If goods are paid for, can there be a theft?
the Omrud
a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she didn't
believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her teenage
daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and took the wine.
To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here? Other than the
possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"? If you take
something from a shop, leaving the payment, but against the specific
instruction of the shop keeper, is that any sort of theft?
--
David
Usenet Nutter
What was the basis of the fixed penalty ? Be interesting to hear how
that one goes ..but probably we won't.
steve robinson
Its theft because the shop did not wish to sell to her which is thier
right , leaving the money behind is not really relevant
the Omrud
I was shouting at the radio, but I agree, we probably won't find out.
The only clue is that the policeman gave her the option to take the wine
back and recover her tenner, but she declined, so he arrested her. This
indicates that he wasn't doing her for anything to do with the absurd
refusal by the store to sell it on the grounds that she was planning to
give the wine to her teenager.
--
David
The Todal
"Anthony R. Gold" <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gavif51p3dngbnd8p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:32 +0000, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she didn't
>> believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her teenage
>> daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and took the wine.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
>> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here?
>
Dishonesty is an element of the offence which the jury has to assess. I'm
not really sure how you define the word. I suppose it means a guilty state
of mind, a knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.
In her position I'd refuse the fixed penalty and let them prosecute if they
wanted to.
A court might find that she has behaved dishonestly. Strictly speaking, any
shopkeeper can refuse to sell you his wares. So what generally happens if an
irate customer takes the goods, puts the correct money on the counter and
walks off? I suppose it could be a public order offence, as well as theft.
What if she had been a child? Presumably the dishonesty could be inferred
from the fact that she would have known that she was underage and not
entitled to buy the alcohol.
>
> There may (also?) have been some civil wrong against the store.
>
>> Other than the
>> possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"? If you take
>> something from a shop, leaving the payment, but against the specific
>> instruction of the shop keeper, is that any sort of theft?
>
> No, but still the lady had no right to take the wine without the store's
> agreement. However that improper act was IMO not theft.
I do sympathise with her. But a sense of righteous indignation might not
necessarily negate an inference of dishonesty.
Periander
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:32 +0000, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm just listening to You & Yours - a woman tried to buy some wine
>> from a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she
>> didn't believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her
>> teenage daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and
>> took the wine.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
>> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here?
>
> Maybe, but if so it was not one of theft as there was no dishonesty.
Well that's jury point but I'd say that taking something after being
specifically told that you cannot take the item counts as dishonesty - but
as I say that's for the jury to decide.
All the other ingredients of the offence are there.
--
Regards,
Periander
Usenet Nutter
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
So if you want to buy booze from a supermarket is the lesson not to
take the kids with you ?
Tom Crispin
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
I went into Morrisons at Erith to buy some biscuits. In the front
foyer, before the fruit and veg, and behind the checkouts, they had a
stack of premium biscuits. To save time I picked up two packets and
took them to the Cancer Cabin to pay for them there (rather than queue
at the checkouts). The cashier refused to accept my payment saying I
had to go to the checkout. I left the correct money on the cancer
cabin counter and left Morrisons.
Surely that cannot possibly be described as theft.
The Todal
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:u1ajf5968lksvrr7s...@4ax.com...
Let's take a more extreme example. You remove some biscuits from a shelf,
and put your coins on the shelf in a small pile. You walk out of the shop
with the goods. You are challenged, and take the store detective back to the
shelf where the money is in plain view. Theft, or not?
I think if you could convince a jury that you believed you were entitled to
present your payment in this way they would probably say you weren't
dishonest - but the shop would, of course, be entitled to ban you for
failing to play by their rules.
And obviously if the coins had gone by the time you returned to the shelf
with the store detective there would be the additional evidential burden of
proving that you had told the truth.
RobertL
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:32 +0000, the Omrud
>
> I went into Morrisons at Erith to buy some biscuits. In the front
> foyer, before the fruit and veg, and behind the checkouts, they had a
> stack of premium biscuits. To save time I picked up two packets and
> took them to the Cancer Cabin to pay for them there (rather than queue
> at the checkouts). The cashier refused to accept my payment saying I
> had to go to the checkout. I left the correct money on the cancer
> cabin counter and left Morrisons.
You might as well always jump the queue in any shop just by leaving
the money somewhere and walking out.
Robert
Usenet Nutter
Is it possible the cig counter is run by non-Morrison staff ..Unlikely
but you would have screwed up the stock control as it would then show
two more pkts than the store actually had unless the assistant at the
cig counter saw what you "bought" and arranged for them to be scanned
then returned to the shelf after you left .
In your case you had not been told the store wasn't selling them to
you .
R. Mark Clayton
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote in message
news:GddKm.3615$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
She took it without permission, the shop had refused to sell it so whilst
their claim for civil damages (or restitution) will fail, it technically was
theft.
tim....
"Periander" <ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBFA4B3045E...@69.16.176.253...
No, it's a point of law upon which a judge will decide.
tim
a...@b.invalid
> specifically told that you cannot take the item counts as dishonesty - but
> as I say that's for the jury to decide.
>
> All the other ingredients of the offence are there.
I suggest you listen to the programme, it's about public lack of
confidence in the Police. From a Radio 4 audience, probably the most
pro-Police section of the community, it's quite damning. This story is
about 22 minutes into the 10th November edition.
