What would you do if you were me? I had ordered the Aluminum version of Zalman's CNPS7000. Today I received the all copper version. It wasn't a mistake on my part as the invoice clearly states that I ordered a Zalman CNPS7000CuAl. This is a mistake on their end. I was charged the price of the CuAl, so no complaints there.
Would you keep it or exchange it? I had wanted the Aluminum simply because the lighter version seems much safer with excellent performance in cooling. This beast is heavy.
Ordered the 7000CuAl but received the 7000Cu
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
These feel like tricky situations, eh?
If you contact them, they may (a) charge you for the Cu, (b) make you go to the inconvenience of returning the Cu, and/or (c) delay getting the proper Al/Cu part to you.
However, you have gotten something from them (even though the error was on their part) for which you have not paid. Technically, I see that as stealing.
I may be in the minority here, but I think it is incumbant upon you to contact the retailer and let them know about the error. Ask them how they want to keep their customer satisfied while handling the error that is clearly on their part. Have in mind what you want them to do and ask for it. Ie. specifically request that they either overnight the replacement and that they pay shipping charges on the return of the Cu model, including having it picked up from you or sending a prepaid mailer, so that you do not have take your time to go to a post office, etc due to their mistake. Or, tell them you are happy to keep the Cu, without a price adjustment. Whatever, just know ahead of time how you want things handled.
Make it clear that this is THEIR mistake, not yours and that they are the one's who ought to work to meet the customers (reasonable, IMO) expectations.
Feel free to go up the management ladder if you have to and make it clear that you are a member of a ~2000 user online hardware enthusiast forum where you would be all too happy to report how your case was handled positively or negatively. And, if you buy a lot of hardware, tell them. I'm sure they'd like your future business.
My $.04 worth.
If you contact them, they may (a) charge you for the Cu, (b) make you go to the inconvenience of returning the Cu, and/or (c) delay getting the proper Al/Cu part to you.
However, you have gotten something from them (even though the error was on their part) for which you have not paid. Technically, I see that as stealing.
I may be in the minority here, but I think it is incumbant upon you to contact the retailer and let them know about the error. Ask them how they want to keep their customer satisfied while handling the error that is clearly on their part. Have in mind what you want them to do and ask for it. Ie. specifically request that they either overnight the replacement and that they pay shipping charges on the return of the Cu model, including having it picked up from you or sending a prepaid mailer, so that you do not have take your time to go to a post office, etc due to their mistake. Or, tell them you are happy to keep the Cu, without a price adjustment. Whatever, just know ahead of time how you want things handled.
Make it clear that this is THEIR mistake, not yours and that they are the one's who ought to work to meet the customers (reasonable, IMO) expectations.
Feel free to go up the management ladder if you have to and make it clear that you are a member of a ~2000 user online hardware enthusiast forum where you would be all too happy to report how your case was handled positively or negatively. And, if you buy a lot of hardware, tell them. I'm sure they'd like your future business.
My $.04 worth.
The cost of exchanging would be more than the price difference in the models. From what I've seen it is $2-$5 depending on the retailer. So I would just use the Cu, unless you really want to go through the hassle of getting it fixed right. By the time you take the cost of employee time, and shipping back the item etc it's not going to help the retailer to get it straightened out. Or if you got a good deal, and really want the AlCu perhaps you could sell your Cu and buy and AlCu somewhere else. I've been thinking about buying one of those coolers myself, and I'm sure many others here have as well.
Aphonos I agree with you that technically it is stealing -- 100%. I have no problem whatsoever in calling SVC and telling them they have made a boo boo, and that I owe them some money should I decide to keep the Cu version, although I have a feeling most people would not.
The decision I am trying to make is not so much a moral dilemma. It is simply one of keeping the Cu or exchanging for the CuAl. My only problem with the Cu is weight. If somebody can convince me that weight is really a non-issue, then I might go ahead and keep it (call SVC and let them know about this anyway -- if they have any integrity they would probably simply apologize for the mistake and not charge me the difference).
