out Robbie's very long and funny list of other TV shows he appeared in. Robbie even did a Charmin commercial with Mr. Whipple and, yes, he did say, "Don't squeeze Charmin".

Forbidden Planet has a lot of plot elements similar to Shakespeare's The Tempest.

Forbidden Planet has a lot of plot elements similar to Shakespeare's The Tempest.

Amazing how Hollywood managed to make a popular movie from Shakespeare. But that was 1956 when Hollywood writers had actual talent and were able to turn an island into a planet, a sailing ship into a spaceship, and a sprite into a robot.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I'd recommend Much Ado About Nothing, the 1993 movie with Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Keanu Reeves, Kate Beckinsale, Denzel Washington and Michael Keaton.

The cast, music, costumes, and acting are all superb.