Some points missing from the OP's post:
1. The caller volunteered her details to the police, otherwise they'd
never have found her, not the act of a dishonest person.
2. The caller offered to return the wine, so no intention to permanently
deprive.
I can't see the CPS going with this, not unless CPS Direct don't like
the locals.
Usenet Nutter
Do we know why the shop assistant thought she was intending feeding
the wine to her daughter ...That's what's confusing me .
a...@b.invalid
> the wine to her daughter ...That's what's confusing me .
IIRC the caller couldn't (easily) reach the shelf the wine was on, so
asked her daughter to do so and her daughter was carrying the basket. On
refusal they left the shop. The caller then returned without the
daughter but the shop still refused to serve her.
You and Yours archives are on the BBC website.
Alex Heney
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:15:38 +0000, Periander <ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk>
>wrote:
>By that rule any infraction that involved a motorist disobeying a road sign
>would be an act of dishonesty. Indeed even walking up the down stairs in
>the Underground.
>
Agreed.
Why do you think those things might not be?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The road to success is always under construction.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
the Omrud
It appears that the lesson is that you must not know any children.
--
David
peterwn
Yes. The wine belonged to the shop at the time the woman took it. A
magistrate / judge is quite entitled to enter a conviction in such
circumstances although the penalty would be mitigated because she left
the cash for the purchase price behind. Because of liquor licencing
implications the shop was quite right and proper in responding the way
it did. If the shop acquiesed to customers having liquor rung up, sale
refused, then the customer leaving the cash and scarpering with the
goods, its liquor licence could be at serious risk.
The reason the wine belonged to the shop is that the woman offered to
purchase the wine (that it is an offer at this stage is settled law -
the Boots case refers) and shop policy was that the offer could only
be accepted by a supervisor on behalf of the shop. A shopkeeper can
decline to accept an offer without rhyme or reason as long as the
shopkeeper is not unlawfully discriminating against anyone.
Sara Merriman
"a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
Hang on - I thought she refused to do so and then was when she was
arrested.
>
> I can't see the CPS going with this, not unless CPS Direct don't like
> the locals.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Neil Williams
wrote:
> Surely that cannot possibly be described as theft.
Surely it can, because at that point the store has not agreed to sell
them to you. It only agrees to sell them to you by way of its normal
procedure for doing so, i.e. at the checkout.
Neil
Neil Williams
> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the drink
> is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
Neil
Mordwr
Yes, the shop has the right not to agree to sell to any person.
However, even where the shop (owner) has agreed to sell, Lawrence v
MPC 1972 shows that this is not of itself a defence to theft. Outside
of the question as to whether the shop did or did not agree to sell,
was there theft? Was there a dishonest intention to permanently
deprive another of their property? Was the woman dishonest? Almost
certainly not, for there is nothing to indicate this. She turned up at
the normal, expected point of purchase, presented the item openly,
attempted to pay for it, did leave the correct payment, and clearly
had no intention to permanently deprive in an unlawful manner. The
woman did appropriate essentially all rights of the true owner by
taking the bottle of wine, but I do not at all think a jury would be
sure (for this is a criminal claim) that the woman intended to commit
theft. That is because, according to the details, the woman seems to
have held a genuine belief that she had the right, demonstrated by
paying the correct money, to appropriate the property in question.
If I were on a jury? Not guilty - very little to make me sure (or
even remotely suspicious) that there was theft.
Ste
The key is not whether the drink is bought for their consumption, but
whether it is bought "on their behalf". I know the distinction may
seem tenuous, but the key to the offence is whether the child is in
fact the contracting party in the sale, and the adult is merely acting
on the authority of the child and as the child's agent. So a parent is
perfectly entitled to buy alcohol, with their own money, for the
express purpose of giving some or all of it to a child.
However, where a child stands outside a shop and has an adult buy
alcohol for them, and gives that adult money to make the purchase, it
is clear that the transaction is on behalf of the child, and the adult
merely acts as agent for the child in order that the child may make
the purchase.
Cynic
wrote:
>>By that rule any infraction that involved a motorist disobeying a road sign
>>would be an act of dishonesty. Indeed even walking up the down stairs in
>>the Underground.
>Agreed.
>Why do you think those things might not be?
Because the words "dishonest" and "disobedient" do not have the same
meaning.
--
Cynic
Path: news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: If goods are paid for, can there be a theft?
X-Posted-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:14:26 +0000
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:15:19 +0000
Reply-To: cyni...@yahoo.co.uk
Message-ID: <5mvlf51ifqjljhpe9...@4ax.com>
References: <GddKm.3615$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com> <gavif51p3dngbnd8p...@4ax.com> <Xns9CBFA4B3045E...@69.16.176.253> <5d9jf5p9kjp4qtra9...@4ax.com> <ojrjf5plp09qgmaur...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Trace: sv3-ZwpEMLfEU0STzCIGBfq1desIRvUYXZm9nXrQFNvrDDYvQrdG/9vOFqZCojHswzAV8AhZ+4UaiN43YEj!1mize+rdl+aAsf1fSjQaVay7AvmZ5sF5IsBvsLZmSorLiGWwHC7/iyfCc/S7hWH1qsfp044J
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions uk-legal-...@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-mode...@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM �2003 Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 8204320091111181520auto
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:55:05 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>By that rule any infraction that involved a motorist disobeying a road sign
>>would be an act of dishonesty. Indeed even walking up the down stairs in
>>the Underground.
