Show me the law that says the consumer would be on the hook for it.
It's a contract claim the shipping company would have, and the consumer didn't sign a contract with the shipping company; the seller did. Even though the consumer got the benefit of the deal by having the item shipped to them, you can't say they were unjustly enriched if they paid the seller for shipping.
The only recourse the shipper would have from the consumer is to demand payment from the consumer before relinquishing control of the item to the consumer--that is, unless there's some funky state law in some state that screws the consumer and allows the shipper to get paid well after it delivered the goods. If the consumer balks and says they won't pay double for shipping (which they shouldn't have to), the shipping company can refuse to deliver, and then both the consumer and the shipping company can have claims against the seller.
It's a contract claim the shipping company would have, and the consumer didn't sign a contract with the shipping company; the seller did. Even though the consumer got the benefit of the deal by having the item shipped to them, you can't say they were unjustly enriched if they paid the seller for shipping.
The only recourse the shipper would have from the consumer is to demand payment from the consumer before relinquishing control of the item to the consumer--that is, unless there's some funky state law in some state that screws the consumer and allows the shipper to get paid well after it delivered the goods. If the consumer balks and says they won't pay double for shipping (which they shouldn't have to), the shipping company can refuse to deliver, and then both the consumer and the shipping company can have claims against the seller.
Last edited:
