20p mule and shops
cobble
takes his change, and leaves.
"bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
he later sells the coin on ebay.
Has bob broken any law?
Sam
"cobble" <cob...@example.co> wrote in message
news:x8cYm.456$FT3...@newsfe18.ams2...
Not sure about a law, but I remember when I worked in a shop, I was always
told we weren't allowed to have money in our pockets on the shop floor. That
way you can never be accused of theft - in theory.
Usenet Nutter
So did they search you as you went on to the shop floor cos if they
didn't then did find cash on you when you were on the shop floor then
even if there was a shortage I doubt they could prove anything .
Sam
"Usenet Nutter" <indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekk2j59jc12ear847...@4ax.com...
Nope, it was just company policy. No money on your person while working in
the shop.
As far as I know, it's a pretty common policy in the retail world, but I
could be wrong.
Steve O
"cobble" <cob...@example.co> wrote in message
news:x8cYm.456$FT3...@newsfe18.ams2...
If he acted dishonestly when he appropriated the coin, he has committed an
offence of theft.
Ste
Yes. He is a common thief.
cobble
He knew the 20 was worth a lot more than 20p. He gave back a regular
20. the shop deals with large quantities of small items; it is VERY
unlikely that anyone would have ever found the coin if it had gone into
the till; it was only luck that bob found it.
so, can someone steal something that they don't know they have yet? And
when does it become theirs?
Mike Ross
If he had sold the Mona Lisa and replaced it with a fake, for sure. But... I'm
going out on a limb here, but I seem to remember reading that there's a law
which states (in effect) that all currency is equivalent and exchangable? So for
instance, if you loan Bob a fiver, he can pay you back with ANY fiver; it
doesn't have to be the SAME fiver you gave him. That law might provide a get-out
in the above case.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Ste
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co> wrote:
> >"bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p pieces,
> >takes his change, and leaves.
>
> >"bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
> >20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
>
> >he later sells the coin on ebay.
>
> If he had sold the Mona Lisa and replaced it with a fake, for sure. But... I'm
> going out on a limb here, but I seem to remember reading that there's a law
> which states (in effect) that all currency is equivalent and exchangable? So for
> instance, if you loan Bob a fiver, he can pay you back with ANY fiver; it
> doesn't have to be the SAME fiver you gave him. That law might provide a get-out
> in the above case.
I'm afraid not. We've had this one here quite a few times recently. If
you dishonestly appropriate money that does not belong to you, and
then spend it, that is outright theft. Your intention to "borrow", and
repay later, counts for nothing - the theft occurs as soon as the
money is considered "appropriated". Off the top of my head the two
authorities are Cockburn 1968 and Velumyl 1989.
Ste
Yes, you can steal something that the owner doesn't know belongs to
them. And in law stolen property can never belong to the thief.
Bob Ferguson
Lets apply the tests of theft.
Has Bob appropriated the item with the intention of permanently depriving
the owner (in this case the shop)?
- Yes he has, he clearly has no intention of returning it.
Has Bob appropriated the item without the owner's permission?
- From the post, yes.
Has Bob appropriated the item dishonestly?
- Yes he has, has knowingly taken a high value item and substituted a lower
value item.
Guilty of Theft.
Mr X
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e4aca07-00b7-43cf...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
What if Bob drops his own 20p into the till first?
Norman Wells
What if he buys something for 30p off the shelves, puts 50p in the till and
takes the mule as change?
What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave the mule
but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back in exchange for
another 20p?
What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change from a
previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's his?
What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the mule
except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it from
circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
Steve O
"cobble" <cob...@example.co> wrote in message
news:K7fYm.62233$wc4....@newsfe20.ams2...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:03:16 +0000, Steve O wrote:
>
>> "cobble" <cob...@example.co> wrote in message
>> news:x8cYm.456$FT3...@newsfe18.ams2...
>>> "bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p
>>> pieces, takes his change, and leaves.
>>>
>>> "bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes
>>> a 20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
>>>
>>> he later sells the coin on ebay.
>>>
>>>
>>> Has bob broken any law?
>>
>> If he acted dishonestly when he appropriated the coin, he has committed
>> an offence of theft.
>
> He knew the 20 was worth a lot more than 20p. He gave back a regular
> 20. the shop deals with large quantities of small items; it is VERY
> unlikely that anyone would have ever found the coin if it had gone into
> the till; it was only luck that bob found it.
It isn't a question whether he would have got away with it, or if the shop
would or wouldn't have noticed they had acquired something of value or not,
the question is whether he has been honest or not or whether he has
committed a theft.
If he has acted dishonestly, (which in my view he has because he knew the
coin belonged to the shop and also would have known they would noyt have
given him permission to take it under the circumstances) then he has
committed theft
> so, can someone steal something that they don't know they have yet? And
> when does it become theirs?
It's difficult to tell from the above sentence, but I think you are asking,
" Can someone steal something if the owner of it does not know they possess
it?"
The answer is yes.
Steve O
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:bev2j5hlq0b8ujl97...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co> wrote:
>
>>"bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p pieces,
>>takes his change, and leaves.
>>
>>"bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
>>20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
>>
>>he later sells the coin on ebay.
>
> If he had sold the Mona Lisa and replaced it with a fake, for sure. But...
> I'm
> going out on a limb here, but I seem to remember reading that there's a
> law
> which states (in effect) that all currency is equivalent and exchangable?
> So for
> instance, if you loan Bob a fiver, he can pay you back with ANY fiver; it
> doesn't have to be the SAME fiver you gave him. That law might provide a
> get-out
> in the above case.
>
This doesn't apply to the Theft Act, or the definition of "property" within
it.
What if Bob worked in a store which bought and sold valuable coins?.
Would it be okay for him to swap a valuable coin for a cheaper one on the
basis that currency is exchangeable?
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hgsqht$1p3$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
Then he has committed a preparatory act which will enable him to steal the
valuable coin later. .
As soon as he takes hold of the 20p mule with a dishonest intention, the
theft has occurred.
>
>
Steve O
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:XGmYm.14$n1...@newsfe02.ams2...
If it his dishonest intention to take the valuable coin as a result, which
does not belong to him, a theft has occurred
We seem to be getting a little tied up in the intricacies here, and it is
really very simple.
1. Is he acting dishonestly?- yes
2. Has he appropriated property?- yes
3. Does the property belong to someone else - yes
4. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of the valuable coin?-
yes
A theft has occurred no matter what he does to try and get hold of the coin-
it has an additional value, he is fully aware that the owner of the coin
(the shop) would not have allowed him to take it if they had known it
doesn't belong to him, and he is behaving dishonestly in taking it.
The only way he could legally get his hands on the coin would be to offer to
buy it from the shop owner.
>
> What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave the mule
> but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back in exchange for
> another 20p?
Civil dispute- he would have to take the matter through the courts to
establish ownership, if the shopkeeper declined to return it for its face
value.
My guess is that he would have trouble winning- perhaps there are similar
civil cases which could enlighten us on this one
>
> What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change from a
> previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's his?
I would say that it would stop being his after he offered it as legal tender
in a transaction, but I suppose that would be a matter for a civil court to
decide
>
> What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the mule
> except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it from
> circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
There are plenty of them already in circulation and that hasn't happened.
I suppose that would take another test civil case to decide.
>
>
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
> news:XGmYm.14$n1...@newsfe02.ams2...
>> Mr X wrote:
>>> "Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4e4aca07-00b7-43cf...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 23 Dec, 02:22, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co> wrote:
>>>>> "bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p
>>>>> pieces, takes his change, and leaves.
>>>>
>>>>> "bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He
>>>>> takes a 20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the
>>>>> mule.
>>>>
>>>>> he later sells the coin on ebay.
>>> I'm afraid not. We've had this one here quite a few times recently.
>>> If you dishonestly appropriate money that does not belong to you,
>>> and then spend it, that is outright theft. Your intention to
>>> "borrow", and repay later, counts for nothing - the theft occurs as
>>> soon as the money is considered "appropriated". Off the top of my
>>> head the two authorities are Cockburn 1968 and Velumyl 1989.
>>>
>>> What if Bob drops his own 20p into the till first?
>>
>> What if he buys something for 30p off the shelves, puts 50p in the
>> till and takes the mule as change?
>
> If it his dishonest intention to take the valuable coin as a result,
> which does not belong to him, a theft has occurred
> We seem to be getting a little tied up in the intricacies here, and
> it is really very simple.
> 1. Is he acting dishonestly?- yes
I think that is debatable.
> 2. Has he appropriated property?- yes
> 3. Does the property belong to someone else - yes
Ah, but does it? Can you actually own coins and Bank of England notes, or
do they always, like some other things, remain the property of the
originator and have to be surrendered on demand?
And does it necessarily belong to the shopkeeper once it has been taken in
the course of payment? Is there a transfer of physical property, or just
the nominal value that it, or a paper note, represents as a token?
Many coins, notes and especially stamps, that have a nominal face value have
a higher value to a collector. However, I imagine that you, like me, would
have some difficulty with the concept of a shop assistant handing you 40p in
change when it should be 50p on the basis that the coins he is giving you
have some rarity value.
The only sensible way, surely, for currency to be effective, is if it can
pass freely based on its nominal value, not on something intangible. On
that basis, every 20p coin must be worth 20p, and it would be perfectly
legitimate for the shop assistant to take it in change for a purchase he
makes. After all, he would be perfectly entitled to give it to anyone else
as change, wouldn't he, so why not to himself?
> 4. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of the valuable
> coin?- yes
You could say that, though, about any coin in a till. It comes in, it goes
out. They're designed for that purpose.
> A theft has occurred no matter what he does to try and get hold of
> the coin- it has an additional value, he is fully aware that the
> owner of the coin (the shop) would not have allowed him to take it if
> they had known it doesn't belong to him, and he is behaving
> dishonestly in taking it.
He may also have been equally dishonest in accepting it on the shopkeeper's
behalf. And if the shopkeeper claims it as his, then is he not acting just
as dishonestly, having accepted it as worth just 20p?
> The only way he could legally get his hands on the coin would be to
> offer to buy it from the shop owner.
But the shop assistant is authorised by the shopkeeper to use the coins in
the till at their face value, otherwise transactions couldn't take place.
>> What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave
>> the mule but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back
>> in exchange for another 20p?
>
> Civil dispute- he would have to take the matter through the courts to
> establish ownership, if the shopkeeper declined to return it for its
> face value.
> My guess is that he would have trouble winning- perhaps there are
> similar civil cases which could enlighten us on this one
>>
>> What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change
>> from a previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's his?
>
> I would say that it would stop being his after he offered it as legal
> tender in a transaction, but I suppose that would be a matter for a
> civil court to decide
Exactly. Who 'owns' notes and coins, which have circulation as their
function? Where does ownership start and stop?
>>
>> What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the
>> mule except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it
>> from circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
>
> There are plenty of them already in circulation and that hasn't
> happened.
Well, there are many cases of coins and notes becoming obsolete and
withdrawn from circulation. Then you have to return them and exchange them
for their valid successors, and that's the same thing.
Steve O
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:0EoYm.94496$iW.3...@newsfe30.ams2...
I think it is quite clear.
An honest person would approach the shopkeeper and say, "Hey! There's a
valuable coin in the till here, can I keep it?"
A dishonest person would keep quiet about it, and sneakily switch the
valuable coin for the less valuable one without telling anyone, least of
all, the owner of it.
It's no different from walking into shop and switching the price labels to
pay less for something.
The fact that he works in the shop and has access to the till doesn't change
anything
>
>> 2. Has he appropriated property?- yes
>> 3. Does the property belong to someone else - yes
>
> Ah, but does it? Can you actually own coins and Bank of England notes, or
> do they always, like some other things, remain the property of the
> originator and have to be surrendered on demand?
The coin, and it's value, is the property of the shopkeeper to dispose of as
he wishes ,as long as he doesn't deface it or destroy it.
What are you saying here- that if anyone steals cash notes or coins, they
are stealing from the Bank of England only?
It is very clear that the shopkeeper has an interest in, and possession of
the coin once it goes into his till.
>
> And does it necessarily belong to the shopkeeper once it has been taken in
> the course of payment? Is there a transfer of physical property, or just
> the nominal value that it, or a paper note, represents as a token?
Both the nominal value and the physical property were transferred during the
course of the transaction.
>
> Many coins, notes and especially stamps, that have a nominal face value
> have a higher value to a collector. However, I imagine that you, like me,
> would have some difficulty with the concept of a shop assistant handing
> you 40p in change when it should be 50p on the basis that the coins he is
> giving you have some rarity value.
I don't see how that is relevant to the issue here
>
> The only sensible way, surely, for currency to be effective, is if it can
> pass freely based on its nominal value, not on something intangible.
The actual value of a piece of stolen property is not intangible.
I don't know how much 20p mules are worth, but whatever they are, that would
be the value of the property stolen in this example
> On that basis, every 20p coin must be worth 20p,
Which is why your basis is wrong.