Talz is right, too. I'm willing to bet that SVC would like me to keep the product rather than asking for an exchange. It would cost them more money than it would be worth. The difference in price of the two heatsinks is $7. It costs that much just for the shipping alone, and I'm surely not going to be the one paying it
Btw, there may be another issue at hand here. Can anybody tell me if the package includes the necessary retention brackets? I'm not opening the plastic until I make a decision. I'm hoping the brackets are in the box which is encased in the hard plastic. Or, are the brackets something that should have came with my motherboard?
EDIT/ I see that the brackets are included (re-read the review).
The decision I am trying to make is not so much a moral dilemma. It is simply one of keeping the Cu or exchanging for the CuAl. My only problem with the Cu is weight. If somebody can convince me that weight is really a non-issue, then I might go ahead and keep it (call SVC and let them know about this anyway -- if they have any integrity they would probably simply apologize for the mistake and not charge me the difference).
Talz is right, too. I'm willing to bet that SVC would like me to keep the product rather than asking for an exchange. It would cost them more money than it would be worth. The difference in price of the two heatsinks is $7. It costs that much just for the shipping alone, and I'm surely not going to be the one paying it
Btw, there may be another issue at hand here. Can anybody tell me if the package includes the necessary retention brackets? I'm not opening the plastic until I make a decision. I'm hoping the brackets are in the box which is encased in the hard plastic. Or, are the brackets something that should have came with my motherboard?
EDIT/ I see that the brackets are included (re-read the review).
Weight: My experience with the big Zalman flowers and Thermalright 800/900's is that static weight seems to pose no problem. If you are going to move your system any distance, the heavy heat sink should be probably removed to avoid damage due to dynamic mass. I know of only one (well-publicized) case of difficulties with a full-copper sink, but it looked like a highly defective sample. Were it me, I'd keep the Cu without hesitation.
Incorrect orders: My experience, also, is that vendors will let you keep their mistakes, if it's in your favour, and will correct them if not. In particular, a couple of times, I've had double (!) orders arrive; we called the vendor and asked if they would like the extra package returned to them (since we didn't pay for it), and each time they said to keep it. I do believe it is proper to contact the vendor and explain the situation, allowing them to make the final decision. However, I also believe, no matter their decision, that the customer should not pay for the vendor's mistake.
Incorrect orders: My experience, also, is that vendors will let you keep their mistakes, if it's in your favour, and will correct them if not. In particular, a couple of times, I've had double (!) orders arrive; we called the vendor and asked if they would like the extra package returned to them (since we didn't pay for it), and each time they said to keep it. I do believe it is proper to contact the vendor and explain the situation, allowing them to make the final decision. However, I also believe, no matter their decision, that the customer should not pay for the vendor's mistake.
On-topic:
Thousands of people use the Cu 7000s every day. Unless you live on Jupiter, I wouldn't sweat it. But taking the heatsink off for transport is always a good idea, even if you were using the AlCu.
Off-topic:
It cheapens both language and the victims of true "stealing" to call keeping a slightly messed up order "stealing".
Thousands of people use the Cu 7000s every day. Unless you live on Jupiter, I wouldn't sweat it. But taking the heatsink off for transport is always a good idea, even if you were using the AlCu.
Off-topic:
It cheapens both language and the victims of true "stealing" to call keeping a slightly messed up order "stealing".
Continuing OT: Ouch!Justin_R wrote:Off-topic:
It cheapens both language and the victims of true "stealing" to call keeping a slightly messed up order "stealing".
*rubs cheek after getting smacked* *picks up challenger's white glove from the dirt to respond* It looks like, then, that it is incumbant upon you to restore the value to language and provide a working definition for stealing. Does it no longer mean taking something from someone else that is not rightfully yours?
