Who (if anybody) is being unreasonable here?

[DuvetDayEveryday]

Person A ordered an item worth £100 which went to the wrong address and was therefore lost. The company sent another one, and then typically the original one was located. So she has two items.

Her sister asked if she could have the spare one. She was told she could have it for £50. She declined, saying that it was wrong of her sister to be profiting from the mistake and unless she was happy to give it away for free she should send it back to the company.

Who IBU?

I am neither of the people involved but do have an opinion. I was interested to see if it's the majority opinion.

[Smurfnoff]

The sister. She wants a freebie and is pissed off she isn't getting one. How is getting a free duvet as a result of the company's mistake not 'profiting', yet selling it would be? Silly cow.

[araiba]

both

one is stealing, the other wants stolen goods

A should return the spare

[LouBlue1507]

Her sister is BU, very petty and hypocritical... It would be wrong for A to profit from the mistake but surely if sister gets a free item then she is profiting, but that's ok?

[ArieltheMermaid1720]

I think person A is unreasonable. If she's not going to return it to the company, I think it's out of order to try to sell her own sister something she got for free and presumably has no use for. Tight much?!

[AnchorDownDeepBreath]

Both. Person A should return the duvet unless the company tell her to keep it. She's obtaining goods by deception, she didn't find it.

Person B is trying to benefit from Person A's crime.

If Person A has told the company and they have told her to keep both items in writing, the item is now Person A's to sell as they want, so they can set any price and Person B would need to decide whether to accept or not.

[Nannawifeofbaldr]

Person A should return (or offer to return) the spare to the vendor - anything else is stealing. If she sells it to her sister she is selling stolen goods.

Sister is grabby and entitled and should start behaving like a grown up.

[FutureGadgetsLab]

Both. Person A should return the duvet.

[NeedMoreSleepOrSugar]

Assuming A didn't tell the company that the first item had been located and was told to keep it, then both are unreasonable.

If she was told she could keep it, then the sister is.

[Osolea]

Person A should inform the company that the list tine has turned up to give them the option of collecting it, and if she hasn't, then she's VU.

If the company are happy for person A to keep the item, then neither is right or wrong they just see it differently. I think it depends on how luxury the item is or if it something that is genuinely needed.

[Ivegotyourgoat]

Well they both are really. It should be returned.

[DuvetDayEveryday]

Personally I'm with person B. I think that unless person A is going to send it back (it's not something you'd need two of), she should give it to her sister.

It's morally sketchy to keep it but I think selling it passes into morally corrupt territory.

[sparepantsandtoothbrush]

Why are posters assuming it's a duvet?

Person A should let the company know the original has turned up. Person B has got a cheek asking for the 'free' item. Why should she get something for free when Person A had to pay for theirs?

[SeriousCreativeBlock]

Definitely both. But not understanding where the "duvet" thing is coming from other than username

[Justbeingnosey123]

I'm not sure unreasonable is the right word. They are both being immoral keeping the item, and my very basic understanding breaking the law. It the item has been offered back to the company and they are happy for A to keep it, then to me both paying half the cost of an item valued at £100 seems fair. I don't see why B is entitled to something for nothing.

[eightoutoften]

A should own up to the company and return it if necessary.

If company say A can keep it then B is being unreasonable - they are both £50 better off - A has the money and B would have an item for £50 thats worth £100

[Beepbopboop]

They're both being unreasonable.
B for wanting it for free and being a massive hypocrite by saying that A would be profiting if she sold it when she would be profiting far more if she got it for free.
And A for not sending it back.

[TestingTestingWonTooFree]

Both being unreasonable. A should tell the company it's turned up and offer it back to them.

[londonrach]

Both....contact the company.....its happened to me and the company thanked me and told me to keep it

[Jackie0]

Bloody hell , who charges their own sister £50 for anything .
I'll never understand money changing hands between family members .
If I had two of something I would be glad to give my sister one.
Is person A is some dire financial difficulty?
If she is presumably her sister would just give her 50 quid.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

I think person A should have the "free" one and person B should pay the going rate for the paid for one.

[DuvetDayEveryday]

Person A is relatively wealthy. Person B isn't.

[nancy75]

If A is told she can keep it then I think it's ok for B to pay half price, that way they both get the item for £50 instead of b getting it for free and a paying £100 for it.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

It's not about "charging" though is it.

A pays £100 and gets two.
B pays A £50 so they've both got one each for half price.

Not sure what's wrong with that.

[mickeysminnie]

If the company have been informed and have given permission for A to keep the item I think it makes sense to sell the second item. If A sells the item for £50 it means both she and her sister get the original £100 item for £50. A bargain for both of them. Why should A pay full whack for her item and give her sister a free item? How would that be fair?