Some 20p coins are worth evidenctly more than 20p.
.>and it would be perfectly
> legitimate for the shop assistant to take it in change for a purchase he
> makes.
Of course it would- that is why the coin becomes the property of the
shopkeeper, not the assistant.
It isn't his money to take.
It was accepted, during the course of a transaction, by his employee.
Whether the original person who tendered the coin could argue that he had
overpaid the shopkeeper would be a matter for the civil courts to decide.
Let's face it , if you overpaid a vendor, by whatever means, it would be
perfectly reasonable for you to ask for it back, wouldn't it?
>After all, he would be perfectly entitled to give it to anyone else as
>change, wouldn't he, so why not to himself?
Actually, that is also debatable.
There is nothing to prevent him from giving the valuable coin as change to
someone else by accident- that would not be a theft.
But if he deliberately gave the valuable coin to another customer, knowing
its value, and believing that the owner would not have consented to it, he
would be dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it,(theft) or in this case,
you could actually argue that by dishonestly disposing of it for the benefit
of another, he has committed an offence of handling stolen goods if he
deliberately gave a valuable item to a stranger under dishonest
circumstances.
This would probably apply in circumstances where a disgruntled employee was
deliberately underselling goods to get back at his manager
>
>
>> 4. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of the valuable
>> coin?- yes
>
> You could say that, though, about any coin in a till.
Yes you can, but during the normal course of a transaction, it would not be
for a dishonest purpose, therefore there would be no theft
>> A theft has occurred no matter what he does to try and get hold of
>> the coin- it has an additional value, he is fully aware that the
>> owner of the coin (the shop) would not have allowed him to take it if
>> they had known it doesn't belong to him, and he is behaving
>> dishonestly in taking it.
>
> He may also have been equally dishonest in accepting it on the
> shopkeeper's behalf.
Yes he certainly could, but in the scenario given, I believe he accepted the
coin honestly and later checked the till and found the 20p mule.
The theft occurs when he dishonestly appropriates the valuable coin for his
own purposes.
>And if the shopkeeper claims it as his, then is he not acting just as
>dishonestly, having accepted it as worth just 20p?
The shopkeeper certainly would be committing an offence if he dishonestly
retained the valuable item without first trying to return it to the owner,
but he would have a defence if he reasonably believed that the owner could
not be traced.
As the scenario described a passing customer, this would probably apply
>
>> The only way he could legally get his hands on the coin would be to
>> offer to buy it from the shop owner.
>
> But the shop assistant is authorised by the shopkeeper to use the coins in
> the till at their face value, otherwise transactions couldn't take place.
Yes he is, but he is certainly not authorized to retain valuable items for
himself, or switch valuable items for less valuable ones.
Do you think the employer would allow that, or that it would be reasonable
to think that he would?
>
>
>>> What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave
>>> the mule but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back
>>> in exchange for another 20p?
If the shopkeeper refused, as stated before, then the customer would
probably have to run that one through the civil courts to establish
ownership.
Personally, I think he could win, becasue as far as I am concerned, if you
accidentally overpaid a vendor or supplier, by whatever means, you would
certainly be entitled to ask for the money back.
Say, for example, you accidentally added an extra zero to your direct debit
mandate of cheque, do you think the vendor would be entitled to keep the
extra money you paid by accident?
The same principle applies to the customer with the 20p mule.
The coin is simply a method of payment, but in this case happened to have an
additional value and was handed over in error.
It's the same situation where a shop �ssistant gives you change for �20 when
you've only handed over a tenner.
As soon as you realize the error and form a dishonest intention to keep the
money, you've stolen it.
>>>
>>> What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change
>>> from a previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's his?
>>
>> I would say that it would stop being his after he offered it as legal
>> tender in a transaction, but I suppose that would be a matter for a
>> civil court to decide
>
> Exactly. Who 'owns' notes and coins, which have circulation as their
> function? Where does ownership start and stop?
There can be more than one owner of property.
In the case of coins of the realm, the physical coin itself belongs to the
Crown- the value of the coin belongs to the owner.
>
>>>
>>> What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the
>>> mule except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it
>>> from circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
>>
>> There are plenty of them already in circulation and that hasn't
>> happened.
>
> Well, there are many cases of coins and notes becoming obsolete and
> withdrawn from circulation. Then you have to return them and exchange
> them for their valid successors, and that's the same thing.
There is no law I am aware of which obliges a person to return obsolete
currency.
If there was, all coin collectors and dealers would be criminals.
>
>
Mike Ross
I still suspect that, when it comes to coins & notes which are currently legal
tender (as opposed to those which have no face value), those are a special case
and in law one is as good as another. Otherwise there would be chaos - someone
returning goods to a shop for a refund could complain 'but that's not the same
fiver I gave you! I want MY fiver back!'. I'm not sure the Theft Act is relevant
here, since nothing was stolen or intended to be; the shop owner still has, and
always has had, 20p - it's just not the SAME 20p, but that's not relevant. I may
be totally wrong, but I still suspect current coins and notes may be a special
case.
Having said that.. what if Bob dislikes his boss - the shop owner - and gives
the coin to a complete stranger as part of their change? Would it make any
difference if this was done deliberately, or by taking random coins without
looking? What if it was a friend, not a stranger? Does Bob owe the shopkeeper
any 'duty of care' with respect to this coin which happened to end up in the
till?
Steve O
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:9ff4j5l2uu5c9amkc...@4ax.com...
You are correct in that assumption.
If you borrow a �5 note from someone you are not legally obliged to return
the same note.
But that isn't the case here- the 20p in question was worth considerably
more than 20p, and was stolen by the shop assistant when he dishonestly
appropriated it for himself.
Norman Wells
>> Steve O wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p
>>>>>>> pieces, takes his change, and leaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He
>>>>>>> takes a 20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps
>>>>>>> the mule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he later sells the coin on ebay.
>>>> What if he buys something for 30p off the shelves, puts 50p in the
>>>> till and takes the mule as change?
>>>
>>> If it his dishonest intention to take the valuable coin as a result,
>>> which does not belong to him, a theft has occurred
>>> We seem to be getting a little tied up in the intricacies here, and
>>> it is really very simple.
>>> 1. Is he acting dishonestly?- yes
>>
>> I think that is debatable.
>
> I think it is quite clear.
> An honest person would approach the shopkeeper and say, "Hey! There's
> a valuable coin in the till here, can I keep it?"
That assumes that the shopkeeper owns it. Later on you say that the Crown
owns it, however. Why then is there any need to approach the shopkeeper?
> A dishonest person would keep quiet about it, and sneakily switch the
> valuable coin for the less valuable one without telling anyone, least
> of all, the owner of it.
ie the Crown?
> It's no different from walking into shop and switching the price
> labels to pay less for something.
Yes it is.
> The fact that he works in the shop and has access to the till doesn't
> change anything
But it does. He has authority to give the coins in the till as change in
any transaction at their face value. He is not obliged to check the value
of every coin with a numismatist, nor to vary the amount he gives as change
depending on the rarity of the coins.
>>> 2. Has he appropriated property?- yes
>>> 3. Does the property belong to someone else - yes
>>
>> Ah, but does it? Can you actually own coins and Bank of England
>> notes, or do they always, like some other things, remain the
>> property of the originator and have to be surrendered on demand?
>
> The coin, and it's value, is the property of the shopkeeper to
> dispose of as he wishes ,as long as he doesn't deface it or destroy
> it.
But you say later on: "In the case of coins of the realm, the physical coin
itself belongs to the Crown", so it's _not_ the shopkeeper's. If it were
his, he'd have quiet possession of it, which is diagnostic of ownership, and
would be fully entitled to deface it or destroy it just as he can with
anything that he indubitably owns. But he can't, and that's indicative of
the fact that he does not in fact own it.
> What are you saying here- that if anyone steals cash notes or coins,
> they are stealing from the Bank of England only?
> It is very clear that the shopkeeper has an interest in, and
> possession of the coin once it goes into his till.
He clearly does have an interest in it. But that interest in my view
extends only to the nominal face value of the coin.
>> And does it necessarily belong to the shopkeeper once it has been
>> taken in the course of payment? Is there a transfer of physical
>> property, or just the nominal value that it, or a paper note,
>> represents as a token?
>
> Both the nominal value and the physical property were transferred
> during the course of the transaction.
I think we've established that the physical property wasn't. Although the
coin in in the shopkeeper's till, you say it's still owned by the Crown.
>> Many coins, notes and especially stamps, that have a nominal face
>> value have a higher value to a collector. However, I imagine that
>> you, like me, would have some difficulty with the concept of a shop
>> assistant handing you 40p in change when it should be 50p on the
>> basis that the coins he is giving you have some rarity value.
>
> I don't see how that is relevant to the issue here
It goes to the question of how much a 20p piece is worth. And transactions
cannot work unless each and every one is worth just its nominal face value.
It's a fundamental requirement of a usable currency.
>> The only sensible way, surely, for currency to be effective, is if
>> it can pass freely based on its nominal value, not on something
>> intangible.
>
> The actual value of a piece of stolen property is not intangible.
> I don't know how much 20p mules are worth, but whatever they are,
> that would be the value of the property stolen in this example
>
>> On that basis, every 20p coin must be worth 20p,
>
> Which is why your basis is wrong.
> Some 20p coins are worth evidenctly more than 20p.
To some, yes, To others, no. On average, taking into account losses, they
will be worth a little less than 20p in fact.
>
> .>and it would be perfectly
>> legitimate for the shop assistant to take it in change for a
>> purchase he makes.
>
> Of course it would- that is why the coin becomes the property of the
> shopkeeper, not the assistant.
No. First, you say it's the Crown's. Second, if the shopkeeper took it for
20p's worth of goods, then he has acquired it dishonestly too, and I doubt
if ownership passes in such circumstances.
> It isn't his money to take.
> It was accepted, during the course of a transaction, by his employee.
> Whether the original person who tendered the coin could argue that he
> had overpaid the shopkeeper would be a matter for the civil courts to
> decide. Let's face it , if you overpaid a vendor, by whatever means,
> it would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask for it back, wouldn't
> it?
Yes, but here the nominal value of the coins handed over equalled the price
of the goods. A currency cannot operate in any other way.
>> After all, he would be perfectly entitled to give it to anyone else
>> as change, wouldn't he, so why not to himself?
>
> Actually, that is also debatable.
> There is nothing to prevent him from giving the valuable coin as
> change to someone else by accident- that would not be a theft.
> But if he deliberately gave the valuable coin to another customer,
> knowing its value, and believing that the owner would not have
> consented to it, he would be dishonestly appropriating property
> belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
> other of it,(theft) or in this case, you could actually argue that by
> dishonestly disposing of it for the benefit of another, he has
> committed an offence of handling stolen goods if he deliberately gave
> a valuable item to a stranger under dishonest circumstances.
> This would probably apply in circumstances where a disgruntled
> employee was deliberately underselling goods to get back at his
> manager
That either requires a shop assistant to consult a numismatist as to the
value of every coin he hands out, or it means that no-one with any knowledge
should work in a shop because he could be guilty whereas someone with no
knowledge would never be guilty at all. Somehow, I don't think that's
practical.
And it comes back to ownership yet again. By what right has the shopkeeper
become the owner, even if he can be? Surely, it's only a dishonest action,
ie taking a valuable coin for 20p's worth of goods, that brought the coin
into his till in the first place.
>>> 4. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of the valuable
>>> coin?- yes
>>
>> You could say that, though, about any coin in a till.
>
> Yes you can, but during the normal course of a transaction, it would
> not be for a dishonest purpose, therefore there would be no theft
With access to the till, he has authority to pass on any coins in it at
their face value. It doesn't really work otherwise.
>>> A theft has occurred no matter what he does to try and get hold of
>>> the coin- it has an additional value, he is fully aware that the
>>> owner of the coin (the shop) would not have allowed him to take it
>>> if they had known it doesn't belong to him, and he is behaving
>>> dishonestly in taking it.
>>
>> He may also have been equally dishonest in accepting it on the
>> shopkeeper's behalf.
>
> Yes he certainly could, but in the scenario given, I believe he
> accepted the coin honestly and later checked the till and found the
> 20p mule. The theft occurs when he dishonestly appropriates the valuable
> coin
> for his own purposes.
>
>> And if the shopkeeper claims it as his, then is he not acting just as
>> dishonestly, having accepted it as worth just 20p?
>
> The shopkeeper certainly would be committing an offence if he
> dishonestly retained the valuable item without first trying to return
> it to the owner, but he would have a defence if he reasonably
> believed that the owner could not be traced.
But if he has committed an offence in acquiring it, by what right does it
become his? That's not normally the case.
> As the scenario described a passing customer, this would probably
> apply
>>
>>> The only way he could legally get his hands on the coin would be to
>>> offer to buy it from the shop owner.
