Received TWO iphones instead of one!

[Gizmotoy]

Most likely under United States law you're not required to return it. It may be considered an "Unsolicited Item." You can look it up online if you're interested, but there is legal support for this ability.

If you "requested or solicited" the item, you may be required to notify the sender that you have it. They will need to make arrangements to have the item picked up and returned to them. You are not required to pay for its return.

Unless you placed two orders, I think it would fall under the former, but AT&T/Apple would argue the latter. Obviously the moral thing to do is to contact the seller for its return, but...

 

[kwjohns]

He didn't find anything in a bar or elsewhere. Apple / AT&T, sent it to him. Therefore, it is his to keep and what they want.

Yes, Apple and AT&T are giving out free iPhones! It doesn't matter if they sent it to them or he found it on the street. It was an error. It is not his property.

 

[insidmal]

I would sell it then offer apple / at&t or whoever you bought it from to buy that 2nd unit they shipped you, you will be clear both legally and morally and still have a bit of a profit

make sure you record the s/n and imei of the one you got shipped on accident before you send it because they may want to log it

 

[bostonte]

People are probably thinking of Title 39 section 3009, in the middle of the US Postal Service laws, which allows you to keep unsolicited merchandise.

I don't think it's clear that law applies here.

There is an established business relationship, as well as a one legitimate order. The transaction occurred within the terms and conditions of the AT&T contract and account agreement, as well as the additional ones you agreed to when you placed the order.

That would normally be enough to take the matter out of "unsolicited merchandise" considerations, and require it to be considered in terms of contract law.

Contract law is much trickier than "if I didn't order it, I can keep it". Among other things, there are concepts like unjust enrichment.

Without having a copy handy to look at, I would still bet that the AT&T agreement is structured such that they are entirely within their rights to demand your return the second phone or bill your AT&T account the correct (unsubsidized) amount for it.

Whether they care enough to actually follow through is definitely up for debate.

Consider this example from West's law encyclopedia:

"In other circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy for parties who have entered a legally enforceable contract, but where performance by one party exceeds the precise requirements of the agreement. For example, suppose a homeowner and a builder have entered into a legally binding contract under which the builder is to construct a two-car garage. One day the owner returns to her residence and discovers that in addition to constructing a two-car garage, the builder has paved the driveway. The owner says nothing about the driveway but later refuses to compensate the builder for the paving job. The builder has a claim for unjust enrichment in an amount representing the reasonable value of the labor and materials used in paving the driveway."

Many people would assume it's "tough luck" for the builder since it was in no way the homeowner's fault/doing, not that the builder potentially could pursue a legal claim and get paid.