>Agreed.
>Why do you think those things might not be?
Because the words "dishonest" and "disobedient" do not have the same
meaning.
--
Cynic
GB
> In her position I'd refuse the fixed penalty and let them prosecute
> if they wanted to.
I can't believe that the Police felt obliged even to send someone round.
They simply *must* have had something more important to do.
Hopefully, the CPS will have more sense than to waste still more public
funds on this.
Presumably, the supervisor at the store felt affronted, but surely anyone
sensible would have stuck the money in the till and got on with things.
Which store? I'll boycott them.
--
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.
Steve Walker
> On Nov 11, 1:45 am, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm just listening to You & Yours - a woman tried to buy some wine from
>> a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she didn't
>> believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her teenage
>> daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and took the wine.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
>> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here? Other than the
>> possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"? If you take
>> something from a shop, leaving the payment, but against the specific
>> instruction of the shop keeper, is that any sort of theft?
>>
>
> Yes. The wine belonged to the shop at the time the woman took it. A
> magistrate / judge is quite entitled to enter a conviction in such
I think you're wrong, Peter. Theft cannot be committed w/o mens rea, and
there was clearly no dishonest intention here.
a...@b.invalid
> They simply *must* have had something more important to do.
That was the point Radio 4 was attempting to make.
Kent Police will have had to send someone round once the crime is
recorded (and since we can't agree here, it's hard to fault the call
taker for recording based on balance of probabilities), otherwise
they'll fail their Home Office targets.
FPN is by far the easiest (i.e. least paperwork and wasted time) of the
options available to the PC.
So there'll be days of wasted police, CPS and court time; and all
because some jumped up shelf-stacker had an attack of self-importance.
The system is broken.
Percy Picacity
news:7m0fs3F...@mid.individual.net:
I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
dishonesty.
--
Percy Picacity
Calvin Sambrook
news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Could someone post a reference to the law relating to this please? I feel
much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
definitive rules in this situation.
Big Les Wade
>
>I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>dishonesty.
What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>>
>>I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>dishonesty.
>
>What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
peterwn
So what is the situation if a customer sneaks behind the counter in a
chemist shop takes a medicine that needs pharmicist approval, leaves
the money on the counter and scarpers. Especially if it is Actifed or
other medicines used as precursors for making 'P'.
There was mens rea alright! And this is not rebutted by leaving the
money behind.
I would agree that if a shopkeeper is busy and the customer takes an
ordinary item and leaves the money for it, there may be no 'mens rea'
and anyway the shopkeeper would not make an issue of it.
But where there are valid and lawful reasons for refusing to sell the
item (alcohol, tobacco, medicines, poisons, etc), the 'mens rea' is
there. In such cases it is bleeding obvious why the customer was not
prepared to complete the transaction in the normal way.
The central issue of the Boots case I referred to was the requirement
that a pharmicist controlled the sale of 'pharmacy only' medicines,
and whether this requirement was met in a chemist shop operating along
supermarket lines.
a...@b.invalid
Something of a circular definition when applied to a piece of criminal
legislation.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>
>Something of a circular definition when applied to a piece of criminal
>legislation.
In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
example, it's a very relevent definition.
a...@b.invalid
> In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
> example, it's a very relevent definition.
Criminal -> Not Allowed -> Dishonest -> Criminal
Alex Heney
Not true.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Alex Heney
<indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:15:07 +0000, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Well that's jury point but I'd say that taking something after being
>>> specifically told that you cannot take the item counts as dishonesty - but
>>> as I say that's for the jury to decide.
>>>
>>> All the other ingredients of the offence are there.
>>
>>I suggest you listen to the programme, it's about public lack of
>>confidence in the Police. From a Radio 4 audience, probably the most
>>pro-Police section of the community, it's quite damning. This story is
>>about 22 minutes into the 10th November edition.
>>
>>Some points missing from the OP's post:
>>
>>1. The caller volunteered her details to the police, otherwise they'd
>>never have found her, not the act of a dishonest person.
>>2. The caller offered to return the wine, so no intention to permanently
>>deprive.
>>
>>I can't see the CPS going with this, not unless CPS Direct don't like
>>the locals.
>
>Do we know why the shop assistant thought she was intending feeding
>the wine to her daughter ...That's what's confusing me .
Omrud has clarified in another post. Apparently the mother couldn't
easily reach the wine on the shelf, so the daughter took it down for
her, and this was seen by a shop assistant.
That made them believe the mother was buying it "on behalf of" the
daughter.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't think, therefore I am not.
peterwn
In R v Cockburn [1968] 1 WLR 281 Winn LJ said:
...... nevertheless larceny has been committed because with full
appreciation of what is being done, the laecenous person, 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 on the owner a substitution to
which the owner has not consented.
So there you have it.
Don Aitken
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:50:06 +0000, a...@b.invalid put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>>
>>Something of a circular definition when applied to a piece of criminal
>>legislation.
>
>In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
>example, it's a very relevent definition.
>
The relevant (partial) definition is contained in s.2 of the Theft Act
1968. In particular, an appropriation "is not to be regarded as
dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in
law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a
third person". This is a case in which ignorance of the law *is* an
excuse.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Joe Lee
> I'm just listening to You & Yours - a woman tried to buy some wine
> from a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she
> didn't believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her
> teenage daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and
> took the wine.
> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here? Other than
> the possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"? If you take
> something from a shop, leaving the payment, but against the specific
> instruction of the shop keeper, is that any sort of theft?
I fom't see any question other than that it was an act of theft.
Did title in the goods pass to the woman? No, as there was no contract of
sale. Payment was tendered but refused (as is the right of the owner /
seller)
Was it her intention to permanently deprive the owner (of the goods)? It
would be extremely difficult for her to argue otherwise.
--
Joe Lee
Ste
Yes, but Cockburn (if I remember correctly) involved a manager
borrowing the contents of the company safe over the weekend.
Big Les Wade
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:25:06 +0000, Big Les Wade put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>>>
>>>I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>>dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>>dishonesty.
>>
>>What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
>
>Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
Really, Mark. So, for example, it is dishonest to read out the names of
dead soldiers in Whitehall? How many people do you think would agree
with you there?
peterwn
That is right and the manager's 'defence' was that he had sufficient
money in his bank account to cover the money that was 'borrowed'.
It is possible to attempt to distinguish the present case from
Cockburn, but IMO the facts while different in detail are not
materially different in essence. In both cases the offender forced a
transaction which the owner of the goods did not accept. In the
current instance too the goods were of the sort where the vendor has
to abide by legal restrictions on their sale, so a broad
interpretation of 'larceny' is warranted in this instance on public
policy grounds. The vendor chose to presume that the alcohol was
going to be passed on to a minor. The vendor was fully entitled to
make that presumption and there is no available legal redress against
the vendor for making that presumption, judicial review etc is just
not available in such a case.
The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
protection of the law in such instances.
Ben Harris
Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 10 Nov, 22:15, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
>>> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the
>>> drink is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
>>
>> But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
>> purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
>> separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
>
>much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
>definitive rules in this situation.
S. 149 Licensing Act 2003:
# 149(3) A person commits an offence if (a) he buys or attempts to buy
# alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18
# (4) A person (“the relevant person”) commits an offence if (a) he buys
# or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by an
# individual aged under 18
I think the existence of s. 149(4) demonstrates that "buying on behalf
of X" is narrower than "buying for consumption by X".
"Relevant premises", incidentally, are defined in section 159 and are
basically licensed premises and equivalents.
--
Ben Harris
Ste
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:10:24 +0000, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but Cockburn (if I remember correctly) involved a manager
> > borrowing the contents of the company safe over the weekend.
>
> that is required for an offence of theft.
That was one of the issues in Cockburn. It is not possible to borrow
money and spend it. Spending it destroys the chose in action, and what
is returned is a substitute. And of course, when I say the manager
"borrowed" the money, I mean he spent it, not that he just liked to
have it under his pillow over the weekend.
Norman Wells
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:10:05 +0000, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:50:06 +0000, a...@b.invalid put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>>>
>>> Something of a circular definition when applied to a piece of
>>> criminal legislation.
>>
>> In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
>> example, it's a very relevent definition.
>>
> The relevant (partial) definition is contained in s.2 of the Theft Act
> 1968. In particular, an appropriation "is not to be regarded as
> dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in
> law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a
> third person". This is a case in which ignorance of the law *is* an
> excuse.
I don't think actually that it's ever an excuse, even under s.2. I think
the let-outs there are for where there is a genuinely held but erroneous
belief as to the facts, not as to the law.
Path: 7564ea0f!not-for-mail
From: "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
References: <GddKm.3615$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com> <4a20a64f-821e-46b2...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <7m0fs3F...@mid.individual.net> <Xns9CC0C81D2E7...@208.90.168.18> <DhzKxf6T...@obviously.invalid> <pm9mf59d04hn98jeh...@news.markshouse.net> <eiGKm.83442$1i2....@newsfe07.ams2> <4admf5p9krgvkhjfh...@news.markshouse.net> <1dgmf5lkoe3t414lg...@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: If goods are paid for, can there be a theft?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480
Message-ID: <jrQKm.15670$yW6....@newsfe11.ams2>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.49.31.162
X-Original-Trace: newsfe11.ams2 1258017615 62.49.31.162 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:20:15 UTC)
X-Posted-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:20:05 -0000
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:25:05 +0000
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions uk-legal-...@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-mode...@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM �2003 Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 8210920091112113033KI manual
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
Don Aitken wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:10:05 +0000, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:50:06 +0000, a...@b.invalid put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>>>
>>> Something of a circular definition when applied to a piece of
>>> criminal legislation.
>>
>> In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
>> example, it's a very relevent definition.
>>
> The relevant (partial) definition is contained in s.2 of the Theft Act
> 1968. In particular, an appropriation "is not to be regarded as
> dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in
> law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or a
> third person". This is a case in which ignorance of the law *is* an
> excuse.
I don't think actually that it's ever an excuse, even under s.2. I think
the let-outs there are for where there is a genuinely held but erroneous
belief as to the facts, not as to the law.
Ste
That sounds like stretching the ordinary meaning of the words. A thing
should not be considered dishonest simply because there would be no
other offence besides theft that would cover the circumstances.
> The vendor chose to presume that the alcohol was
> going to be passed on to a minor. The vendor was fully entitled to
> make that presumption and there is no available legal redress against
> the vendor for making that presumption, judicial review etc is just
> not available in such a case.