>>
>> But the shop assistant is authorised by the shopkeeper to use the
>> coins in the till at their face value, otherwise transactions
>> couldn't take place.
>
> Yes he is, but he is certainly not authorized to retain valuable
> items for himself, or switch valuable items for less valuable ones.
> Do you think the employer would allow that, or that it would be
> reasonable to think that he would?
If the shopkeeper has taken a 20p coin for 20p's worth of goods, I don't
think he's got any right to retain it as his own just because he can get
more for it somewhere else.
He has obtained it dishonestly too.
>>>> What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave
>>>> the mule but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back
>>>> in exchange for another 20p?
>
> If the shopkeeper refused, as stated before, then the customer would
> probably have to run that one through the civil courts to establish
> ownership.
> Personally, I think he could win, becasue as far as I am concerned,
> if you accidentally overpaid a vendor or supplier, by whatever means,
> you would certainly be entitled to ask for the money back.
> Say, for example, you accidentally added an extra zero to your direct
> debit mandate of cheque, do you think the vendor would be entitled to
> keep the extra money you paid by accident?
> The same principle applies to the customer with the 20p mule.
> The coin is simply a method of payment, but in this case happened to
> have an additional value and was handed over in error.
> It's the same situation where a shop �ssistant gives you change for
> �20 when you've only handed over a tenner.
> As soon as you realize the error and form a dishonest intention to
> keep the money, you've stolen it.
Here, though, we have a transaction at the face value of the currency, and
that's the only way it can work. There was no overpayment.
>
>>>>
>>>> What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change
>>>> from a previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's
>>>> his?
>>>
>>> I would say that it would stop being his after he offered it as
>>> legal tender in a transaction, but I suppose that would be a matter
>>> for a civil court to decide
>>
>> Exactly. Who 'owns' notes and coins, which have circulation as their
>> function? Where does ownership start and stop?
>
> There can be more than one owner of property.
> In the case of coins of the realm, the physical coin itself belongs
> to the Crown- the value of the coin belongs to the owner.
I think the shopkeeper is entitled to the face value of the coin, ie 20p,
which equates to the goods he sold for that amount. I see no reason why he
should get more either morally or legally.
>>>> What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the
>>>> mule except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it
>>>> from circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
>>>
>>> There are plenty of them already in circulation and that hasn't
>>> happened.
>>
>> Well, there are many cases of coins and notes becoming obsolete and
>> withdrawn from circulation. Then you have to return them and
>> exchange them for their valid successors, and that's the same thing.
>
> There is no law I am aware of which obliges a person to return
> obsolete currency.
But that's simply because it's a stealth tax on all those who don't. Is
there any reason why there cannot be such a law though? If the coins remain
the property of the Crown, then the Crown could surely legislate that they
had to be returned, just as they can legislate to pevent you taking them out
of the country.
Cynic
wrote:
>You are correct in that assumption.
>If you borrow a �5 note from someone you are not legally obliged to return
>the same note.
Only if that is agreed between you and the person you borrowed it
from. Of course, unless anything to the contrary was said, it would
be a reasonable assumption that you could return any money that has a
face value of �5.
The situation is however *not* that way if you borrowed the money
*without permission*. Case law has it that unless you return the
*same physical notes* that you borrowed, your action amounts to theft
as you have permanently deprived the owner of their property.
--
Cynic
Gary Baldi
> But that isn't the case here- the 20p in question was worth considerably
> more than 20p, and was stolen by the shop assistant when he dishonestly
> appropriated it for himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nonsense.
If he were to take the said 20p coin to, say, Dixons and offer to buy
a laptop with it because "the 20p in question was worth considerably
more than 20p", do you think Dixons would snap his hand off for the
coin or laugh him out of the shop?
20p is worth 20p.
The fact that there are gullible idiots on eBay prepared to pay £300
for one is neither here nor there.
Steve O
"Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
news:SGrYm.3052$FT3....@newsfe18.ams2...
> Steve O wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in message
>> news:0EoYm.94496$iW.3...@newsfe30.ams2...
>>> Steve O wrote:
>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p
>>>>>>>> pieces, takes his change, and leaves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He
>>>>>>>> takes a 20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps
>>>>>>>> the mule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he later sells the coin on ebay.
>
>>>>> What if he buys something for 30p off the shelves, puts 50p in the
>>>>> till and takes the mule as change?
>>>>
>>>> If it his dishonest intention to take the valuable coin as a result,
>>>> which does not belong to him, a theft has occurred
>>>> We seem to be getting a little tied up in the intricacies here, and
>>>> it is really very simple.
>>>> 1. Is he acting dishonestly?- yes
>>>
>>> I think that is debatable.
>>
>> I think it is quite clear.
>> An honest person would approach the shopkeeper and say, "Hey! There's
>> a valuable coin in the till here, can I keep it?"
>
> That assumes that the shopkeeper owns it.
It's his shop, his till, and it was obtained during a legitimate
transaction.
Why wouldn't it be his?
Even if it wasn't, the shopkeepers, it certainly does not belong to the shop
assistant.
> Later on you say that the Crown owns it, however. Why then is there any
> need to approach the shopkeeper?
I did not say that the Crown owns it.
I said that property can have more than one owner.
In this case, the 20p is both owned by the Crown and the shopkeeper.
>
>> A dishonest person would keep quiet about it, and sneakily switch the
>> valuable coin for the less valuable one without telling anyone, least
>> of all, the owner of it.
>
> ie the Crown?
>
No. In this case, the shopkeeper.
Look at it this way.
All credit cards and cheque books officially belong to the bank.
They can revoke them at anytime.
But I could still dip my hand in your pocket and steal your credit card.
From you, even though you are not the owner
There are three elements to property- ownership, possession and control.
I can steal any one of those elements.
In the case of your credit card, the bank have ownership, and you have
possession and control of it.
If I steal it from you, I have taken away your possession and control, and
have committed the theft.
In the case of this coin, the Crown have ownership (as they have ownership
of all legal tender, which is why it is illegal for you to damage or deface
your own money), the shop- keeper also has joint ownership, and the shop
assistant has dishonetsly assumed possession and control of the coin - ie he
has stolen it.
>> It's no different from walking into shop and switching the price
>> labels to pay less for something.
>
> Yes it is.
No it isn't.
You are switching something of a lesser value by dishonest means.
In this case, the shop assistant made a switch and only had to partially pay
the true value of the item.
He assumed possesion and control of the coin dishonestly without ever asking
the owner if he could do so, or believing that the owner would have
consented to the switch
That is why I mentioned the example of price-label switching
>
>> The fact that he works in the shop and has access to the till doesn't
>> change anything
>
> But it does. He has authority to give the coins in the till as change in
> any transaction at their face value.
To customers, yes.
He has authority to handle the shop keepers money and stock in an honest
manner.
What he did certainly fell short of honesty .
There are always cash imbalances in any till.
Are you saying that if this shop assistant realized he had short changed a
few customers and decided to keep the balance, he would not be committing a
theft?
Because that, in effect, is what has happened here.
He short changed the customer by accident, who had paid for his goods with
something far more valuable than 20p by accident, and decided to keep the
remainder instead of notifying the shopkeeper about it
> He is not obliged to check the value of every coin with a numismatist, nor
> to vary the amount he gives as change depending on the rarity of the
> coins.
No one has ever claimed that he is obliged to do that, but in the example
given, he did check the coin and he did realize its true value as a rare
coin.
After that, he formed a dishonest intention to keep it, by making a switch
without the knowledge of the owner of the coin.
>
>>>> 2. Has he appropriated property?- yes
>>>> 3. Does the property belong to someone else - yes
>>>
>>> Ah, but does it? Can you actually own coins and Bank of England
>>> notes, or do they always, like some other things, remain the
>>> property of the originator and have to be surrendered on demand?
>>
>> The coin, and it's value, is the property of the shopkeeper to
>> dispose of as he wishes ,as long as he doesn't deface it or destroy
>> it.
>
> But you say later on: "In the case of coins of the realm, the physical
> coin itself belongs to the Crown", so it's _not_ the shopkeeper's.
Sorry, I was being sloppy.
I have clarified it above with the concept of ownership, possession and
control of property.
> If it were his, he'd have quiet possession of it, which is diagnostic of
> ownership, and would be fully entitled to deface it or destroy it just as
> he can with anything that he indubitably owns. But he can't, and that's
> indicative of the fact that he does not in fact own it.
Yes, but he did assume possession and control dishonestly from the owner of
the coin.(who shares ownership with the Crown)
>
>
>> What are you saying here- that if anyone steals cash notes or coins,
>> they are stealing from the Bank of England only?
>> It is very clear that the shopkeeper has an interest in, and
>> possession of the coin once it goes into his till.
>
> He clearly does have an interest in it. But that interest in my view
> extends only to the nominal face value of the coin.
No it doesn't.
It extends to the value of the property involved.
The actual value, not its face value
>
>>> And does it necessarily belong to the shopkeeper once it has been
>>> taken in the course of payment? Is there a transfer of physical
>>> property, or just the nominal value that it, or a paper note,
>>> represents as a token?
>>
>> Both the nominal value and the physical property were transferred
>> during the course of the transaction.
>
> I think we've established that the physical property wasn't. Although the
> coin in in the shopkeeper's till, you say it's still owned by the Crown.
All coins are owned by the crown, and a person has possession and control of
the coin, sorry for the confusion.
>
>>> Many coins, notes and especially stamps, that have a nominal face
>>> value have a higher value to a collector. However, I imagine that
>>> you, like me, would have some difficulty with the concept of a shop
>>> assistant handing you 40p in change when it should be 50p on the
>>> basis that the coins he is giving you have some rarity value.
>>
>> I don't see how that is relevant to the issue here
>
> It goes to the question of how much a 20p piece is worth.
There's no problem with that.
A 20p piece is worth 20p.
A 20p mule is worth considerably more ( I haven't yet checked their value)
> And transactions cannot work unless each and every one is worth just its
> nominal face value. It's a fundamental requirement of a usable currency.
Some usable currency is evidently worth more than others
>
>>> The only sensible way, surely, for currency to be effective, is if
>>> it can pass freely based on its nominal value, not on something
>>> intangible.
>>
>> The actual value of a piece of stolen property is not intangible.
>> I don't know how much 20p mules are worth, but whatever they are,
>> that would be the value of the property stolen in this example
>>
>>> On that basis, every 20p coin must be worth 20p,
>>
>> Which is why your basis is wrong.
>> Some 20p coins are worth evidently more than 20p.
>
> To some, yes, To others, no.
Why would a 20p mule be worth less to one person rather than another?
If their current value is say, �200, then that is what a 20p mule is worth,
regardless of the person in possession of it
> On average, taking into account losses, they will be worth a little less
> than 20p in fact.
>
>>
>> .>and it would be perfectly
>>> legitimate for the shop assistant to take it in change for a
>>> purchase he makes.
>>
>> Of course it would- that is why the coin becomes the property of the
>> shopkeeper, not the assistant.
>
> No. First, you say it's the Crown's.
See above.
>Second, if the shopkeeper took it for 20p's worth of goods, then he has
>acquired it dishonestly too, and I doubt if ownership passes in such
>circumstances.
Now that's just plain silly.
I'm not sure if you're just winding me up here.
How on eqarth copuld the shopkeeper be dishonest if he wasn't even aware of
the transaction?
>
>> It isn't his money to take.
>> It was accepted, during the course of a transaction, by his employee.
>> Whether the original person who tendered the coin could argue that he
>> had overpaid the shopkeeper would be a matter for the civil courts to
>> decide. Let's face it , if you overpaid a vendor, by whatever means,
>> it would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask for it back, wouldn't
>> it?
>
> Yes, but here the nominal value of the coins handed over equalled the
> price of the goods. A currency cannot operate in any other way.
For the purposes of law, in this instance, the coin is worth more than 20p
and was obtained by dishonest means
>
>>> After all, he would be perfectly entitled to give it to anyone else
>>> as change, wouldn't he, so why not to himself?
>>
>> Actually, that is also debatable.
>> There is nothing to prevent him from giving the valuable coin as
>> change to someone else by accident- that would not be a theft.
>> But if he deliberately gave the valuable coin to another customer,
>> knowing its value, and believing that the owner would not have
>> consented to it, he would be dishonestly appropriating property
>> belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
>> other of it,(theft) or in this case, you could actually argue that by
>> dishonestly disposing of it for the benefit of another, he has
>> committed an offence of handling stolen goods if he deliberately gave
>> a valuable item to a stranger under dishonest circumstances.
>> This would probably apply in circumstances where a disgruntled
>> employee was deliberately underselling goods to get back at his
>> manager
>
> That either requires a shop assistant to consult a numismatist as to the
> value of every coin he hands out, or it means that no-one with any
> knowledge should work in a shop because he could be guilty whereas someone
> with no knowledge would never be guilty at all.
For goodness sake, no it doesn't.
