I often see you make up things that you think we as posters might have implied... but since it is YOU who thinks it, you surprise me. You ASSUME too much, Graceless. You, who claim to have such a concise legal mind, do it too often for us to redirect your attack to the real problems every time, so we would really like to just do without YOU.

You also omit again that she had a CONTRACT with UPS. She can't sue them for doing what she paid to have them do. How in the world do you think UPS could function if every person who approached a delivery van on the street could actually GET the package they claim is addressed to a building they cannot enter without a key. Sure, it is a problem for her, because she SHOULD NOT have the ability to redirect any package whether she tries by phone or by visiting the office... Nor would she want anyone else to have that capability... unless she can prove she is the one who sent it... and that requires a receipt and a manager to look at her proof and is clearly not going to happen before the package SHOULD be delivered simply due to the logistics... and it still does not mean she has any claim against them for delivering it as contracted. The world does not owe her consideration for her own errors. Just a little consideration for her feelings... Hear that, Graceless.