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.

[Hassled]

Person A is Bad and Wrong not to have sent it back and then to want to profit out of it. Person B, the sister, is taking the piss a bit though.

[exLtEveDallas]

Both.
A should contact the company.
B should go without.

If the company tell A to keep it she could sell it to B
If the company tell A to keep it she should offer B money for it.

[Justbeingnosey123]

But is it an item either needs? It sounds like person b only wants it cause it's free not that it's something she needs and couldn't afford! Either way it's irrelevant they item should be offered back to the company

[plimsolls]

smurfnoff do you know about the situation in real life? How do you know it's a duvet? (Also, which sister are you referring to as BU?).

I think Person A should send it back and not be dishonest.

If Person A is happy to be dishonest, then she should feel free to do what she likes with it, including selling it.

If she gives it to Person B, then Person B is the only person profiting from dishonesty (not sending it back). So, Person B's argument about the dishonesty involved in selling the item for £50 is a bit hypocritical. At least in selling it for £50, they both profit from dishonesty. A by making £50, B by getting a half price item.

[DuvetDayEveryday]

It's not something B particularly needs, it's a luxury item (not a duvet!). She wouldn't afford one, and can't justify spending £50 on one.

[bakeoffcake]

Why is everyone assuming it's a Duvet I keep reading the OP buts there isn't a mention of one!

[Justbeingnosey123]

If it's not something B needs I don't see why A should give it to her, family or not. A 50:50 split sounds the most reasonable solution to me. If you ignore the fact it actually belongs to neither of them.

[bakeoffcake]

I think person A is being very mean to her sister, she should just let her have it for free.

Something similar happened to my sister a few weeks ago. She ordered a 5 piece garden sofa set, they sent 8 pieces. Th company told her to keep it, so she offered us the 3 extra bits for free. We don't need it so she's going to sell it.

[TheGoodEnoughWife]

I think B ibu- as someone said above there is the opportunity for them both to get something half price and that would be the fairest thing.

Just because A is better off doesn't mean she shouldn't see some benefit.

Although I agree item should be sent back unless told to keep it.

[NannawifeofBaldr]

It does sound rather childish "I want one too, give it to me now wah, wah, wah"

[TheNaze73]

Both are in the wrong. Person A is a thief and person B, would be in possession of stolen goods

[BoomBoomsCousin]

They're basically discussing whether just A, just B or both of them should benefit from stealing from this company. There's nothing "less wrong" about A simply giving the item to B unless it's an essential item that B badly needs and won't be able to get any other way.

[TheVillageTaxpayer]

Person A is not a person of integrity if she doesn't at least inform the company and offer to send back the duplicate.

Person B needs to butt out; she's not a party to the transaction at all and has no more right to this item than to any other item in A's home. No one is obliged to share a windfall. (Though I probably would, in A's situation, if the company declined the offer to return it.)

[EllaHen]

Sister B expects something her sister paid £100 for, for free? Totally unreasonable. And irrational.

If company say keep it, then £50 each is a good deal.

Can't see why Sister B would get the hump.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

Not being able to afford something isn't really justification for being given it for free though.

Tbh I wouldn't dream of asking my brother to give me something for nothing and we're quite close.

[LupoLoopy]

B is BU.

I'm assuming A is keeping the extra 'thing' legitimately, otherwise she's committing a crime, in which case both A & B are pretty wretched.

She's offering her sister the extra item for 50% price, which means they both share in the boon of the event. Maybe she could sell said item on eBay for 80% as BNIB, meaning she's actually forgoing the opportunity of an extra 30% discount.

B might be A's less well off sister, but do you have the full context on their relationship? Maybe there's reasons A is better off? Maybe there's reasons why she isn't feeling the need to be charitable? Has B got form of giving things or time to A for free? Families are funny things.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

If you ignore the stealing implications.

B is as they could both get something for half price.

[LupoLoopy]

It does sound rather childish "I want one too, give it to me now wah, wah, wah"

Exactly.

[thecatfromjapan]

They both sound grim.
It's theft; receiving stolen goods; charging your sister money for something you don't want or need; being grabby.

The pair of them sound like a pantomime act.

[thecatfromjapan]

Is this real or a modern thought-experiment - like the 'would you push someone in front of a train to save five lives?' thing? Or a weird version of the prisoner's dilemma?

[Galena]

A should contact the company as a PP said. If the company say she can keep it then she can sell it to her sister for a lower cost. If she is told to return it then she still has her integrity and nobody has stolen goods.

The sister is in the wrong for saying she should be given it free.

[Smurfnoff]

I saw the word 'duvet' and assumed it was the item in question. I later realised I'd misread and duvet was part of the OP's username. Please stop asking 'OMG why r u saying it's a duvet?!?!? ' now

To be clear, I think Sister B is the unreasonable one. If she was getting the non-duvet related item for free she wouldn't give a stuff about Sister A not sending it back. Because Sister A wants to flog it instead of giving it away, suddenly she's an awful person profiting from someone else's mistake. Double standards. Bitch wouldn't be getting MY duvet.

[RhiWrites]

I had this with a laptop. When the misdelivered one eventually turned up I was relieved I could finally prove to the company I wasn't the scanner they were hinting I was and asked them to send a courier to pick it up.

Cue moocher housemate throwing a strop because I should have committed fraud and given it to him.

[Just5minswithDacre]

Why are posters assuming it's a duvet?

This

Is the sister on the thread?

[OliviaStabler]

It's morally sketchy to keep it

No, its theft. You should return the item.