In the example given, the shop assistant was perfectly aware of the value of
the coin.
You are winding me up, aren't you?
> And it comes back to ownership yet again. By what right has the
> shopkeeper become the owner, even if he can be? Surely, it's only a
> dishonest action, ie taking a valuable coin for 20p's worth of goods, that
> brought the coin into his till in the first place.
No it wasn't.
The shop assistant didn't dishonestly obtain the coin at first, he only
later realized that it was worth more than 20p, which is the point where he
decided to become dishonest and switch it for a less valuable one without
telling the shopkeeper
>
>>>> 4. Does he intend to permanently deprive the owner of the valuable
>>>> coin?- yes
>>>
>>> You could say that, though, about any coin in a till.
>>
>> Yes you can, but during the normal course of a transaction, it would
>> not be for a dishonest purpose, therefore there would be no theft
>
> With access to the till, he has authority to pass on any coins in it at
> their face value. It doesn't really work otherwise.
Once he realizes or becomes aware that the coin is valuable, he does not
have the authority to take the valuable coin or dispose of it dishonestly
for his own or anyone else's benefit
>
>>>> A theft has occurred no matter what he does to try and get hold of
>>>> the coin- it has an additional value, he is fully aware that the
>>>> owner of the coin (the shop) would not have allowed him to take it
>>>> if they had known it doesn't belong to him, and he is behaving
>>>> dishonestly in taking it.
>>>
>>> He may also have been equally dishonest in accepting it on the
>>> shopkeeper's behalf.
>>
>> Yes he certainly could, but in the scenario given, I believe he
>> accepted the coin honestly and later checked the till and found the
>> 20p mule. The theft occurs when he dishonestly appropriates the valuable
>> coin
>> for his own purposes.
>>
>>> And if the shopkeeper claims it as his, then is he not acting just as
>>> dishonestly, having accepted it as worth just 20p?
>>
>> The shopkeeper certainly would be committing an offence if he
>> dishonestly retained the valuable item without first trying to return
>> it to the owner, but he would have a defence if he reasonably
>> believed that the owner could not be traced.
>
> But if he has committed an offence in acquiring it, by what right does it
> become his? That's not normally the case.
The shopkeeper has not committed any offence in acquiring the coin.
It could be argued that once the shop keeper has realized the true value of
the coin and decides to keep it, he could be acting dishonestly if he fails
to take reasonable steps to locate the owner.
>
>> As the scenario described a passing customer, this would probably
>> apply
>>>
>>>> The only way he could legally get his hands on the coin would be to
>>>> offer to buy it from the shop owner.
>>>
>>> But the shop assistant is authorised by the shopkeeper to use the
>>> coins in the till at their face value, otherwise transactions
>>> couldn't take place.
>>
>> Yes he is, but he is certainly not authorized to retain valuable
>> items for himself, or switch valuable items for less valuable ones.
>> Do you think the employer would allow that, or that it would be
>> reasonable to think that he would?
>
> If the shopkeeper has taken a 20p coin for 20p's worth of goods, I don't
> think he's got any right to retain it as his own just because he can get
> more for it somewhere else.
That would just be your opinion, and has no bearing in law.
>
> He has obtained it dishonestly too.
The shopkeeper?
Why?
>
>>>>> What if the original shopper returns to the shop and says he gave
>>>>> the mule but never meant to as it's valuable and would like it back
>>>>> in exchange for another 20p?
>>
>> If the shopkeeper refused, as stated before, then the customer would
>> probably have to run that one through the civil courts to establish
>> ownership.
>> Personally, I think he could win, because s far as I am concerned,
>> if you accidentally overpaid a vendor or supplier, by whatever means,
>> you would certainly be entitled to ask for the money back.
>> Say, for example, you accidentally added an extra zero to your direct
>> debit mandate orcheque, do you think the vendor would be entitled to
>> keep the extra money you paid by accident?
>> The same principle applies to the customer with the 20p mule.
>> The coin is simply a method of payment, but in this case happened to
>> have an additional value and was handed over in error.
>> It's the same situation where a shop �ssistant gives you change for
>> �20 when you've only handed over a tenner.
>> As soon as you realize the error and form a dishonest intention to
>> keep the money, you've stolen it.
>
> Here, though, we have a transaction at the face value of the currency, and
> that's the only way it can work. There was no overpayment.
GAH!
Yes there WAS an overpayment.
It's written there above... where it says, he refunds you for �20 instead of
ten!
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What if the person who gave the original shopper the mule as change
>>>>> from a previous transaction comes into the shop and claims it's
>>>>> his?
>>>>
>>>> I would say that it would stop being his after he offered it as
>>>> legal tender in a transaction, but I suppose that would be a matter
>>>> for a civil court to decide
>>>
>>> Exactly. Who 'owns' notes and coins, which have circulation as their
>>> function? Where does ownership start and stop?
>>
>> There can be more than one owner of property.
>> In the case of coins of the realm, the physical coin itself belongs
>> to the Crown- the value of the coin belongs to the owner.
>
> I think the shopkeeper is entitled to the face value of the coin, ie 20p,
> which equates to the goods he sold for that amount. I see no reason why
> he should get more either morally or legally.
That would only be a personal opinion.
It has nothing to do with the actual value of the coin.
>
>>>>> What if the Royal Mint comes into the shop and says no-one owns the
>>>>> mule except us, we made it, it's ours and we're now withdrawing it
>>>>> from circulation, we'll give you another 20p in exchange?
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of them already in circulation and that hasn't
>>>> happened.
>>>
>>> Well, there are many cases of coins and notes becoming obsolete and
>>> withdrawn from circulation. Then you have to return them and
>>> exchange them for their valid successors, and that's the same thing.
>>
>> There is no law I am aware of which obliges a person to return
>> obsolete currency.
>> If there was, all coin collectors and dealers would be criminals
> But that's simply because it's a stealth tax on all those who don't. Is
> there any reason why there cannot be such a law though? If the coins
> remain the property of the Crown, then the Crown could surely legislate
> that they had to be returned, just as they can legislate to pevent you
> taking them out of the country.
I have no idea- it's not really relevant to the issue of theft here.
>
.
>
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a8n4j598i9jgpni99...@4ax.com...
What exactly do you mean by the term, "borrowing money without permission"?
Perhaps you could cite the case law involved
>
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It depends what you mean by "first". As soon as Bob is given the mule,
it belongs to the retailer. If his own 20p drops into the till, then
he should merely retrieve it, or else take other coins to the same
value and claim a set-off in respect of the tortious conversion.
Ste
Actually, I think theft may be committed *even if* the same notes are
returned. The theft occurs immediately on "appropriation inconsistent
with the rights of the owner", because that is the point at which the
chose in action becomes vested in the thief rather than the true owner
(in other words, a theft occurs whenever someone takes possession of
money with dishonest intent, and treat the money in a manner that is
inconsistent with their acting as agent of the true owner).
Cynic
wrote:
>What exactly do you mean by the term, "borrowing money without permission"?
>Perhaps you could cite the case law involved
I do not have a link to the case to hand. It was posted a while back
to uklm, so perhaps someone will post it here.
AFAIR, it involved a person who, without permission, took a quantity
of cash from the safe of the company they worked for. The person
intended to replace the money before it was noticed that it was
missing, but in the event failed to do so. They were found guilty of
theft and appealed that verdict on the grounds that it was fully
accepted by the prosecution that the appellant intended to pay back
the money so there was no intent to permanently deprive. The appeal
was refused on the grounds that the money that was intended to be paid
back was not the same physical notes that had been taken from the safe
without permission, and so there *was* an intent to permanently
deprive the company of those particular notes.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>Actually, I think theft may be committed *even if* the same notes are
>returned. The theft occurs immediately on "appropriation inconsistent
>with the rights of the owner", because that is the point at which the
>chose in action becomes vested in the thief rather than the true owner
>(in other words, a theft occurs whenever someone takes possession of
>money with dishonest intent, and treat the money in a manner that is
>inconsistent with their acting as agent of the true owner).
No, because theft must also have the element of an intention to
*permanently* deprive the owner.
--
Cynic
Steve O
"Gary Baldi" <tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:98f98c67-1e83-4dcf...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 4:26 pm, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>
>> But that isn't the case here- the 20p in question was worth considerably
>> more than 20p, and was stolen by the shop assistant when he dishonestly
>> appropriated it for himself.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Nonsense.
sigh)
No it isn't
>
> If he were to take the said 20p coin to, say, Dixons and offer to buy
> a laptop with it because "the 20p in question was worth considerably
> more than 20p", do you think Dixons would snap his hand off for the
> coin or laugh him out of the shop?
They probably wouldn't take it
But what the hell has that got to do with the fact that he dishonestly
appropriated the valuable coin for himself from the shop keeper?
>
> 20p is worth 20p.
And a 20p mule is worth considerably more.
The shop assistant knew that - which was why he stole it from his employer
> The fact that there are gullible idiots on eBay prepared to pay �300
> for one is neither here nor there.
No it isn't.
The shop asistant was fully aware of the value of the property when he
dishonestly appropriated it.
You are completely and utterly wrong on this.
Cynic
wrote:
>It depends what you mean by "first". As soon as Bob is given the mule,
>it belongs to the retailer.
It does at that point in time, yes. But the retailer's legitimate
interest is only in the face value of the money in the till, not the
physical notes and coins. That is evidenced by the fact that any of
the notes and coins in that till may legally be given by the till
operator as change in a subsequent transaction, or indeed to any
customer who askes the till operator to "make change" (e.g. by giving
one 20p coin in exchange for two 10p coins).
***Therefore ISTM that there is a valid legal argument to say that the
till operator has the retailer's permission to freely exchange any of
the notes or coins in the till to different notes and coins that add
up to the same face value.***
There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
windfall? The retailer, who played absolutely no part in either the
transaction or the discovery, and whose legitimate income and
expectation is the face value of the coins involved in the
transaction? The till operator, who physically received the coin
*and* recognised its significance? Or perhaps the customer, who
voluntarily handed over the coin, but obviously did not realise its
value?
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co> wrote:
>
>>"bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p pieces,
>>takes his change, and leaves.
>>
>>"bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
>>20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
>>
>>he later sells the coin on ebay.
>
>If he had sold the Mona Lisa and replaced it with a fake, for sure. But... I'm
>going out on a limb here, but I seem to remember reading that there's a law
>which states (in effect) that all currency is equivalent and exchangable? So for
>instance, if you loan Bob a fiver, he can pay you back with ANY fiver; it
>doesn't have to be the SAME fiver you gave him. That law might provide a get-out
>in the above case.
Actually, I believe the exact opposite of that has been deemed to be
the case with respect to theft of money.
I don't like that ruling, but it is the situation as the law stands.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He who sitteth on an upturned tack shall surely rise.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0965j51rn5b2hk2vf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:15:14 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It depends what you mean by "first". As soon as Bob is given the mule,
>>it belongs to the retailer.
>
> It does at that point in time, yes. But the retailer's legitimate
> interest is only in the face value of the money in the till, not the
> physical notes and coins.
Nonsense.
The retailer has every right to have an interest in the true value of the
coin which has fallen into his possession.
That coin belongs to him, not the shop assistant.
>That is evidenced by the fact that any of
> the notes and coins in that till may legally be given by the till
> operator as change in a subsequent transaction, or indeed to any
> customer who askes the till operator to "make change" (e.g. by giving
> one 20p coin in exchange for two 10p coins).
Not if the assistant decides that there is a tidy little sum to be made by
sneaking the valuable coin out of the till, replacing it with a lower value
coin and pocketing the difference when he sells it on ebay.
>
> ***Therefore ISTM that there is a valid legal argument to say that the
> till operator has the retailer's permission to freely exchange any of
> the notes or coins in the till to different notes and coins that add
> up to the same face value.***
Not if he is being dishonest and has decided to keep one of the coins
for himself to sell at a profit.
>
> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
> than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
> windfall?
The retailer.
> The retailer, who played absolutely no part in either the
> transaction or the discovery, and whose legitimate income and
> expectation is the face value of the coins involved in the
> transaction?
Yes, taht's right, the retailer.
> The till operator, who physically received the coin
> *and* recognised its significance?
No, the till operator has no right or claim on the valuable coin which he
received on behalf of his employer
> Or perhaps the customer, who
> voluntarily handed over the coin, but obviously did not realise its
> value?
>
He would certainly have a claim on it, after all, he had mistakenly overpaid
the retailer and would be perfectly entitled to ask for the money back,
unless of course, the retailer had passed on the coin without realizing its
true value.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 23 Dec, 18:15, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
No, it can *only* be theft if there is intention to permanently
deprive.
If he always intended to return the exact same notes, then there would
be no theft.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Windows: XT emulator for an AT.
Mr X
I just don't see the justification of such a ruling. When tender is being
used as such it is de facto interchangeable. If a coin or note is being
used as a collectors item it is different as it is not in use as tender but
is an object that just happens to be tender.