This doesn't really matter. The question is not about the presumptions
made by the vendor, but whether a person acts *dishonestly* by
forcefully taking goods offered for sale, where the vendor *would*
have sold the goods had they known the true facts.
As I say, it doesn't sound any more dishonest than taking a paper from
a news stand, and leaving the money behind, where one is under the
impression that the vendor would agree to a sale if they knew a person
desired a sale. Here the only difference was that the vendor refused
the sale based on a mistake of fact, yet we all accept that had the
vendor known the facts which were known to the customer, then the
vendor would have agreed to the sale.
Or if you want me to pose a different scenario, consider if a man (A)
had collapsed and needed some medication, and a passer-by (B) went to
a chemist to get some. The chemist disbelieved B's story, and refused
to issue the medication, so B simply took the medication and left the
money on the counter. Is that a dishonest act, given that the chemist
admits he would have allowed the sale had he known of the true facts?
> The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
> incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
> licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
> protection of the law in such instances.
How on earth could a vendor be prosecuted for selling alcohol to a
minor, as a result of an adult unlawfully appropriating the goods?
Ben Harris
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:06 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) wrote:
>> In article <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 10 Nov, 22:15, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
>>>>> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the
>>>>> drink is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
>>>>
>>>> But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
>>>> purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
>>>> separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
>
I agree in the general case.
>>> Could someone post a reference to the law relating to this please? I feel
>>> much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
>>> definitive rules in this situation.
>>
>> S. 149 Licensing Act 2003:
>>
>> # 149(3) A person commits an offence if (a) he buys or attempts to buy
>> # alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18
>>
>> # (4) A person (“the relevant person�) commits an offence if (a) he buys
>> # or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by an
>> # individual aged under 18
>>
>> I think the existence of s. 149(4) demonstrates that "buying on behalf
>> of X" is narrower than "buying for consumption by X".
>>
>> "Relevant premises", incidentally, are defined in section 159 and are
>> basically licensed premises and equivalents.
>
>In what way do you believe that citation relates to the claim that buying
>alcohol with the intention of serving it to a child is unlawful?
Well, it demonstrates that it's true in the case where the intended
consumption is on "relevant premises". Strictly, it doesn't demonstrate
that it's false in other cases, since there could be some other law that
criminalises that, but I think that if there were such a law in 2003
Parliament would have rolled it into the 2003 Act, and if such a law had
been introduced since then it would have been made by amending the 2003
Act.
--
Ben Harris
Path: not-for-mail
From: bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris)
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: If goods are paid for, can there be a theft?
X-Posted-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:33:09 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:35:07 +0000
Organization: University of Cambridge
Message-ID: <hdgva5$t0a$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>
References: <GddKm.3615$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com> <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org> <hdgr25$ktn$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk> <enunf5lshm7a2acf1...@4ax.com>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk
Sender: USENET news <ne...@news.cam.ac.uk>
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions uk-legal-...@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-mode...@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM �2003 Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 8212020091112123509auto
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
In article <enunf5lshm7a2acf1...@4ax.com>,
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:06 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) wrote:
>> In article <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 10 Nov, 22:15, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
>>>>> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the
>>>>> drink is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
>>>>
>>>> But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
>>>> purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
>>>> separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
>
>IMO that is plain wrong.
I agree in the general case.
>>> Could someone post a reference to the law relating to this please? I feel
>>> much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
>>> definitive rules in this situation.
>>
>> S. 149 Licensing Act 2003:
>>
>> # 149(3) A person commits an offence if (a) he buys or attempts to buy
>> # alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18
>>
>> # (4) A person (“the relevant person�) commits an offence if (a) he buys
>> # or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by an
>> # individual aged under 18
>>
>> I think the existence of s. 149(4) demonstrates that "buying on behalf
>> of X" is narrower than "buying for consumption by X".
>>
>> "Relevant premises", incidentally, are defined in section 159 and are
>> basically licensed premises and equivalents.
>
>In what way do you believe that citation relates to the claim that buying
>alcohol with the intention of serving it to a child is unlawful?
Well, it demonstrates that it's true in the case where the intended
consumption is on "relevant premises". Strictly, it doesn't demonstrate
that it's false in other cases, since there could be some other law that
criminalises that, but I think that if there were such a law in 2003
Parliament would have rolled it into the 2003 Act, and if such a law had
been introduced since then it would have been made by amending the 2003
Act.
--
Ben Harris
Ian
> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here?
Try taking someone's mobile phone and leaving the going rate in cash
in exchange.
Ian
Cynic
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>>dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>>dishonesty.
>>
>>What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
>
>Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
"Allowed to do" must mean *legally* allowed to do, otherwise it would
be dishonest to disobey any person who tells you not to do something,
no matter how unreasonable their demand.
Which would make a paradox in this situation as there is 2 possible
circular arguments to be made:
1) If she was honest, then she would not be breaking the law, and so
she was legally allowed to do it and that means she was honest.
OR
2) If she was dishonest, then she would be breaking the law, and so
she was not legally allowed to do it and that means she was dishonest.
--
Cynic
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>> In what way is it circular? As far as the offence of theft, for
>> example, it's a very relevent definition.
>
>Criminal -> Not Allowed -> Dishonest -> Criminal
No, because there are lots of things that are not allowed that are not
criminal, as well as cases where being allowed to do something by
someone else doesn't stop it being criminal.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted
>>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:25:06 +0000, Big Les Wade put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>>>dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>>>dishonesty.
