Unsolicited school pictures that you have to pay for or return

[undertheradar]

Yet the easiest and most simplistic action is to return the photos to the school. Doesn't look worthy of Supreme Court intervention.

 

[CdnCarrie]

There are similar consumer protection laws north of the border.

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

Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. Just leave them in the back pack.

 

[bcla]

Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. Just leave them in the back pack.

And I don't see what the big deal is. If they don't want people to fail to return unsolicited packages, they should stop sending them.

There are a lot of reasons why these sort of laws exist. I remember getting unsolicited extensions of my magazine subscriptions after I didn't send in any renewals. I never got any messages saying I owned them money - only that they would stop sending them eventually after a "final notice".

I'd note that BC's law doesn't actually make it illegal - like California or other US states. It simply makes it clear the recipient is under no obligation to do anything save an honest mistake such as a product sent to the wrong address. And even in that case it's the responsibility of the sender to come and get it.

 

[undertheradar]

And I don't see what the big deal is. If they don't want people to fail to return unsolicited packages, they should stop sending them.

There are a lot of reasons why these sort of laws exist. I remember getting unsolicited extensions of my magazine subscriptions after I didn't send in any renewals. I never got any messages saying I owned them money - only that they would stop sending them eventually after a "final notice".

I'd note that BC's law doesn't actually make it illegal - like California or other US states. It simply makes it clear the recipient is under no obligation to do anything save an honest mistake such as a product sent to the wrong address. And even in that case it's the responsibility of the sender to come and get it.

We wonder why school fundraisers are so expensive. Just send the photos back.

 

[bcla]

We wonder why school fundraisers are so expensive. Just send the photos back.

My reading of the the way LifeTouch does business (from people who claim to have dealt with them on the school end) is that they don't penalize a school if the photos aren't sent back. However, the school won't be getting a cut and the school has the incentive to keep the recipient from "getting something for free" if they think there's a chance of getting paid. Some people actually want them while others don't care but simply don't want to return them or don't trust that they will be destroyed.

I've heard some claims that kids were forced to run laps around a track for failure to return photos and even have their report cards or grades withheld. of course I'm guessing all it takes is one parent who is an attorney to straighten that out.

 

[kaytieeldr]

There are similar consumer protection laws north of the border.

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

Interesting reading. The part where the Canadian law cites BBB recommendations strongly implies the law applies to unordered items sent to you by mail or delivered )by a shipping service).

One of the more adamant posters here should verify the law's range with their state's Attorney General or Consumer Affairs. But a question for those supporting "just keeping" the pictures: do you have the same attitude about fund-raising items (such as candy bars) sent home with your child, from the school, or scouts, or sports?

 

[manning]

The law is simple in Illinois, possibly else where. You're simply not obligated to pay for unsolicited items/services. It's classified as a gift.

 

[smitch425]

The law is simple in Illinois, possibly else where. You're simply not obligated to pay for unsolicited items/services. It's classified as a gift.

I would be curious to see if this is really even covered by that law. If you choose to have your child participate in picture day with the company, how can their services be labeled unsolicited?

 

[bcla]

Interesting reading. The part where the Canadian law cites BBB recommendations strongly implies the law applies to unordered items sent to you by mail or delivered )by a shipping service).

One of the more adamant posters here should verify the law's range with their state's Attorney General or Consumer Affairs. But a question for those supporting "just keeping" the pictures: do you have the same attitude about fund-raising items (such as candy bars) sent home with your child, from the school, or scouts, or sports?

The law itself is on the books. I referenced the BC Consumer Protection Act but didn't quote it. Here it is:

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document...004] c. 2/00_Act/04002_02.xml#part2_division3

Division 3 — Unsolicited Goods or Services
Definition and interpretation

11 (1) In this Division, "unsolicited goods or services" means goods or services that are supplied to a consumer who did not request them, other than

(a) goods or services supplied to a consumer who knew or ought to have known they were intended for delivery to another person,

(b) goods or services for which the supplier does not require payment, or

(c) a prescribed supply of goods or services.

(2) For the purposes of the definition of "unsolicited goods or services", a request for goods or services must not be inferred only from the passage of time or from the consumer's

(a) payment for the goods or services,

(b) use of the goods or services,

(c) request to purchase another similar good or service, or

(d) inaction.
Unsolicited goods or services

12 (1) A consumer has no legal obligation in respect of unsolicited goods or services unless and until the consumer expressly acknowledges to the supplier in writing his or her intention to accept the goods or services.

(2) Unless the consumer has given the acknowledgment referred to in subsection (1), the supplier does not have a cause of action for any loss, use, misuse, possession, damage or misappropriation in respect of the goods or services or the value obtained by the use of the goods or services.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to goods supplied to a consumer on a continuing basis under a contract between the consumer and supplier.

(4) If it is alleged that the supplier supplied unsolicited goods or services, the burden of proof that the goods or services were not unsolicited is on the supplier.

 

[undertheradar]

My reading of the the way LifeTouch does business (from people who claim to have dealt with them on the school end) is that they don't penalize a school if the photos aren't sent back. However, the school won't be getting a cut and the school has the incentive to keep the recipient from "getting something for free" if they think there's a chance of getting paid. Some people actually want them while others don't care but simply don't want to return them or don't trust that they will be destroyed.

I've heard some claims that kids were forced to run laps around a track for failure to return photos and even have their report cards or grades withheld. of course I'm guessing all it takes is one parent who is an attorney to straighten that out.

I'm seeing "Ambulance Chaser," anyone else?

Title alone does not cause fear.

What specific examples do you have of kids at a specific school being forced to run laps?

 

[undertheradar]

The law itself is on the books. I referenced the BC Consumer Protection Act but didn't quote it. Here it is:

You are taking this way too seriously. Are you a California attorney?

 

[bcla]

The law is simple in Illinois, possibly else where. You're simply not obligated to pay for unsolicited items/services. It's classified as a gift.

I would be curious to see if this is really even covered by that law. If you choose to have your child participate in picture day with the company, how can their services be labeled unsolicited?

That's not an explicit or implied contract. A child simply can't do so. And in all my years of class photos, I don't recall a time when I was asked to make a decision. Our photographers all sent proofs and then asked if we wanted to order them. We just sat down for them. That's not an implied contract just to sit down for them. It's also not an implied contract when a PhotoPass photographer snaps my photo, and I'm an adult.

The "merchandise" is the prints - not the photo service. The prints are unsolicited. Photos are also used in yearbooks even if they're not ordered as prints.

 

[undertheradar]

That's not an explicit or implied contract. A child simply can't do so. And in all my years of class photos, I don't recall a time when I was asked to make a decision. Our photographers all sent proofs and then asked if we wanted to order them. We just sat down for them. That's not an implied contract just to sit down for them. It's also not an implied contract when a PhotoPass photographer snaps my photo, and I'm an adult.

The "merchandise" is the prints - not the photo service. The prints are unsolicited. Photos are also used in yearbooks even if they're not ordered as prints.

They could just add a shadow portrait and label the person to be camera shy.