The only justification is that the law makers wished to prevent unauthorized
borrowing of money even when there was intention to pay back.
Mike Ross
>
>"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:rj55j51dk1dskcrv7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:01:43 -0000, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>What exactly do you mean by the term, "borrowing money without
>>>permission"?
>>>Perhaps you could cite the case law involved
>>
>> I do not have a link to the case to hand. It was posted a while back
>> to uklm, so perhaps someone will post it here.
>>
>> AFAIR, it involved a person who, without permission, took a quantity
>> of cash from the safe of the company they worked for. The person
>> intended to replace the money before it was noticed that it was
>> missing, but in the event failed to do so. They were found guilty of
>> theft and appealed that verdict on the grounds that it was fully
>> accepted by the prosecution that the appellant intended to pay back
>> the money so there was no intent to permanently deprive. The appeal
>> was refused on the grounds that the money that was intended to be paid
>> back was not the same physical notes that had been taken from the safe
>> without permission, and so there *was* an intent to permanently
>> deprive the company of those particular notes.
>>
>Very perverse, IMO.
I agree, it's extremely perverse. But see below.
>I just don't see the justification of such a ruling.
I do, in that *very* particular situation. It's a very similar situation to
being caught carrying an unlicensed gun; it provides a defence that's FAR to
easy to abuse:
"But I was on my way to the police station to hand the gun in! Honest!"
"But I was going to put the money back in the safe eventually! Honest!"
The perversity in the above case lies in the prosecution *fully accepting* the
honest intent, but still seeking and getting a guilty verdict on a theft charge.
In the vast majority of similar cases, I suspect the prosecution would NOT
accept the 'honest' explanation.
And the success of the 'not the same notes' argument to sustain the conviction
is even more perverse; utterly unreasonable. I'd be surprised if that survived a
further appeal. Yes, to treating claimed 'borrowing' as theft, but NO to the
'not the same notes' ruse! That's like prosecuting hackers for theft of
electricity, on the grounds that they weren't the same electrons...
>When tender is being
>used as such it is de facto interchangeable. If a coin or note is being
>used as a collectors item it is different as it is not in use as tender but
>is an object that just happens to be tender.
>The only justification is that the law makers wished to prevent unauthorized
>borrowing of money even when there was intention to pay back.
Needs TWOCing for money perhaps?
Mike Ross
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:22:41 -0500, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:56:29 GMT, cobble <cob...@example.co> wrote:
>>
>>>"bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p pieces,
>>>takes his change, and leaves.
>>>
>>>"bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
>>>20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
>>>
>>>he later sells the coin on ebay.
>>
>>If he had sold the Mona Lisa and replaced it with a fake, for sure. But... I'm
>>going out on a limb here, but I seem to remember reading that there's a law
>>which states (in effect) that all currency is equivalent and exchangable? So for
>>instance, if you loan Bob a fiver, he can pay you back with ANY fiver; it
>>doesn't have to be the SAME fiver you gave him. That law might provide a get-out
>>in the above case.
>
>Actually, I believe the exact opposite of that has been deemed to be
>the case with respect to theft of money.
>
>I don't like that ruling, but it is the situation as the law stands.
See my reply to Mr. X.
Ste
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:22:46 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Yes, but as we've determined in the past, as soon as the banknote (or
coin) "changes hands", the old chose in action is destroyed and a new
one created.
Ste
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:15:14 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It depends what you mean by "first". As soon as Bob is given the mule,
> >it belongs to the retailer.
>
> It does at that point in time, yes. But the retailer's legitimate
> interest is only in the face value of the money in the till, not the
> physical notes and coins.
Indeed, but the chose in action issue means that, for all intents and
purposes, the retailer has an interest in the money itself, not just
its value. If the money changes hands and then back again, it may be
the same banknote, but it is a different chose in action.
> That is evidenced by the fact that any of
> the notes and coins in that till may legally be given by the till
> operator as change in a subsequent transaction, or indeed to any
> customer who askes the till operator to "make change" (e.g. by giving
> one 20p coin in exchange for two 10p coins).
Only with the retailer's consent. It is, after all, not unlawful to
deal with money in a manner consistent with the owner's rights and
wishes.
> ***Therefore ISTM that there is a valid legal argument to say that the
> till operator has the retailer's permission to freely exchange any of
> the notes or coins in the till to different notes and coins that add
> up to the same face value.***
I don't think such permission can be inferred to "freely exchange" all
money in the till, and clearly an exchange that leaves the retailer
materially worse off is not permitted.
> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
> than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
> windfall?
The retailer.
> The retailer, who played absolutely no part in either the
> transaction or the discovery, and whose legitimate income and
> expectation is the face value of the coins involved in the
> transaction? The till operator, who physically received the coin
> *and* recognised its significance? Or perhaps the customer, who
> voluntarily handed over the coin, but obviously did not realise its
> value?
I don't know what position the customer would be in. But one thing is
for sure, the coin don't belong to the cashier.
Ste
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:22:46 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Au contraire, Alex!
Ste
> Isn't there an issue here which has not yet been fully examined in any of
> the arguments, above, though it has been mentioned? It may ultimately be
> found to be lacking, but it might be worth throwing it into the debate to
> see if discussing it has any bearing on the matter under discussion:
>
> This 20p mule was tendered as payment for something, but, because it is a
> "mule", it is not LEGAL tender. Consequently, the shopkeeper runs a risk of
> being unable to cash it in when the takings are banked. The staff member
> should have refused the mule, and insisted on legal tender being offered as
> (part) payment, and so could have put himself at risk if the usual and
> straightforward working of the shop proceeded and the "mule" was detected at
> the bank or post office when banking the takings. One could then interpret
> the replacemnt of the "mule" by a coin that is legal tender to be a case of
> (a) protecting the staff member for disciplinary action for accepting non-
> legal tender, and (b) reducing the risk that the shopowner will suffer a
> loss of 20p if the "mule" is detected when banking the takings.
I'm afraid this just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The cashier has no
obligation to make good for losses that are merely negligently
incurred, and the fact is that the coin either belongs to the
customer, or it belongs to the retailer. The cashier has no interest
in it whatsoever, and no rule of law will allow the substitution of
the mule of high value with a normal coin of face value, unless of
course the retailer has explicitly said that the cashier may do so.
Norman Wells
By being given access to the till, he's been given full authority, it seems
to me, to use any and all coins in there at their face value. How can it
work otherwise?
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 23 Dec, 22:59, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Presumably, you have some argument as to why you believe that.
I cannot conceive of any reason why you might be right.
Even the situation as it stands is perverse, IMV, whereby it is
considered theft even if currency to the same value is returned.
To then suggest it *still* is, even if the absolute requirement of an
intention to permanently deprive is manifestly not present is beyond
perverse.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All the easy problems have been solved.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 23 Dec, 22:26, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
We have never for one moment determined that.
Nor could we.
"Chose in action" is not the right term to use anyhow, and I think
that may be confusing you.
There is nothing intangible about a bank note.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A library is an arsenal of liberty.
Alex Heney
<fe...@mugwort.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>Isn't there an issue here which has not yet been fully examined in any of
>the arguments, above, though it has been mentioned? It may ultimately be
>found to be lacking, but it might be worth throwing it into the debate to
>see if discussing it has any bearing on the matter under discussion:
>
>This 20p mule was tendered as payment for something, but, because it is a
>"mule", it is not LEGAL tender.
Completely and utterly irrelevant.
>Consequently, the shopkeeper runs a risk of
>being unable to cash it in when the takings are banked.
No more so than with any other coin. The banks know about these, and
know that they are perfectly valid, but are worth more than face
value.
>The staff member
>should have refused the mule, and insisted on legal tender being offered as
>(part) payment,
No ordinary staff member is likely to have the authority to insist on
that.
I suspect you don't actually understand legal tender (as many people
don't).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
Ste
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:30:40 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Indeed. Because the chose in action embodied in money is destroyed
each and every time the money changes hands, there is simply no
distinction between "intention to permanently deprive" and mere
"intention to deprive". As soon as the rightful owner is in fact
deprived (i.e. as soon as the money can no longer be considered to be
in the possession of the rightful owner), then he has been deprived
permanently of that chose in action. What you return is a different
chose in action, even if you return the same banknote - on return of
the money, the Bank of England essentially makes a completely new
"promise to pay the bearer".
And of course, when dishonesty, appropriation, and intention to
deprive come together, then there has been a theft of money.
Ste
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:23:43 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 23 Dec, 22:26, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:22:46 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Actually, I think theft may be committed *even if* the same notes are
> >> >returned. The theft occurs immediately on "appropriation inconsistent
> >> >with the rights of the owner", because that is the point at which the
> >> >chose in action becomes vested in the thief rather than the true owner
> >> >(in other words, a theft occurs whenever someone takes possession of
> >> >money with dishonest intent, and treat the money in a manner that is
> >> >inconsistent with their acting as agent of the true owner).
>
> >> No, because theft must also have the element of an intention to
> >> *permanently* deprive the owner.
>
> >Yes, but as we've determined in the past, as soon as the banknote (or
> >coin) "changes hands", the old chose in action is destroyed and a new
> >one created.
>
> We have never for one moment determined that.
>
> Nor could we.
>
> "Chose in action" is not the right term to use anyhow, and I think
> that may be confusing you.
Not at all. The authorities on this issue are Cockburn 1968, and
Velumyl 1989. They are quite clear.
> There is nothing intangible about a bank note.
I didn't say the banknote is intangible. But the person with a
proprietary interest in the banknote is the Queen. Everybody else
merely has an interest in its value.
Norman Wells
> Not at all. The authorities on this issue are Cockburn 1968, and
> Velumyl 1989. They are quite clear.
Velumyl was decided following the precedent of Cockburn, the Court of Appeal
quoting the following, with approval:
"the person who commits the offence, has taken something which he was not
entitled to take, had no claim of right to take, without the consent of the
owner, and is in effect trying to force upon the owner a substitution to
which the owner has not consented".
The distinction, in the case we are considering as a homework question, is
that the shopkeeper _has_ in fact consented to any substitution of coins in
the till by the shop assistant, by virtue of giving him access to the till
and its contents. It's a necessary consent, without which no transaction
requiring change to be given could be effected.
Mike Ross
<snip>
>I didn't say the banknote is intangible. But the person with a
>proprietary interest in the banknote is the Queen. Everybody else
>merely has an interest in its value.
I don't think that would be true of Scottish notes, which are issued by limited
companies, i.e. the Scottish banks.
Steve O
"Zhang Dawei" <fe...@mugwort.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ph0hk...@mid.individual.net...
> Isn't there an issue here which has not yet been fully examined in any of
> the arguments, above, though it has been mentioned? It may ultimately be
> found to be lacking, but it might be worth throwing it into the debate to
> see if discussing it has any bearing on the matter under discussion:
>
> This 20p mule was tendered as payment for something, but, because it is a
> "mule", it is not LEGAL tender. Consequently, the shopkeeper runs a risk
> of
> being unable to cash it in when the takings are banked. The staff member
> should have refused the mule, and insisted on legal tender being offered
> as
> (part) payment, and so could have put himself at risk if the usual and
> straightforward working of the shop proceeded and the "mule" was detected
> at
> the bank or post office when banking the takings. One could then interpret
> the replacemnt of the "mule" by a coin that is legal tender to be a case
> of
> (a) protecting the staff member for disciplinary action for accepting non-
> legal tender, and (b) reducing the risk that the shopowner will suffer a
> loss of 20p if the "mule" is detected when banking the takings.
Interesting point - certainly worth a try as a defence to theft
_
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> I suspect you don't actually understand legal tender (as many people
>> don't).
>
> The problem lay in my understanding of what a "mule" refers to in this
> context. I had assumed it was something on a par with a blank (albeit a rare
> one), which would have been a bit like offering a brass washer for a coin in
> pre-decimal days, or a foil-covered chocolate one, for instance. I now have
> had it pointed out to me (thanks, you know who you are) that it is a coin
> that was struck which omits the year on the heads side. That does make my
> original posting rather less relevant, I admit.
>
> I agree that my wording using legal tender was not accurate since we are not
> talking about the situation where a debtor can be successfully sued for non-
> payment unless he pays into court an amount of money equal in value to the
> debt in legal tender. What I should have used was a phrase or term that
> refers to money offered in payment in a shop being almost certain to be
> accepted by a bank when that money is taken to be paid into the bank. If the
> offered coin was in fact a brass washer, or passed off as a UK coin when it
> was an obvious a foreign one (e.g., two 1 yuan coins, which roughly equal
> 20p), it would be unlikely to be accepted without additional hassle
> involving costs of converting into currency normally acceptable in the UK
> (which may not be a service offered at all in the case of someone wanting to
> convert coins.)
>
> Just before, you also stated:
>
>> No ordinary staff member is likely to have the authority to insist on
>> that.