>>>
>>>What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
>>
>>Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>
>Really, Mark. So, for example, it is dishonest to read out the names of
>dead soldiers in Whitehall? How many people do you think would agree
>with you there?
I'm talking about dishonesty in relation to theft. That's what this
thread is about. Not any other form of dishonesty.
Percy Picacity
news:gm1of5h0rbj424gna...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:35:07 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <enunf5lshm7a2acf1...@4ax.com>,
>> Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:06 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris)
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:c0709880-dd11-44c0-bf99-2ae590131320
@d10g2000yqh.googlegro
>>>>> ups.com...
> Sorry, I had over-abbreviated. As you will see from the quotes
> still present above, the full question should have been expressed
> as:
>
> "In what way do you believe that citation relates to the claim
> that buying alcohol with the intention of serving it to a child at
> home or on other private property is unlawful?"
>
> If anyone supports that (IMO wrong) claim then I'd like to know
> the basis.
>
> Tony
I rather think Ben Harris was supporting your position, and quoting
from the Act to demonstrate that you were probably right.
--
Percy Picacity
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In article <enunf5lshm7a2acf1...@4ax.com>,
>Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:06 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) wrote:
>>> In article <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 10 Nov, 22:15, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
>>>>>> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the
>>>>>> drink is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
>>>>>
>>>>> But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
>>>>> purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
>>>>> separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
>>
>>IMO that is plain wrong.
>
>I agree in the general case.
>
>>>> Could someone post a reference to the law relating to this please? I feel
>>>> much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
>>>> definitive rules in this situation.
>>>
>>> S. 149 Licensing Act 2003:
>>>
>>> # 149(3) A person commits an offence if (a) he buys or attempts to buy
>>> # alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18
>>>
>>> # (4) A person (“the relevant personￜ) commits an offence if (a) he buys
>X-Robomod: {R}UUM ￜ2003 Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
>X-Robomod-Trace: 8212020091112123509auto
>Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-...@moderation.org.uk>
>
>In article <enunf5lshm7a2acf1...@4ax.com>,
>Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:06 +0000, bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) wrote:
>>> In article <hdevie$pvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Calvin Sambrook <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>> "Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c0709880-dd11-44c0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 10 Nov, 22:15, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is not even unlawful in the UK for a supervising adult to
>>>>>> supply an alcoholic drink to a child over the age of 5 years when the
>>>>>> drink is to be consumed at home or on other private property.
>>>>>
>>>>> But only if it was not expressly purchased for their consumption. The
>>>>> purchase decision and the decision to give it to them must be
>>>>> separate, otherwise the purchase is an offence.
>>
>>IMO that is plain wrong.
>
>I agree in the general case.
>
>>>> Could someone post a reference to the law relating to this please? I feel
>>>> much happier when I know the rules but I've never been able to find the
>>>> definitive rules in this situation.
>>>
>>> S. 149 Licensing Act 2003:
>>>
>>> # 149(3) A person commits an offence if (a) he buys or attempts to buy
>>> # alcohol on behalf of an individual aged under 18
>>>
>>> # (4) A person (“the relevant personￜ) commits an offence if (a) he buys
>>> # or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by an
>>> # individual aged under 18
>>>
>>> I think the existence of s. 149(4) demonstrates that "buying on behalf
>>> of X" is narrower than "buying for consumption by X".
>>>
>>> "Relevant premises", incidentally, are defined in section 159 and are
>>> basically licensed premises and equivalents.
>>
>>In what way do you believe that citation relates to the claim that buying
>>alcohol with the intention of serving it to a child is unlawful?
>
>Well, it demonstrates that it's true in the case where the intended
>consumption is on "relevant premises". Strictly, it doesn't demonstrate
>that it's false in other cases, since there could be some other law that
>criminalises that, but I think that if there were such a law in 2003
>Parliament would have rolled it into the 2003 Act, and if such a law had
>been introduced since then it would have been made by amending the 2003
>Act.
I think the exception to S.149 where the alcohol is to be consumed as
part of a table meal does indicate that it is false in other cases,
since that exception is quite clearly a case where the alcohol will be
bought with the direct and immediate intention of it being consumed by
the child, but that is expressly legal.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I am not a free man... but I'm reasonable!
peterwn
I already mentioned this sort of scenario. Actually 'dishonesty' does
not come into it.
> Here the only difference was that the vendor refused
> the sale based on a mistake of fact,
And as I pointed out before a shopkeeper can in most cases refuse a
sale on a whim and the customer has no legal comeback.
> yet we all accept that had the
> vendor known the facts which were known to the customer, then the
> vendor would have agreed to the sale.
Well he might have, but he chose not to and as I said the decision is
not open to challenge. The customer knew that the shopkeeper had
refused to sell the goods, but nevertheless took the goods intending
to deprive the owner of them. 'Dishonesty' is not a necessary
ingredient of the offence.
>
> Or if you want me to pose a different scenario, consider if a man (A)
> had collapsed and needed some medication, and a passer-by (B) went to
> a chemist to get some. The chemist disbelieved B's story, and refused
> to issue the medication, so B simply took the medication and left the
> money on the counter. Is that a dishonest act, given that the chemist
> admits he would have allowed the sale had he known of the true facts?
