Unsolicited school pictures that you have to pay for or return

[manning]

Gosh, I live in Illinois and the law for years states if someone sends you something unsolicited you are not obligated to pay for it. You can do anything you want with it. Keep it, give it away, throw it out or send it back. I can tell you I never send it back. The companies know this and it is built into the price.

 

[mantysk8coach]

I can't believe I'm even posting on this thread, but I truly am curious - those of you who don't want the pictures, but don't send them back for whatever reason...what do you do with the pictures then? I mean, you're saying you didn't ask for them and didn't want them, if you don't send them back, what do you do with them? Shred and dispose of them yourself?

Not trying to be snarky, I'm truly just wondering what happens to the unpaid pictures that don't get sent back to school.

 

[sam_gordon]

Gosh, I live in Illinois and the law for years states if someone sends you something unsolicited you are not obligated to pay for it. You can do anything you want with it. Keep it, give it away, throw it out or send it back. I can tell you I never send it back. The companies know this and it is built into the price.

But doesn't the bolded mean that by you keeping the pictures without paying for them the cost rises for those who DO pay for them?

 

[mom2rtk]

But doesn't the bolded mean that by you keeping the pictures without paying for them the cost rises for those who DO pay for them?

Details, details........

 

[bcla]

Gosh, I live in Illinois and the law for years states if someone sends you something unsolicited you are not obligated to pay for it. You can do anything you want with it. Keep it, give it away, throw it out or send it back. I can tell you I never send it back. The companies know this and it is built into the price.

But doesn't the bolded mean that by you keeping the pictures without paying for them the cost rises for those who DO pay for them?

Actually it doesn't. Whether or not it gets returned doesn't affect their costs. The prints are a sunk cost and probably not very high. In fact if a packet gets returned they probably have to dispose of it. Their threats are really just to try to get people to pay up.

You argument is like complaining about consumers indirectly having to pay for produce that spoils because a market wasn't able to sell it before it got to that point. Yes - the prices of retail produce incorporates spoilage, but how is that the fault of people who don't buy it?

 

[mom2rtk]

Actually it doesn't. Whether or not it gets returned doesn't affect their costs. The prints are a sunk cost and probably not very high. In fact if a packet gets returned they probably have to dispose of it. Their threats are really just to try to get people to pay up.

You argument is like complaining about consumers indirectly having to pay for produce that spoils because a market wasn't able to sell it before it got to that point. Yes - the prices of retail produce incorporates spoilage, but how is that the fault of people who don't buy it?

You can bet your bottom dollar that if more people keep them without paying, the prices next year will reflect that. Denying that is just trying to justify getting something for free.

It's not at all like spoiled produce. If word gets around that some people keep them without recourse, more people will do the same, and the cost will be increased and passed along so that only the ones willing to follow the rules end up paying.

 

[EMAW_KSU]

But doesn't the bolded mean that by you keeping the pictures without paying for them the cost rises for those who DO pay for them?

Isn't the cost already there whether they return them or not. It is not like they can be sent to somebody else after they are returned.

 

[mom2rtk]

Isn't the cost already there whether they return them or not. It is not like they can be sent to somebody else after they are returned.

By that reasoning then wouldn't they just eventually be providing a free service?

 

[EMAW_KSU]

By that reasoning then wouldn't they just eventually be providing a free service?

Yes if nobody ever returned them or payed for them.

They are expecting ?% of people to pay for them. The cost is already there.

 

[bcla]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if more people keep them without paying, the prices next year will reflect that. Denying that is just trying to justify getting something for free.

It's not at all like spoiled produce. If word gets around that some people keep them without recourse, more people will do the same, and the cost will be increased and passed along so that only the ones willing to follow the rules end up paying.

But it's built into their business model. I'm pretty sure they have actuarials figuring this out like an insurance company. If they get a bad year, then they just need to do the sensible thing, which is to send out order forms and only make prints for those who order them. That's what the unsolicited merchandise laws are supposed to address.

 

[mom2rtk]

But it's built into their business model. I'm pretty sure they have actuarials figuring this out like an insurance company. If they get a bad year, then they just need to do the sensible thing, which is to send out order forms and only make prints for those who order them. That's what the unsolicited merchandise laws are supposed to address.

So everyone should just keep them this year?

 

[bcla]

But it's built into their business model. I'm pretty sure they have actuarials figuring this out like an insurance company. If they get a bad year, then they just need to do the sensible thing, which is to send out order forms and only make prints for those who order them. That's what the unsolicited merchandise laws are supposed to address.

So everyone should just keep them this year?

I wouldn't feel sorry for any business with this kind of sales tactic if that would happen. It's unlikely though, and they know it.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for any business that includes willful violation of the law (in most states) as a sales tactic.

 

[mom2rtk]

I wouldn't feel sorry for any business with this kind of sales tactic if that would happen. It's unlikely though, and they know it.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for any business that includes willful violation of the law (in most states) as a sales tactic.

Well, that's awesome that you are willing to get yours for free to teach them a lesson.

 

[bcla]

Well, that's awesome that you are willing to get yours for free to teach them a lesson.

I don't remember being in this position (unsolicited merchandise) in a while. However, I don't feel sorry for them. And frankly if it's their business model - they know that many will pay for them especially if they feel pressured to do so.

And why shouldn't they be taught a lesson? They know it's an illegal business practice and they continue to implement it. It reminds me of a story I heard when the "Do Not Call List" was first implemented. There was one notorious telemarketer who apparently broke down and cried on calls with several who placed their names on the list. He was crying that he didn't know what to do since it was the only way he knew how to do business.

 

[undertheradar]

I don't remember being in this position (unsolicited merchandise) in a while. However, I don't feel sorry for them. And frankly if it's their business model - they know that many will pay for them especially if they feel pressured to do so.

And why shouldn't they be taught a lesson? They know it's an illegal business practice and they continue to implement it. It reminds me of a story I heard when the "Do Not Call List" was first implemented. There was one notorious telemarketer who apparently broke down and cried on calls with several who placed their names on the list. He was crying that he didn't know what to do since it was the only way he knew how to do business.

Yet the easiest solution is to just send the photos back. Just too darn easy to send them back and be done with it.

 

[sam_gordon]

I wouldn't feel sorry for any business with this kind of sales tactic if that would happen. It's unlikely though, and they know it.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for any business that includes willful violation of the law (in most states) as a sales tactic.

I don't remember being in this position (unsolicited merchandise) in a while. However, I don't feel sorry for them. And frankly if it's their business model - they know that many will pay for them especially if they feel pressured to do so.

And why shouldn't they be taught a lesson? They know it's an illegal business practice and they continue to implement it. It reminds me of a story I heard when the "Do Not Call List" was first implemented. There was one notorious telemarketer who apparently broke down and cried on calls with several who placed their names on the list. He was crying that he didn't know what to do since it was the only way he knew how to do business.

What part is illegal? They send the pictures home with the kids with a note "please pay for these or send them back". I don't see anything being illegal until they press for pictures or payment.

Do we know for a fact that the schools don't pay for anything not returned?

 

[CdnCarrie]

Illegal where? It's not illegal here.

 

[bcla]

Illegal where? It's not illegal here.

In California it's a violation of Civil Code 1584.5. Most states have laws with almost identical language.

 

[tinkerbellandeeyor]

I joined the club today I just don't get why they do it with spring and not fall.

 

[bcla]

There are similar consumer protection laws north of the border.

http://www.nscr.bc.ca/HelpsHands/Unsolicited Goods - Your Rights.PDF