>
> When I suggested that the staff member should have insisted on legal tender
> being offered as payment. If we set aside the problem of my interpretation
> of "mule", then what you say here is a bit odd. Does that mean that if
> someone tenders a Chinese coins in payment, the shop assistant does not have
> the authority to insist on UK currency being offered? What about a torn
> 5pound note that has part of its serial number missing and, additionally, is
> omitting a major part of the promissory clause (?I promise to pay the bearer
> on demand the sum of???) as well as the cashier's signature. It is debatable
> whether this would be legal tender or not, but even if it were legal tender,
> many assistants would surely be able to ask ("have authority to ask" )
> whether a different means of payment could be offered without having to get
> the manager to approve this.
>
Whether a mule is or is not legal tender for a debt being owed is a
different question; I would believe that it is, having been minted and
issued by the authority that mints/prints and issues all currency, and
absent an official declaration by that authority that it is NOT legal
tender it is in essence no different from any other currency; but none of
this applies in the case of an item being sold in a shop.
Legal tender is a concept which applies when a debt is owed. In a shop, a
debt is not (usually) owed; the shop-keeper offers to treat, the shopper
offers money (or anything else), the shop-keeper accepts or declines,
concluding or not concluding a contract.
If the shopper offers a mule and the shop accepts, the contract is valid.
johannes
Bob Ferguson wrote:
>
> "cobble" <cob...@example.co> wrote in message
> news:x8cYm.456$FT3...@newsfe18.ams2...
> > "bob" works in a shop. A customer buys something, pays with 20p pieces,
> > takes his change, and leaves.
> >
> > "bob" notices that one of the 20p pieces is an undated mule. He takes a
> > 20p from his pocket and puts it in the till, and keeps the mule.
> >
> > he later sells the coin on ebay.
> >
> >
> > Has bob broken any law?
>
> Lets apply the tests of theft.
>
> Has Bob appropriated the item with the intention of permanently depriving
> the owner (in this case the shop)?
But did the item belong to the shop owner in the first place? The contract with
the customer was fulfilled by payment of 20p. If the mule item belong to anybody,
it would rightly belong to the customer. So bob didn't steal from the shop owner,
but the customer unintentionally left it in the shop (with bob). If the customer
didn't come back and asked for it for a considerable time, then one can assume
that he wasn't aware of his loss. It can then be treated as untraceable lost
property. bob should hand it into the nearest Police station, they might them
give him the permission to keep it.
Ste
I accept that the cashier has consent to substitute. But not at will.
Only in the course of giving change to customers, and even then only
change to equal value. The fact that the cashier here knows the coin
to be worth more means that there is not an equal substitution here.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 25 Dec, 00:17, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:23:43 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 23 Dec, 22:26, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:22:46 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Actually, I think theft may be committed *even if* the same notes are
>> >> >returned. The theft occurs immediately on "appropriation inconsistent
>> >> >with the rights of the owner", because that is the point at which the
>> >> >chose in action becomes vested in the thief rather than the true owner
>> >> >(in other words, a theft occurs whenever someone takes possession of
>> >> >money with dishonest intent, and treat the money in a manner that is
>> >> >inconsistent with their acting as agent of the true owner).
>>
>> >> No, because theft must also have the element of an intention to
>> >> *permanently* deprive the owner.
>>
>> >Yes, but as we've determined in the past, as soon as the banknote (or
>> >coin) "changes hands", the old chose in action is destroyed and a new
>> >one created.
>>
>> We have never for one moment determined that.
>>
>> Nor could we.
>>
>> "Chose in action" is not the right term to use anyhow, and I think
>> that may be confusing you.
>
>Not at all. The authorities on this issue are Cockburn 1968, and
>Velumyl 1989. They are quite clear.
>
They are indeed quite clear.
But they are quite clear that the reason it was theft was that it was
NOT the same notes or coins which were being returned.
>
>
>> There is nothing intangible about a bank note.
>
>I didn't say the banknote is intangible.
That is what "chose in action" refers to.
>But the person with a
>proprietary interest in the banknote is the Queen. Everybody else
>merely has an interest in its value.
Interesting argument.
Not one I am aware of having been used in court.
If true, then it would probably negate Velumyl, since the "interest in
the value" would not have been removed by replacing with different
notes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What garlic is to salad, insanity is to art.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 25 Dec, 00:15, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Do you have any citation which might possibly back up that argument?
The two citations of Velumyl and Cockburn both make it clear that it
is theft because it was not the same notes or coins, so neither of tem
support your view.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you pronounce my name? With reverence.
Alex Heney
<fe...@mugwort.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> I suspect you don't actually understand legal tender (as many people
>> don't).
>
>The problem lay in my understanding of what a "mule" refers to in this
>context. I had assumed it was something on a par with a blank (albeit a rare
>one), which would have been a bit like offering a brass washer for a coin in
>pre-decimal days, or a foil-covered chocolate one, for instance. I now have
>had it pointed out to me (thanks, you know who you are) that it is a coin
>that was struck which omits the year on the heads side. That does make my
>original posting rather less relevant, I admit.
Faire enough.
<snip>
>
>Just before, you also stated:
>
>> No ordinary staff member is likely to have the authority to insist on
>> that.
>
>When I suggested that the staff member should have insisted on legal tender
>being offered as payment. If we set aside the problem of my interpretation
>of "mule", then what you say here is a bit odd. Does that mean that if
>someone tenders a Chinese coins in payment, the shop assistant does not have
>the authority to insist on UK currency being offered?
He will certainly have the authority to refuse to accept any notes or
coins which are not recognisably UK currency.
But he is unlikely to be able to insist on the specific combinations
of currency which would be "legal tender" in the only situations where
the term is actually valid.
Even in the case where the shop only accepts payment in cash.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All programers are optimists.
Ste
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:12:25 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Then you haven't read the case. It quite clearly says that a chose in
action is destroyed, and a new one created, when the money changes
hands. To "borrow" a banknote without permission is to treat it as
owner, and indeed to treat it in a matter inconsistent with the
rightful owner's rights, and therefore the chose in action becomes
vested in the borrower (and the lender's chose in action is
destroyed).
Norman Wells
Yes there is. The shopkeeper has taken it in as worth 20p. He has been
given something worth 20p in return.
As regards the cashier not being allowed to substitute at will, what
instructions do you think it likely that the shopkeeper has given him?
Cynic
wrote:
>I'm afraid this just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The cashier has no
>obligation to make good for losses that are merely negligently
>incurred, and the fact is that the coin either belongs to the
>customer, or it belongs to the retailer. The cashier has no interest
>in it whatsoever, and no rule of law will allow the substitution of
>the mule of high value with a normal coin of face value, unless of
>course the retailer has explicitly said that the cashier may do so.
All till operators have implicit permission to substitute any of the
notes and coins in the till with different combinations of notes and
coins of the same face value. It would not be possible to work at a
till if that were not the case.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
>> than its face value. �But who is legally entitled to retain that
>> windfall?
>The retailer.
Both you and Steve have confidently made that assertion, but without
any argument to back it up.
I doubt that you would be calling the till operator a thief if he had
exchanged a normal 20p coin with one from his pocket, or indeed if he
had not recognised the fact that it was a mule. You would surely in
that case recognise that any till operator has implicit permission to
exchange money in the till for money of the same face value.
Operating a till would be impossible to do legally if that were not
the case.
Why should such a windfall not be the legitimate property of the
*person who recognised the value* - so long as that person acquires
the property legitimately *at the value its previous owner assumed it
had*?
Here's a different scenario to think about. Whilst visiting someone
to fix their TV set, I see a painting on their wall that I recognise
to be a very valuable original. I ask about the painting, and am told
that the owner recently bought it on a whim for �5 from a charity
shop, but he doesn't like it very much and intends to take it down and
will probably take it back to the charity shop or throw it away.
I say that I like the painting very much, and offer the owner �10. He
jumps at the chance, and congratulates himself on making a small
profit from his imprudent purchase.
I sell the painting at Sotherbys for �10 million and retire to the
Bahamas.
Have I committed theft because my offer was dishonest? IOW was I
*legally obliged* to tell the owner of what I thought was the value
before making an offer?
And if you believe that I *did* have such an obligation, then does the
situation change if the valuable object in question is a sheet of
misprinted stamps that I buy from a post office at their face value
because the serving clerk did not notice the misprint?
--
Cynic
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ds7cj5p0f0jonlb1k...@4ax.com...
They are also expected to do so honestly, which is not the case with this
cashier.
It is not a question of whether the cashier has permission to exchange
coins, it is a question of honesty or dishonesty.
What the cashier did was dishonest and somewhat sneaky- the switch was done
under dishonest circumstances, there was an appropriation, and there was an
intent to permanently deprive property belonging to another..
IOW there was a theft.
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e85cj5hnd8o607ag9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:30:18 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
>>> than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
>>> windfall?
>
>>The retailer.
>
> Both you and Steve have confidently made that assertion, but without
> any argument to back it up.
>
The coin, or its subsequent value either belongs to the retailer of the
customer.
Or both.
It does not belong to the cashier
Why would I need to back that argument up?
It's a simple fact
> I doubt that you would be calling the till operator a thief if he had
> exchanged a normal 20p coin with one from his pocket,
Of course not.
That wouldn't be a theft as presumably there would be no dishonesty
involved.
>or indeed if he
> had not recognised the fact that it was a mule. You would surely in
> that case recognise that any till operator has implicit permission to
> exchange money in the till for money of the same face value.
Yes he does.
> Operating a till would be impossible to do legally if that were not
> the case.
That's right.
>
> Why should such a windfall not be the legitimate property of the
> *person who recognised the value* - so long as that person acquires
> the property legitimately *at the value its previous owner assumed it
> had*?
Because it doesn't belong to him?
>
> Here's a different scenario to think about. Whilst visiting someone
> to fix their TV set, I see a painting on their wall that I recognise
> to be a very valuable original. I ask about the painting, and am told
> that the owner recently bought it on a whim for �5 from a charity
> shop, but he doesn't like it very much and intends to take it down and
> will probably take it back to the charity shop or throw it away.
>
> I say that I like the painting very much, and offer the owner �10. He
> jumps at the chance, and congratulates himself on making a small
> profit from his imprudent purchase.
>
> I sell the painting at Sotherbys for �10 million and retire to the
> Bahamas.
>
> Have I committed theft because my offer was dishonest? IOW was I
> *legally obliged* to tell the owner of what I thought was the value
> before making an offer?
No.
Why are you comparing oranges with apples?
Here is a similar scenario relevant to what we were discussing here.
You work in an art shop buying and selling on behalf of the shop owner.
A customer comes in and inadvertently sells you a valuable painting for a
tenner, which you buy on behalf of the shop from money in the till.
You later recognise the valuable painting and decide you want it for
yourself.
You get hold of a cheap copy of the original and switch it for the priceless
one, without telling the owner, later selling the original at a vast profit.
Have your actions been dishonest and would it amount to a theft?
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
news:7pmp2m...@mid.individual.net...
> Here is a similar scenario relevant to what we were discussing here.
> You work in an art shop buying and selling on behalf of the shop owner.
> A customer comes in and inadvertently sells you a valuable painting for a
> tenner, which you buy on behalf of the shop from money in the till.
> You later recognise the valuable painting and decide you want it for
> yourself.
> You get hold of a cheap copy of the original and switch it for the
> priceless one, without telling the owner, later selling the original at a
> vast profit.
> Have your actions been dishonest and would it amount to a theft?
>
In the OP's case the shop recieved and wanted 20p. If it were a coin shop
that bought mules it would be a different matter.
The shop is not out of pocket as they still recieved 20p. It is no
different to the till operator subbing 2 10ps from his pocket for a random
20p beacuse he wanted the change.
Cynic
wrote:
>
>
>"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:e85cj5hnd8o607ag9...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:30:18 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
>>>> than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
>>>> windfall?
>>
>>>The retailer.
>>
>> Both you and Steve have confidently made that assertion, but without
>> any argument to back it up.
>>
>
>The coin, or its subsequent value either belongs to the retailer of the
>customer.
>Or both.
>It does not belong to the cashier
No, but it can normally be *exchanged* by the cashier.
>Why would I need to back that argument up?
>It's a simple fact
It is also a simple fact that the cashier is entitled to exchange any
of the coins in the till with ones of the same value.
>> I doubt that you would be calling the till operator a thief if he had
>> exchanged a normal 20p coin with one from his pocket,
>Of course not.
>That wouldn't be a theft as presumably there would be no dishonesty
>involved.
>>or indeed if he
>> had not recognised the fact that it was a mule. You would surely in
>> that case recognise that any till operator has implicit permission to
>> exchange money in the till for money of the same face value.
>Yes he does.
>> Operating a till would be impossible to do legally if that were not
>> the case.
>That's right.
>> Why should such a windfall not be the legitimate property of the
>> *person who recognised the value* - so long as that person acquires
>> the property legitimately *at the value its previous owner assumed it
>> had*?
>Because it doesn't belong to him?