>
As I said 'dishonesty' does not come into it. B would be relying on
the defence of 'necessity' to possible charges of taking the medicine,
being unlawfully in possession of a controlled drug and administering
a controlled drug or poison. ane the defence would apply whether or
not B left the cost of the medicine on the counter. Anyway this is a
far fetched example and would only be plausible if B was a skilled
nurse or was a foreign doctor not registered in the UK.
> > The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
> > incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
> > licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
> > protection of the law in such instances.
>
> How on earth could a vendor be prosecuted for selling alcohol to a
> minor, as a result of an adult unlawfully appropriating the goods?
Because as I ever so patiently explained earlier, if customers
habitually took such goods leaving the money behind, especially if the
shopkeeper acquiesed to the practice, it raises serious issues as to
whether the pharmacist or shopkeeper were taking their
responsibilities seriously, a necessary prerequisite to remaining a
registered pharmacist or having a liquor licence. This responsibility
may include keeping restricted goods right out of reach of customers.
Ste
>
> > Here the only difference was that the vendor refused
> > the sale based on a mistake of fact,
>
> And as I pointed out before a shopkeeper can in most cases refuse a
> sale on a whim and the customer has no legal comeback.
No one is saying that they can't, but if a customer takes the goods
anyway under these circumstances then arguably the shopkeeper's remedy
is civil. In the same way, for example, as when a bank levies unfair
charges where you have specifically told them that they are not
allowed to do so.
> > yet we all accept that had the
> > vendor known the facts which were known to the customer, then the
> > vendor would have agreed to the sale.
>
> Well he might have, but he chose not to and as I said the decision is
> not open to challenge.
No one has said the decision is open to challenge. The shopkeeper has
a civil remedy in this situation, via the tort of conversion.
> The customer knew that the shopkeeper had
> refused to sell the goods, but nevertheless took the goods intending
> to deprive the owner of them. 'Dishonesty' is not a necessary
> ingredient of the offence.
Lol! Dishonesty is a necessary ingredient of theft, which is what
we're talking about.
> > > The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
> > > incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
> > > licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
> > > protection of the law in such instances.
>
> > How on earth could a vendor be prosecuted for selling alcohol to a
> > minor, as a result of an adult unlawfully appropriating the goods?
>
> Because as I ever so patiently explained earlier, if customers
> habitually took such goods leaving the money behind, especially if the
> shopkeeper acquiesed to the practice
There is no evidence that they have acquiesced to the practice, and
even if they had there is no evidence from anyone here that such
acquiescence would have been illegal (for it is *not* an offence to
sell alcohol to adults).
> it raises serious issues as to
> whether the pharmacist or shopkeeper were taking their
> responsibilities seriously,
But they're not taking their responsibilities seriously. They have
cashiers who are refusing to sell alcohol to adults. That is not
responsible, it is irresponsible and absurd.
> a necessary prerequisite to remaining a
> registered pharmacist or having a liquor licence.
You know in this situation there would be nothing stopping the
shopkeeper from physically stopping the customer leaving with the
goods. And if the customer responded with force, then that would be a
criminal offence.
> This responsibility
> may include keeping restricted goods right out of reach of customers.
The bottom line is that the shop was not acting pursuant to any public
duty. The fact that they *claim* to be doing so does not make it true.
The fact of the matter is that the adult was entitled to buy alcohol,
and they had told the shopkeeper that they were the purchasor.
Refusing to sell alcohol to an adult who has a child with them does
not in the scheme of things prevent purchases by children (for
children will just wait outside in future), and nor is merely having a
child in your company reasonable grounds to suspect that the child is
the purchasor of the alcohol. The shop acted in an absurd manner, and
the customer was rightfully angry and took the goods by force anyway.
That appropriation is contrary to law, certainly, but not a dishonest
act in my view, on the grounds that the shop *would* have sold the
goods had they known the true facts of the matter.
And perhaps in the back of my mind here is that such people actually
do the rest of us a favour, by resisting such absurd decisions. I
don't agree that the shop should be supported in their absurd
decisions, and that's why I don't think a person who disobeys such a
decision is dishonest.
peterwn
> On 13 Nov, 03:55, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Here the only difference was that the vendor refused
> > > the sale based on a mistake of fact,
>
> > And as I pointed out before a shopkeeper can in most cases refuse a
> > sale on a whim and the customer has no legal comeback.
>
> No one is saying that they can't, but if a customer takes the goods
> anyway under these circumstances then arguably the shopkeeper's remedy
> is civil. In the same way, for example, as when a bank levies unfair
> charges where you have specifically told them that they are not
> allowed to do so.
No, there is a choice of civil and croiminal remedies, or both can be
sought. Just because a civil remedy happens to be available does not
bar a criminal remedy.
>
> Lol! Dishonesty is a necessary ingredient of theft, which is what
> we're talking about.
You mean that the three ingredients of theft are:
actus reus
mens rea
dishonesty.
Now pull the other one - the first two are quite sufficient.
>
> > > > The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
> > > > incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
> > > > licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
> > > > protection of the law in such instances.
>
> > > How on earth could a vendor be prosecuted for selling alcohol to a
> > > minor, as a result of an adult unlawfully appropriating the goods?
>
> > Because as I ever so patiently explained earlier, if customers
> > habitually took such goods leaving the money behind, especially if the
> > shopkeeper acquiesed to the practice
>
> There is no evidence that they have acquiesced to the practice, and
> even if they had there is no evidence from anyone here that such
> acquiescence would have been illegal (for it is *not* an offence to
> sell alcohol to adults).