Is is not stealing if the error is on the part of the party on the losing end of the transaction? Say your bank mistakenly credits your account with $30,000. Bank's fault. Finders keepers, right? If you spend it, they can still collect from you or have you criminally prosecuted even if it is quite some time until the error is discovered. It's not your money. Same thing if you find a satchel of money on a park bench. Not your money, even though someone else made the error. What if you left $30K on the bench?
I know Wedge's intent in the order was to receive the AlCu and not to defraud SVC. And no, he did not sneak into the SVC warehouse and swipe a Cu version. But he is now aware of the error on SVC's part and in possession of an item for which he did not pay* (and I don't think SVC intended it as a gift). So....
Is it not stealing if the victim doesn't ever discover it? If SVC discovered the error on their own and contacted Wedge and he said, "I'm keeping it. It's your fault you sent the wrong one." They would be perfectly justified and in a defensible position to charge Wedge the price difference.** If the Cu version (or at least ~18.9% of it) belongs to SVC whether they know it or not, does Wedge have property for which he has not properly paid? IMO, yes.
Is it not stealing because of the meager difference in the value of the items? At what point does someone become a true victim? Somewhere greater than $7? (tongue-in-cheek: then I want to do a lot of business with you $6.99 at a time
)What if SVC sent Wedge a P4 3.0 ($453.99) when he ordered a P4 1.7 Celeron ($65.99)? If he keeps it and I responded the same way, am I still cheapening language and victimhood? Is the responsibility for the error solely on SVC's part and therefore they should bare the brunt of the error? This may be the commonly-accepted customer service route in the culture, but it is not the law.
On the topic of cheapening language. If stealing is now defined by some sliding scale (somewhere north of $7), then that is the cheapening of language, because if stealing means something different to everyone, then stealing means absolutely nothing at all.
Again, as I stated to Wedge, I may be in the minority opinion here. And that's okay with me. I think we can get along around here with a minority opinion or two.
And, I'm no lawyer, I just play one on TV. * Just a reminder that it appears Wedge's question was never whether he should pay for the Cu version, but whether or not the Cu version was desirable.
**They probably won't mess with collecting from Wedge because a $7 collection is not a profitable venture (and could be written off as a loss).
[Too many long posts in one day, I'm going to bed
]We're going waay OT here but ok. I don't think on a small thing like that it is stealing at all. I've worked at places selling shipping and recieving items such as this. And I am fairly sure most of them would rather not even have to take the time to find out about the difference and almost certainly would not care to change the unit for an AlCu unless the customer was insistent. It is even likely someone does already know, and there was an intentional free upgrade due to stock running out. And few stores would pay the shipping to get the units switched, just like they refuse to pay for shipping a defective part back for exchange.
So yes, Justin does have something of a point. Now if we were talking about something such as the theoretical CPU mistake the retailer would likely appreciate a call, though even then a few would just say to keep it.
So yes, Justin does have something of a point. Now if we were talking about something such as the theoretical CPU mistake the retailer would likely appreciate a call, though even then a few would just say to keep it.
hmmm....I don't won't to incite a let's-get-ugly thread...but as long as it's constructive I guess it won't get ugly.
stealing or not? aphonos makes valid points. I've considered this matter a bit more since he got me to thinking about it.
I think it comes down to intent, and no I'm not turning lawyer here, not trying to justify casual theft, in case some may see it this way.
Allow me to explain.
What if I had never known the difference? Would it be stealing then? Circumstances could have been such that I honestly didn't know the details of the heatsink, just that I knew that dad said "hey son, happy birthday. There is an awesome HSF coming in the mail for you; made by Zalman". It arrives and it's not the aluminum version that he ordered, but he never inspects it (beleive me this is very plausible in my household). So, I have the wrong peice; however, I am blissfully unaware of this. The only way I would know would be for SVC to contact me and say "sorry fella, we made a mistake on your order. We want it back".