But it *does* belong to himn after he has exchanged it.
In that case you have not been authorised by the owner to exchange
paintings. But if the owner has given blanket permission for you to
buy any painting you fancy from the shop *at the price that the shop
paid for it*, and you took the painting after paying the price the
customer got for it, it would be perfectly legal IMO.
And in the case of a till operator, he *does have* implicit permission
to "buy" coins in the till for their face value.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>>>I'm afraid this just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The cashier has no
>>>obligation to make good for losses that are merely negligently
>>>incurred, and the fact is that the coin either belongs to the
>>>customer, or it belongs to the retailer. The cashier has no interest
>>>in it whatsoever, and no rule of law will allow the substitution of
>>>the mule of high value with a normal coin of face value, unless of
>>>course the retailer has explicitly said that the cashier may do so.
>> All till operators have implicit permission to substitute any of the
>> notes and coins in the till with different combinations of notes and
>> coins of the same face value. It would not be possible to work at a
>> till if that were not the case.
>They are also expected to do so honestly, which is not the case with this
>cashier.
Of course it was honest. He took a 20p coin from the till and
replaced it with 20p. The shop owner had no expectation, and no
legitimate right to have anything of more value in his till. The till
will balance perfectly. The shop owner receives the correct and
legitimate profit from the sale of goods.
--
Cynic
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sogcj5hu4qpl0h1ed...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:23:54 -0000, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>>>I'm afraid this just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The cashier has no
>>>>obligation to make good for losses that are merely negligently
>>>>incurred, and the fact is that the coin either belongs to the
>>>>customer, or it belongs to the retailer. The cashier has no interest
>>>>in it whatsoever, and no rule of law will allow the substitution of
>>>>the mule of high value with a normal coin of face value, unless of
>>>>course the retailer has explicitly said that the cashier may do so.
>
>>> All till operators have implicit permission to substitute any of the
>>> notes and coins in the till with different combinations of notes and
>>> coins of the same face value. It would not be possible to work at a
>>> till if that were not the case.
>
>>They are also expected to do so honestly, which is not the case with this
>>cashier.
>
> Of course it was honest. He took a 20p coin from the till and
> replaced it with 20p.
No, he took a 20p mule from the till and replaced it with a 20p coin.
You and I obviously have different ideas on what is honest and what is
dishonest.
However, when it comes to theft the law does not define dishonesty, it only
defines what is honest.
>The shop owner had no expectation, and no
> legitimate right to have anything of more value in his till.
Rubbish.
The shop owner has every right to expect the full value of what is in his
till.
> The till
> will balance perfectly.
No it won't.
Before the shop assistant interfered with the till, it had a higher value.
After he interfered with it, it had a lesser value.
That's why it is called theft
>The shop owner receives the correct and
> legitimate profit from the sale of goods.
But he also lost possession of a valuable item which came into his
possession because his shop assistant decided to pocket it instead.
Look, we could go around in circles on this, it has been explained to you
several times why a theft has occurred but you still don't agree.
That's fine.
We'll have to leave it as that because it's getting boring now
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>
>
> "Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:sogcj5hu4qpl0h1ed...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:23:54 -0000, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm afraid this just doesn't withstand scrutiny. The cashier has no
>>>>>obligation to make good for losses that are merely negligently
>>>>>incurred, and the fact is that the coin either belongs to the
>>>>>customer, or it belongs to the retailer. The cashier has no interest
>>>>>in it whatsoever, and no rule of law will allow the substitution of
>>>>>the mule of high value with a normal coin of face value, unless of
>>>>>course the retailer has explicitly said that the cashier may do so.
>>
>>>> All till operators have implicit permission to substitute any of the
>>>> notes and coins in the till with different combinations of notes and
>>>> coins of the same face value. It would not be possible to work at a
>>>> till if that were not the case.
>>
>>>They are also expected to do so honestly, which is not the case with this
>>>cashier.
>>
>> Of course it was honest. He took a 20p coin from the till and
>> replaced it with 20p.
>
> No, he took a 20p mule from the till and replaced it with a 20p coin.
> You and I obviously have different ideas on what is honest and what is
> dishonest.
> However, when it comes to theft the law does not define dishonesty, it
> only defines what is honest.
>
If the teller had simply swapped 20p coins because he liked the design of
one would you have a complaint?
>>The shop owner had no expectation, and no
>> legitimate right to have anything of more value in his till.
>
> Rubbish.
> The shop owner has every right to expect the full value of what is in his
> till.
>
>> The till
>> will balance perfectly.
>
> No it won't.
> Before the shop assistant interfered with the till, it had a higher value.
> After he interfered with it, it had a lesser value.
> That's why it is called theft
>
She shop wouldn't be looking for Mules.
> >The shop owner receives the correct and
>> legitimate profit from the sale of goods.
>
> But he also lost possession of a valuable item which came into his
> possession because his shop assistant decided to pocket it instead.
>
Be he wouldn't know that.
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh5ate$iqq$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
No, it's a theft.
The shopkeeper is short of a valuable 20p mule which legally came into his
possession.
This has been done to death now.
>
>
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k0gcj5526otuuvil0...@4ax.com...
>
> And in the case of a till operator, he *does have* implicit permission
> to "buy" coins in the till for their face value.
Once again, you have forgotten about the aspect of dishonesty.
It doesn't matter if you have permission to do something on behalf of an
employer or not- if you do it dishonestly, and appropriate somethingwith
intent to permanently deprive, then it is a theft and permission is
irrelevant.
Read back overt the Theft Act again and it will become clearer to you
Ste
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:30:18 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> There is obviously a windfall in getting a coin that is worth more
> >> than its face value. But who is legally entitled to retain that
> >> windfall?
> >The retailer.
>
> Both you and Steve have confidently made that assertion, but without
> any argument to back it up.
Good things come to those who wait.
> I doubt that you would be calling the till operator a thief if he had
> exchanged a normal 20p coin with one from his pocket, or indeed if he
> had not recognised the fact that it was a mule.
No, because in neither case would he be dishonest.
> You would surely in
> that case recognise that any till operator has implicit permission to
> exchange money in the till for money of the same face value.
> Operating a till would be impossible to do legally if that were not
> the case.
No, the till operator does not have carte blanche to exchange money in
the till. He has implied permission to make such exchanges as are
necessary for making change to legitimate customers. I'm afraid I
don't accept that his implied permission goes at all beyond that.
> Why should such a windfall not be the legitimate property of the
> *person who recognised the value* - so long as that person acquires
> the property legitimately *at the value its previous owner assumed it
> had*?
But the point here is that the cashier *knows* its value. As soon as
the cashier knows its value, then I'm afraid in my mind he is no
longer entitled to treat it at its face value - unless the retailer
has expressly or implicitly given him permission to do so. And I'm
afraid I would have a hard time finding that the retailer had
implicitly given permission for staff to abstract any surplus value
from the till (except in cases where staff are told to, and accept the
responsibility of, balancing the till from their own wealth), and so
the question then becomes whether the retailer has given *express*
permission.
> Here's a different scenario to think about. Whilst visiting someone
> to fix their TV set, I see a painting on their wall that I recognise
> to be a very valuable original. I ask about the painting, and am told
> that the owner recently bought it on a whim for £5 from a charity
> shop, but he doesn't like it very much and intends to take it down and
> will probably take it back to the charity shop or throw it away.
>
> I say that I like the painting very much, and offer the owner £10. He
> jumps at the chance, and congratulates himself on making a small
> profit from his imprudent purchase.
>
> I sell the painting at Sotherbys for £10 million and retire to the
> Bahamas.
>
> Have I committed theft because my offer was dishonest? IOW was I
> *legally obliged* to tell the owner of what I thought was the value
> before making an offer?
The difference is that the houseowner is the customer, not your master
- to be clear, you would not have to give the mule back to the shop
customer. Once accepted, the mule belongs to the retailer.
> And if you believe that I *did* have such an obligation, then does the
> situation change if the valuable object in question is a sheet of
> misprinted stamps that I buy from a post office at their face value
> because the serving clerk did not notice the misprint?
No, because again the transaction is between customer and retailer,
not retailer and agent. Consider a different situation. You are my
butler, and I send you out to buy a specific painting which I say is a
fake, and I give you £100 to buy it with. You meet the seller and buy
the painting for the agreed sum. Upon your closer inspection, you find
that the painting is in fact a genuine painting, so you sell the
painting for £1m, and commission a new fake for me, your master, and
you give the fake to me, and you profit to the tune of £1m minus £100.
Now, is there any doubt that the butler is dishonest and has stolen
what belonged to me (namely, the "fake" painting that was in fact
genuine)?
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > On 25 Dec, 09:46, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> Not at all. The authorities on this issue are Cockburn 1968, and
> >>> Velumyl 1989. They are quite clear.
>
> >> Velumyl was decided following the precedent of Cockburn, the Court
> >> of Appeal quoting the following, with approval:
>
> >> "the person who commits the offence, has taken something which he
> >> was not entitled to take, had no claim of right to take, without the
> >> consent of the owner, and is in effect trying to force upon the
> >> owner a substitution to which the owner has not consented".
>
> >> The distinction, in the case we are considering as a homework
> >> question, is that the shopkeeper _has_ in fact consented to any
> >> substitution of coins in the till by the shop assistant, by virtue
> >> of giving him access to the till and its contents. It's a necessary
> >> consent, without which no transaction requiring change to be given
> >> could be effected.
>
> > I accept that the cashier has consent to substitute. But not at will.
> > Only in the course of giving change to customers, and even then only
> > change to equal value. The fact that the cashier here knows the coin
> > to be worth more means that there is not an equal substitution here.
>
> Yes there is. The shopkeeper has taken it in as worth 20p. He has been
> given something worth 20p in return.
No, the *cashier* has taken it in as worth 20p. He later learns that
it is worth more. At that point, he cannot claim to be making an
honest and equal substitution. The cashier accepted the mule on behalf
of the retailer, and through the cashier's negligence the retailer has
in fact received a windfall.
> As regards the cashier not being allowed to substitute at will, what
> instructions do you think it likely that the shopkeeper has given him?
I think it unlikely that the shopkeeper has given him any specific,
legalistic, instructions. Much more likely is that the shopkeeper has
said in a roundabout way "take care of my retailing interests for me".
The question is what specific permissions can be inferred from that. I
don't think you can infer from "take care of my retailing interests
for me" that the shopkeeper has given the cashier implied permission
to rifle through the till, and swap out any coins of special high
value that the cashier may find in there.
The only exception to this would be where the cashier is given
specific instructions to "make sure the till balances". In that event,
it seems to me that the cashier *can* take any surplus value out of
the till.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 25 Dec, 23:28, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
I have read all that I can find of it on line, and various
commentaries on the case.
It isn't available in any of the free sources such as Balii.
But everything I have seen apart from your statements say that it
hinged on the fact it wasn't the same banknotes or coins.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Norman Wells
>> As regards the cashier not being allowed to substitute at will, what
>> instructions do you think it likely that the shopkeeper has given
>> him?
>
> I think it unlikely that the shopkeeper has given him any specific,
> legalistic, instructions. Much more likely is that the shopkeeper has
> said in a roundabout way "take care of my retailing interests for me".
In which case, they've been fulfilled. A 20p coin was taken for 20p's worth
of goods. After the cashier has substituted another 20p coin, whether as
the result of further transactions with other customers, a transaction
involving the cashier buying something himself and requiring change, or the
cashier merely exchanging it for another in his pocket, the shopkeeper has a
20p coin in the till. It's all he expects in his 'retailing interests', so
they have been completely honoured. What may not have been honoured are his
coin collecting interests. However, even knowing the facts of the matter
and having a particular point you wish to put over to us, they form no part
of what you consider the shopkeeper has asked the cashier to do, even in a
roundabout way.
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh5pni$n3s$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
No, because that does not involve dishonesty, therefore there would be no
theft.
If the shop assistant takes a coin he likes thinking that the owner would
consent to him taking it, there is no theft, but in this example, it would
have been very clear to the shop assistant that the owner would not have
simply let him take such a valuable coin.
>
>
>>>The shop owner had no expectation, and no
>>> legitimate right to have anything of more value in his till.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>> The shop owner has every right to expect the full value of what is in his
>> till.
>>
>>> The till
>>> will balance perfectly.
>>
>> No it won't.
>> Before the shop assistant interfered with the till, it had a higher
>> value.
>> After he interfered with it, it had a lesser value.
>> That's why it is called theft
>>
> She shop wouldn't be looking for Mules.
What difference would that make?
>
>> >The shop owner receives the correct and
>>> legitimate profit from the sale of goods.
>>
>> But he also lost possession of a valuable item which came into his
>> possession because his shop assistant decided to pocket it instead.
>>
> Be he wouldn't know that.
I see.
So if I appropriate valuable property of yours dishonestly without your
knowledge it would not be theft, simply because you didn't know you had it
or didn't know its true value?
