What I "find reasonable" only applied to the sentence that contained it. Receiving accidental packages has nothing to do with "reasonable".
If you receive a package that was not intended for you, that's an accident, and you are not entitled to that package. That's my core point.
If you receive a package that is intended for you, but it was a bona fide mistake on the company's part, you'd have to ask a lawyer as to whether that counts as "unordered merchandise" or not. I certainly wouldn't simply assume it is.
That's simply not true. An accidental package is not "unordered merchandise".
If it's got your address on it, but someone else's name, it's not your package and you're not entitled to it (in fact, you can't even open it).
If it's got your name and address on it, but the company meant to send it to someone else named dragonwriter instead of you, it's also not your package and you're not entitled to it.
If you order item A and the company accidentally sends you item B instead, that's not "unordered merchandise", that's a mistake, and you're not entitled to treat item B as a gift.
> An accidental package is not "unordered merchandise"
I'm not sure what you mean by “accidental package”; specifically what kind of accident is involved.
> If it's got your address on it, but someone else's name
Then it isn't addressed to you (the verb address and noun address are related, but not in the use directly corresponding), and isn't what I was talking about.
> If it's got your name and address on it, but the company meant to send it to someone else named dragonwriter instead of you, it's also not your package
This is both generally incorrect and objectively unworkable (it would require an inquiry into the mental state of the sender before one could decide what to do with a package.) There are special cases where things would be different (e.g., there actually is another dragonwriter at the address, who actually did order the merchandise, in which case it is, obviously, not unordered merchandise that they have caused to be delivered to the first dragonwriter. But that's not even an accident or mistake on the sender's part.)
As well as the statute referenced above, the FTC provides clear and explicit guidance: if you receive it, and you didn't order it, it's yours and you may keep it. Intent of the sender is not an issue.
Is that a moral distinction? Then both are right. It's not 'yours', but the law says otherwise.
The reason is, the common con game where criminals would send expensive items to someone, often a recently deceased person, and demand payment. The surviving family would assume that good ol' Dad had ordered it and pay up.
The item was usually junk but with a high price tag. So the con had little to lose.
Anyway, items mailed to you without being explicitely ordered are yours to keep, legally.
Not making my self clear. The unordered item, traditionally a bible with the deceased's name in gold lettering (so it cannot reasonably be returned) is delivered with a wildly optimistic price tag. In the hope that the suckers will pay up without question.
What usually happens in my neighborhood is the demented postman delivers my neighbors packages and letters to me. This is a different situation of course and I always hand carry it to the correct address.
If you receive a package that was not intended for you, that's an accident, and you are not entitled to that package. That's my core point.
If you receive a package that is intended for you, but it was a bona fide mistake on the company's part, you'd have to ask a lawyer as to whether that counts as "unordered merchandise" or not. I certainly wouldn't simply assume it is.