Now, I would honestly contend with anybody that this is not stealing, i.e., the mere fact that you have received something of value that does not belong to you surely cannot imply theft. Only the minute that you realize it doesn't belong to you AND you decide to keep it does it become theft. Let me emphasize the last part of that sentence because that is truly the moment that it does become theft.
In my situation, I had the knowledge that the part was wrong, so the "I didn't know" is not something that would excuse me. But I had never decided to keep it. In fact, that was the point of this post: CuAl vs Cu? Which would you choose? This was never meant to be a "stealing or not stealing" thread, although I now can see where one might see my original post in that way.
So, I agree with aphonos on the point that knowingly keeping something that isn't yours is simply theft.
But I also see why Justin_R made the comment he did. I beleive that he clearly understood that I had zero intent in making off with more than I paid for; hence, to paint this scenario as stealing was to jump way ahead of the game. I never said that I was going to keep it, nor did I say that I would not make the balance right with SVC should I decide to keep it.
So, truly, I agree with both of you guys. aphonos's principles are dead-on. His black and white view of what constitutes stealing is quite right.
Justin's observation of this incident is also correct if he thinks that much more must be proven here before I can be officially accused of stealing, namely, that I was intending to keep this thing without letting SVC know about their mistake.
stealing or not? aphonos makes valid points. I've considered this matter a bit more since he got me to thinking about it.
I think it comes down to intent, and no I'm not turning lawyer here, not trying to justify casual theft, in case some may see it this way.
Allow me to explain.
What if I had never known the difference? Would it be stealing then? Circumstances could have been such that I honestly didn't know the details of the heatsink, just that I knew that dad said "hey son, happy birthday. There is an awesome HSF coming in the mail for you; made by Zalman". It arrives and it's not the aluminum version that he ordered, but he never inspects it (beleive me this is very plausible in my household). So, I have the wrong peice; however, I am blissfully unaware of this. The only way I would know would be for SVC to contact me and say "sorry fella, we made a mistake on your order. We want it back".
Now, I would honestly contend with anybody that this is not stealing, i.e., the mere fact that you have received something of value that does not belong to you surely cannot imply theft. Only the minute that you realize it doesn't belong to you AND you decide to keep it does it become theft. Let me emphasize the last part of that sentence because that is truly the moment that it does become theft.
In my situation, I had the knowledge that the part was wrong, so the "I didn't know" is not something that would excuse me. But I had never decided to keep it. In fact, that was the point of this post: CuAl vs Cu? Which would you choose? This was never meant to be a "stealing or not stealing" thread, although I now can see where one might see my original post in that way.
So, I agree with aphonos on the point that knowingly keeping something that isn't yours is simply theft.
But I also see why Justin_R made the comment he did. I beleive that he clearly understood that I had zero intent in making off with more than I paid for; hence, to paint this scenario as stealing was to jump way ahead of the game. I never said that I was going to keep it, nor did I say that I would not make the balance right with SVC should I decide to keep it.
So, truly, I agree with both of you guys. aphonos's principles are dead-on. His black and white view of what constitutes stealing is quite right.
Justin's observation of this incident is also correct if he thinks that much more must be proven here before I can be officially accused of stealing, namely, that I was intending to keep this thing without letting SVC know about their mistake.
I agree. I really wasn't trying to get ugly (my face has always been this wayWedge wrote:hmmm....I don't won't to incite a let's-get-ugly thread...but as long as it's constructive I guess it won't get ugly.
) I hope I kept it to civil, if heated, debate. I hope I have not incited a let's get ugly thread, unless you need to get ugly in order to straighten me out, but I'd rather you didn't Would it help if I reminded every that I prefaced my stealing remark with the word "technically."
And I agree with Talz. Most retailers would not give a flip. I was trying to make the assertion that it really should be the retailers right to make that call in these types of cases, rather than the customer assuming that would be the final decision of the retailer. If I were the retailer, I would certainly appreciate customers who operated that way.