That's a strange interpretation of theft you have there.
>
>
Steve O
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7fea28c-420b-4d01...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad there's at least one person who understands the principles involved
here.
jeez!
It's such a simple example of theft, I'm amazed that so many people are
struggling with it.
Steve O
Ok, guys, forget the 20p mule,lets look at it this way.
What if the customer had paid with a �50 watch instead of 20p?
Bear with me, because this does happen sometimes in petrol stations.
Instead of a mule, and instead of it being a newsagents, lets change it to a
petrol station and a �50 watch.
A customer gets �10 worth of petrol, goes to pay and realizes he has left
his wallet at home.
He offers to pay with his �50 watch.
The cashier accepts the transaction and the customer leaves the watch as
payment.
The cashier decides it's a nice watch, puts �10 in the till and keeps the
�50 watch for himself without telling the petrol station owner.
Theft?
If so, how is this any different from the mule?
Ste
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:51:22 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Well it did, insofar as that was the requisite proof of both dishonest
appropriation and intent to permanently deprive. It's difficult to
think of a situation where banknotes could be literally "borrowed" and
a court case could come of it - firstly because people don't borrow
banknotes, and secondly because in the natural circumstances where
they do, it's probably very difficult to prove all the ingredients of
theft (dishonesty, appropriation, intent to permanently deprive).
Bear in mind that the corrolary to your position is that, if a thief
does indeed "borrow" banknotes as, for example, security with a
moneylender, and he makes an arrangement with the moneylender that the
same banknotes will be returned upon redemption of the loan, then
technically he did not steal your money (because he clearly had
intention to return the same banknotes).
I don't have a link to either Cockburn or Velumyl, and I'm simply
working off memory here. But the basic principle was that the "promise
to pay" inherent in banknotes is an interest vested in the *bearer*.
Now, I'm not actually sure how the rules of agency work as regards
choses in action - I don't know whether you can be a bearer on behalf
of, and as agent of, someone else.
But regardless, whenever the "bearer" of the money changes, the
previous bearer's chose in action is destroyed, and a new one created.
As such, the same banknote can go between two bearers, and even though
the same banknote is returned, the same chose in action is not.
Now, as to this mule, clearly the till belongs to the retailer. Any
money in the till is clearly borne by the retailer. The question is
who is the bearer when the customer hands over the money, but before
it is placed in the till. Well the answer is that I don't know.
But if the money is borne by the retailer, with the cashier acting as
mere agent, then no doubt taking the coin is outright theft.
If the money is borne by the cashier, then there can be no
appropriation, for the money was never borne by the retailer in the
first place. The retailer's remedy in this case could only be civil
recovery. However the idea of money paid by customers first being
borne by the cashier, and basically stolen before it reaches the till,
does introduce the possibility that a cashier who steals such takings
is liable only in contract or equity - which seems out of kilter with
what one would expect.
Ste
I know from previous experience Norman that you're as stubborn as a
mule when it comes to your debating position. But I simply don't
accept this analysis, and it is not in accordance with any formal law.
There are no circumstances under which a person can infer that his
boss has given permission thus: "if a customer mistakenly hands over
something of more value than necessary according to our contract, then
you the cashier may keep the surplus value".
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, and I revel in my position as the *only* one who understands the
principles involved!
> jeez!
> It's such a simple example of theft, I'm amazed that so many people are
> struggling with it.
There seems little doubt that such conduct is dishonest. But I can see
why the legal principles involved have left people floundering -
mainly because most people here understand theft as it applies to
goods, and are merely assuming that it applies in the same way in
respect of intangibles.
Norman Wells
But he didn't give any instruction at all in connection with such a
situation as we are now discussing. Nor would he have.
The authority given by the shopkeeper, in your own words, is likely to have
been no more than 'take care of my retailing interests for me', which is
merely an obvious statement of their fiduciary relationship.
There is no reason as far as I can see why a mistake made by a customer
should just accrue to the shopkeeper's advantage. If the shopkeeper insists
on taking that advantage solely for himself, it's just as dishonest, if any
dishonesty is involved, as the cashier taking the coin. He is no more
entitled to it than the cashier or anyone else.
Steve O
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1325783b-0715-4c0e...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Really?
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
The shop wanted �10 for the fuel and got it.
The customer "sold" the watch to the cashier who then gave him �10 which he
then paid the shop with.
> If so, how is this any different from the mule?
It is no different apart from it could be seen to be two different
transactions.
Cynic
wrote:
>> And in the case of a till operator, he *does have* implicit permission
>> to "buy" coins in the till for their face value.
>Once again, you have forgotten about the aspect of dishonesty.
>It doesn't matter if you have permission to do something on behalf of an
>employer or not- if you do it dishonestly, and appropriate somethingwith
>intent to permanently deprive, then it is a theft and permission is
>irrelevant.
I disagree that the shop owner has any more legitimate right to the
windfall than the till operator. The shopkeeper's legal right is to
20p worth of coins, nothing more.
If anything, I could more easily see an argument that the cashier had
a legal duty to tell *the customer* about the value of the coin.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>No, because again the transaction is between customer and retailer,
>not retailer and agent. Consider a different situation. You are my
>butler, and I send you out to buy a specific painting which I say is a
>fake, and I give you �100 to buy it with. You meet the seller and buy
>the painting for the agreed sum. Upon your closer inspection, you find
>that the painting is in fact a genuine painting, so you sell the
>painting for �1m, and commission a new fake for me, your master, and
>you give the fake to me, and you profit to the tune of �1m minus �100.
>
>Now, is there any doubt that the butler is dishonest and has stolen
>what belonged to me (namely, the "fake" painting that was in fact
>genuine)?
In that case you have been tasked with buying a *specific painting*
for your employer. A till operator is not tasked with taking
*specific* coins from the customers, only coins with a face value of
the amount of the transaction. Moreover the till operator is
permitted to exchange those coins with ones of equal face value at any
time.
--
Cynic
Mike Ross
>On 26 Dec, 14:43, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>�You would surely in
>> that case recognise that any till operator has implicit permission to
>> exchange money in the till for money of the same face value.
>> Operating a till would be impossible to do legally if that were not
>> the case.
>
>No, the till operator does not have carte blanche to exchange money in
>the till. He has implied permission to make such exchanges as are
>necessary for making change to legitimate customers. I'm afraid I
>don't accept that his implied permission goes at all beyond that.
I think it's down to the Rules. If the shopkeeper wants to set boundaries for
handling money in the till, they have to make rules and communicate them clearly
to the operator. You speak of 'making change to legitimate customers' - OK, but
what about the person who comes in saying 'can you change a fiver, I need coins
for the meter?'. Allowed? Forbidden? Down to the judgement of the operator? What
about the operator making change for themselves, for a snack vending machine,
say? If you're going to put someone in charge of handling large quantities of
your money, you bloody well have to give them rules or SOPs. In a large
organisation the rules may be strict and detailed. In a small firm it may be as
simple as 'That till better balance at the end of the day or you're in the
shit!'.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Cynic
wrote:
>Rubbish.
>The shop owner has every right to expect the full value of what is in his
>till.
>> The till
>> will balance perfectly.
>No it won't.
Of course it will.
>Before the shop assistant interfered with the till, it had a higher value.
>After he interfered with it, it had a lesser value.
>That's why it is called theft
OK - a customer buys �10 of goods, hands across a �20 note and says
"keep the change"
Is the till operator obliged to give the extra �10 to the shop owner,
or may he exchange the �20 note for two �10 notes and keep one of
them?
--
Cynic
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh7fve$7k3$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> news:7pnmns...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> Ok, guys, forget the 20p mule,lets look at it this way.
>> What if the customer had paid with a �50 watch instead of 20p?
>> Bear with me, because this does happen sometimes in petrol stations.
>> Instead of a mule, and instead of it being a newsagents, lets change it
>> to a petrol station and a �50 watch.
>> A customer gets �10 worth of petrol, goes to pay and realizes he has left
>> his wallet at home.
>> He offers to pay with his �50 watch.
>> The cashier accepts the transaction and the customer leaves the watch as
>> payment.
>> The cashier decides it's a nice watch, puts �10 in the till and keeps the
>> �50 watch for himself without telling the petrol station owner.
>> Theft?
> No.
> The shop wanted �10 for the fuel and got it.
The shop doesn't "want" anything- it's a building made from bricks.
> The customer "sold" the watch to the cashier who then gave him �10 which
> he then paid the shop with.
The customer didn't sell the watch- he offered it as payment
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q51fj51jhd7slfg42...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:01:31 -0000, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>> And in the case of a till operator, he *does have* implicit permission
>>> to "buy" coins in the till for their face value.
>
>>Once again, you have forgotten about the aspect of dishonesty.
>>It doesn't matter if you have permission to do something on behalf of an
>>employer or not- if you do it dishonestly, and appropriate somethingwith
>>intent to permanently deprive, then it is a theft and permission is
>>irrelevant.
>
> I disagree that the shop owner has any more legitimate right to the
> windfall than the till operator.
So do I, I personally think that the overpayment should be refunded to the
original customer.
But it is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not the cashier has
committed theft
> The shopkeeper's legal right is to
> 20p worth of coins, nothing more.
No, the shopkeeper's right is the full proceeds of all legitimate sales.
>
> If anything, I could more easily see an argument that the cashier had
> a legal duty to tell *the customer* about the value of the coin.
He has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to locate the owner, or
believe that that he has taken reasonable steps to locate him.
It's a subjective test.
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0g1fj55u5ksbvulcd...@4ax.com...
A 20p mule is not a coin.
Steve O
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ns1fj51t6b97h92af...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:53:08 -0000, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks>
> wrote:
>
>>Rubbish.
>>The shop owner has every right to expect the full value of what is in his
>>till.
>
>>> The till
>>> will balance perfectly.
>
>>No it won't.
>
> Of course it will.
>
>>Before the shop assistant interfered with the till, it had a higher value.
>>After he interfered with it, it had a lesser value.
>>That's why it is called theft
>
> OK - a customer buys �10 of goods, hands across a �20 note and says
> "keep the change"
>
> Is the till operator obliged to give the extra �10 to the shop owner,
Of course not -it is a gift or tip.
> or may he exchange the �20 note for two �10 notes and keep one of
> them?
Of course he could.
There has been an appropriation but as there is no dishonesty involved,
there is no theft
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>
>
> "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:hh7fve$7k3$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>
>> "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:7pnmns...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, guys, forget the 20p mule,lets look at it this way.
>>> What if the customer had paid with a �50 watch instead of 20p?
>>> Bear with me, because this does happen sometimes in petrol stations.
>>> Instead of a mule, and instead of it being a newsagents, lets change it
>>> to a petrol station and a �50 watch.
>>> A customer gets �10 worth of petrol, goes to pay and realizes he has
>>> left his wallet at home.
>>> He offers to pay with his �50 watch.
>>> The cashier accepts the transaction and the customer leaves the watch as
>>> payment.
>>> The cashier decides it's a nice watch, puts �10 in the till and keeps
>>> the �50 watch for himself without telling the petrol station owner.
>>> Theft?
>
>> No.
>> The shop wanted �10 for the fuel and got it.
>
> The shop doesn't "want" anything- it's a building made from bricks.
>
>> The customer "sold" the watch to the cashier who then gave him �10 which
>> he then paid the shop with.
>
> The customer didn't sell the watch- he offered it as payment
The shop only has an interest in �10. If the chasier had paid it out of his
own pocket it would make no difference!
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
shop has got 20p.
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh8dhf$g5d$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
> To whom?
To the shopkeeper, via his agent, the cashier.
> The shop only has an interest in �10.
The shop has no interest in anything - it is a building.
OTOH the shopkeeper has an interest of anything of value in the till
If the chasier had paid it out of his
> own pocket it would make no difference!
If the cashier offered to buy the watch from the customer for the full �50,
puts �10 of it into the till and keeps the watch- no theft.
If he takes the watch and swaps it for a tenner without any transaction
taking place between him and the customer, then that is a different
situation as the shopkeeper could reasonably expect to receive the full
value of the watch used to make the payment.
>
>
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh8dit$g5f$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
Why would the shopkeeper not want a valuable mule?
>
>
Steve O
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh8dl8$g9q$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
It doesn't matter what the shopkeeper wants- what is important is what the
shopkeeper gets.
The shopkeeper gets an inadvertent windfall which is subsequently switched
and stolen by the cashier
>
>
Mr X
"Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote in message
> If the cashier offered to buy the watch from the customer for the full
> �50, puts �10 of it into the till and keeps the watch- no theft.
> If he takes the watch and swaps it for a tenner without any transaction
> taking place between him and the customer, then that is a different
> situation as the shopkeeper could reasonably expect to receive the full
> value of the watch used to make the payment.
I see no moral or legal justification for the shopkeeper receiving that. If
the shopkeeper wanted a watch he should have asked for one. As he asked for
�10 and he got it he has no grievance.