sort of releated, ive always heard that if a package is sent your place or residence, it becomes your property, even if you didnt order it. Say, someone orders a laptop and its accidently delieved to your house, are you now the rightful owner of this package since it was delivered to your home? Ive heard this is the case, but is this really true?

I disagree that the wife was the "true" owner of the property. I work for a large company and UPS and Fedex deliver to one spot. Then our delivery folks bring it to us. However, it is assumed that everything we are ordering is on behalf of the company, so the company can assume that they own everything. Suppose his wife worked in HR. Letters to her with resumes etc would no longer belong to her if she left the company. Therefore, I do not believe the company had any obligation to her, since it is assumed that it is all company property anyways.

I think that there is another issue here, and that is the true ownership of the property. If the package was addressed to the owner (the wife) at her place of employment, the only person authorized to receive and hold the package was the owner (i.e. the wife). Therefore, whomever took the package (signed for it, held it, and presumably lost it) had no legal write to the property--the package--and thus had no legal write to do anything with it (sign for it, hold it, or lose it). Therefore, the negligence would truly be on the part of the delivery service. The service had a duty to deliver the package to the addressee, but failed to do so. Instead, they gave the package to a non-owner. Thus, the ramifications of the loss should rest not on the employer, but on the delivery company.

Although not a legal point, I have found myself in a situation where a package was said to have been delivered to my apartment, but I never received it. The company, Nike, from whom I ordered replaced the order for me when I told them I didn't have it. So, it would be wise to follow up with the company from whom you ordered as they may replace the items you ordered.

Oh great Legal Lad, thank you for providing us with all this great information. However, I just listened to your "051 LL Lost Packages" podcast, and I wonder if the employer mentioned may have had a duty to hold the package safely. This is because the package was accepted, presumably, by a company employee, presumably, on paid time. The company had no responsibility to accept the package. However, when they accepted the package, and signed for it, is it not reasonable to expect that in doing so the company incurred a responsibility to keep the package safe and deliver it to the addressee, especially when the addressee is an employee of the company. When the package is handed to the addressee, then the employer could review company policy about receiving packages. If I were on a jury, I would think it reasonable that, if a company received a package, it should have a duty to keep it safe and either deliver it to the addressee, or return it to the sender. One more thing about this podcast. Your listener seemed to want to immediately dive into an expensive conflict with his wife's employer. That does not sound like a good idea to me. However, the employer should be just as concerned, perhaps more concerned, about the presence of a thief in the company. If the employer was approached tactfully, your listener might be able to convince the employer that they have a common interest in finding out if there was a theft, and identifying the thief, if a theft had taken place. If someone is stealing from the mail room, that person may be taking company property of much greater value that your listener's packages. A tactful win/win strategy would probably be a much more cost efficient opening move than diving right into an expensive high conflict encounter. Thanks, if you have taken time to consider these thoughts. I would like to hear your thoughts about the argument that the employer may have incurred a duty when the company accepted the package. -R. E. Hampton