I think it's been quite civil. Really the difference of opinion is fairly small in this thread. I know some that would consider anything shipped to them to be theirs, and it probably is legally speaking in most circumstances. But I think we can all actually agree in this thread that if it's something of a value to be cost effective to send back then the sender should be contacted, because it's the right thing. Only difference of opinion is what to do when dealing with items of a value likely less than the cost of sending the item in questin back.
The last time I tried to contact them regarding a mistake in my order by e-mail no one responded. I had to talk to someone on the phone to have it resolved.Wedge wrote:Btw, I have emailed them. Couldn't get through on the phone. So, if they read their email, they are (or will be) aware of this.
And no, I didn't receive a bonus in my order. They gave me fan screws instead of thumb screws. They sent me the thumb screws the next day, and asked me to keep the fan screws. Hmm, I guess I did receive a bonus in my order after all. But there's no stealing, technically or not
For a "technical" definition of stealing, one would probably best refer to the legal codes of the various jurisdictions under which "stealing" is prosecuted. These jurisdictions probably also have laws which deal with lost/misplaced property or breach of contract, either of which may be more relevant than the laws pertaining to "stealing" for Wedge's situation. And let's not forget that is was Wedge who was the wronged party here; he placed an order, got the wrong thing, and now is (was) faced with a problem that he never wanted any part of. (The phrase "lack of criminal intent" comes to mind, but I don't know what that would buy you in court.)aphonos wrote:It looks like, then, that it is incumbant upon you to restore the value to language and provide a working definition for stealing. Does it no longer mean taking something from someone else that is not rightfully yours?
The definitions at dictionary.com circulate around two factors which are not present in this case: the first is a "taking" action, which is not really present here, and the second is "stealth", which again is not really present. Is there wiggle room in the definitions of "taking" and "stealth" for them to accomodate Wedge's situation? Sure. But the power of specificity that makes a word more useful than a grunt is diluted when that word becomes a catch-all for as wildly disparate situations as not informing a company about a slightly mistaken order (which they may very well have shipped knowingly), and picking up $30,000 off a park bench. (Even more OT, but see also: "War" on Drugs.)
The question of whether or not Wedge not reporting the error constitutes stealing is (should be) separate from the question of whether or not SVC would be ethically or morally right to charge the difference, if Wedge refused to return the Cu. I personally think the fundamental maxim which should underlie any moral or ethical decisions in this case is that Wedge should not pay for SVC's mistake-- he should be able to receive the parts he ordered at a total expense no greater than what he agreed to pay in the first place.Is it not stealing if the victim doesn't ever discover it? If SVC discovered the error on their own and contacted Wedge and he said, "I'm keeping it. It's your fault you sent the wrong one." They would be perfectly justified and in a defensible position to charge Wedge the price difference.
I have a question I like to ask people. I ask them "Would you give me an American penny for a Canadian penny?" Folks think about it, and then say "No. The Canadian penny is worth less." Then I ask "Would you give me a penny?" and people say "Sure." Why do people think they're being taken advantage of in the first situation, but not in the second? Whatever the reason, it's clear that something beyond the financial value of the transaction is involved. If I took $7 out of your wallet, I'd be stealing; if I found $7 in change in my sofa after a big party and kept it, I wouldn't be.Is it not stealing because of the meager difference in the value of the items? At what point does someone become a true victim? Somewhere greater than $7? (tongue-in-cheek: then I want to do a lot of business with you $6.99 at a time
I'm sure you'll understand if I don't trust your judgment as to what the law is or isn't in this situation. There probably are a whole series of laws that deal with this kind of thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the law is subtle enough to distinguish between a disparity of $335 and one of $7, (and certainly between $30,000 and $7). But I don't know the law, so I shouldn't speculate.What if SVC sent Wedge a P4 3.0 ($453.99) when he ordered a P4 1.7 Celeron ($65.99)? If he keeps it and I responded the same way, am I still cheapening language and victimhood? Is the responsibility for the error solely on SVC's part and therefore they should bare the brunt of the error? This may be the commonly-accepted customer service route in the culture, but it is not the law.
I agree that eliminating shared meaning is what "cheapens" language, but I disagree with the notion that "different" meanings invariably result in this. Stealing does mean something different (however marginally) to everyone*, but it means something similar enough that the word still has specificity and force. We may disagree as to what "stealing" means (and each be logical and rational in our positions) but even that doesn't automatically cheapen our language, since we're obviously not glossing over the differences, but exploring them. (Much to the dismay of anyone reading this thread for PC silencing tips.On the topic of cheapening language. If stealing is now defined by some sliding scale (somewhere north of $7), then that is the cheapening of language, because if stealing means something different to everyone, then stealing means absolutely nothing at all.
)Given all the details of Wedge's situation (the minor value difference, a plausible reason for why SVC may have substituted a Cu for an AlCu, the fact that corrective measures would be a hassle and likely detrimental to both parties), and in light of the definitions linked above in conjunction with a sense of equity towards what incontrovertibly and justly would be called "stealing", I maintain that it is inappropriate to so label Wedge failing to report the substitution.
Incidentally, I applaud Wedge's action of emailing SVC, because while not contacting them may not be stealing, contacting them is certainly the forthright and proper thing to do.
* Yes, that's me rejecting Plato, for all the armchair philosophers out there.
Apologies if any of this sound uncivil. Respect to all SPCRers.
Well reasoned (and verbalizedJustin_R wrote:Apologies if any of this sound uncivil. Respect to all SPCRers.
)! Hard to be a lover of words and want to argue with a man who crafts plausible, detrimental, conjunction, and incontrovertibly into one paragraph. I detect no incivility on your part at all.
I think, generally, I have approached the issue and defintion of stealing in a broader sense while you are correct to point out the laws dealing with theft will distinguish degrees of value and intent. I can only imagine that readers' reactions vacillate betweenJustin_R wrote:(Much to the dismay of anyone reading this thread for PC silencing tips.
and 
I appreciate the verbal joust in "exploring the differences" in the use and meaning of stealing. I'm happy to agree that we disagree at this point and let the post end or move back to computing. To quote Wedge from above:
One quick comment, re: stealing. In the US, if you are delivered something you did not order, you are allowed to keep it. That applies to the postal service, but since it's a federal law, I would imagine it applies to the other delivery services also. But I bet nobody will willingly tell you that. which means...
You can keep all the spam they send you without any worries of having to pay for it...
You can keep all the spam they send you without any worries of having to pay for it...
Pardon my interuption...
But don't you find it sincerely interesting
that as certain threads here at SPCR become off-topic discussions of the myriad variations of philosophy 
, there is an increasing necessity for the use of iconography which, while defying a solid definition of its own, infers something as vaguely defined as an emotional state?
That said, it makes for entertaining reading. Please, do continue by all means!
Man, SPCR rocks.
Oh was that me? Sorry
But don't you find it sincerely interesting
that as certain threads here at SPCR become off-topic discussions of the myriad variations of philosophy , there is an increasing necessity for the use of iconography which, while defying a solid definition of its own, infers something as vaguely defined as an emotional state? That said, it makes for entertaining reading
. Please, do continue by all means! Man, SPCR rocks.
Oh was that me? Sorry
-
JarsOfFart
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:28 am
That is one of the funniest comments I have seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh. That is truly very funny. I cannot express the humor in it. (no sarcasm). I sent it to all my friends.egarrard wrote:One quick comment, re: stealing. In the US, if you are delivered something you did not order, you are allowed to keep it. That applies to the postal service, but since it's a federal law, I would imagine it applies to the other delivery services also. But I bet nobody will willingly tell you that. which means...
You can keep all the spam they send you without any worries of having to pay for it...