OK, thjere is no evidence in the case in hand, but I am merely
pointing out that a pharmacist or shopkeeper with a liquor licence
cannot permit repeated occurrences of people taking medicines or
alcohol in this manner.
>
> > it raises serious issues as to
> > whether the pharmacist or shopkeeper were taking their
> > responsibilities seriously,
>
> But they're not taking their responsibilities seriously. They have
> cashiers who are refusing to sell alcohol to adults. That is not
> responsible, it is irresponsible and absurd.
That is not the issue, and has no bearing on whether an offence
occurred. It is like trying to argue that setting a very low speed
limit is 'irresponsible' when trying to get off a speeding ticket.
>
> > a necessary prerequisite to remaining a
> > registered pharmacist or having a liquor licence.
>
> You know in this situation there would be nothing stopping the
> shopkeeper from physically stopping the customer leaving with the
> goods. And if the customer responded with force, then that would be a
> criminal offence.
Again that is not the issue. The shopkeeper can choose to take civil
action, apprehend the offender there and then or make a complaint to
the police who can catch up with the offender later. The shopkeeper
(and mall operator) could also rescind the offender's licence to enter
the shop or mall premises. The offender has no choice in the matter -
he or she has to take the consequences that the victim together with
the police decide to inflict.
>
> > This responsibility
> > may include keeping restricted goods right out of reach of customers.
>
> The bottom line is that the shop was not acting pursuant to any public
> duty. The fact that they *claim* to be doing so does not make it true.
Again this is not the point. Whether an offence has occurred is not
coloured by such an argument. It might possibly mitigate the penalty
or a magistrate may choose to discharge without conviction. There
would invariably be a conviction and penalty if the offender takes
items such as medicines, poisons, alcohol, tobacco or spray paint cans
which the shopkeeper has refused to sell. Whether the shopkeeper was
allegedly 'right' or 'wrong' when deciding not to sell has no
relevance.
> The fact of the matter is that the adult was entitled to buy alcohol,
You mean that assuming the alcohol was for consumption by adults, the
shop could lawfully sell it. However I do not think that anyone is
'entitled' to buy alcohol.
> and they had told the shopkeeper that they were the purchasor.
> Refusing to sell alcohol to an adult who has a child with them does
> not in the scheme of things prevent purchases by children (for
> children will just wait outside in future), and nor is merely having a
> child in your company reasonable grounds to suspect that the child is
> the purchasor of the alcohol. The shop acted in an absurd manner, and
> the customer was rightfully angry and took the goods by force anyway.
> That appropriation is contrary to law, certainly, but not a dishonest
> act in my view, on the grounds that the shop *would* have sold the
> goods had they known the true facts of the matter.
>
> And perhaps in the back of my mind here is that such people actually
> do the rest of us a favour, by resisting such absurd decisions. I
> don't agree that the shop should be supported in their absurd
> decisions, and that's why I don't think a person who disobeys such a
> decision is dishonest.
And none of this rant is relevant with respect to whether an offence
has been committed. If someone gets angry at a shopkeeper and kicks in
the shop window, this anger is no defence to a charge of criminal
damage. Similarly if the angry customer grabs an item belonging to the
shopkeeper and walks out with it, the anger is no defence to theft.
PM
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:45:09 +0000, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Usenet Nutter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:32 +0000, the Omrud
>>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm just listening to You & Yours - a woman tried to buy some wine
>>>> from a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she
>>>> didn't believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to
>>>> her teenage daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till
>>>> and took the wine.
>>>>
>>>> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a
>>>> fixed penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here?
>>>> Other than the possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"?
>>>> If you take something from a shop, leaving the payment, but
>>>> against the specific instruction of the shop keeper, is that any
>>>> sort of theft?
>>>
>>> how that one goes ..but probably we won't.
>>
>> I was shouting at the radio, but I agree, we probably won't find out.
>> The only clue is that the policeman gave her the option to take the
>> wine back and recover her tenner, but she declined, so he arrested
>> her. This indicates that he wasn't doing her for anything to do
>> with the absurd refusal by the store to sell it on the grounds that
>> she was planning to give the wine to her teenager.
>
> So if you want to buy booze from a supermarket is the lesson not to
> take the kids with you ?
My 7-year-old regularly "helps" me at the supermarket self-scan checkout by
scanning the items (including alcoholic bevvies) and putting the money in
the slot. Fortunately the staff who have to "OK" the alc transactions are
blessed with common sense.
Ste
> On Nov 13, 7:55 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The vendor could well lose his or her livliehood if this sort of
> > > > > incident occurs frequently (eg pharacist being deregistered or an off-
> > > > > licence being cancelled) and such vendors are entitled to the
> > > > > protection of the law in such instances.
>
> > > > How on earth could a vendor be prosecuted for selling alcohol to a
> > > > minor, as a result of an adult unlawfully appropriating the goods?
>
> > > Because as I ever so patiently explained earlier, if customers
> > > habitually took such goods leaving the money behind, especially if the
> > > shopkeeper acquiesed to the practice
>
> > There is no evidence that they have acquiesced to the practice, and
> > even if they had there is no evidence from anyone here that such
> > acquiescence would have been illegal (for it is *not* an offence to
> > sell alcohol to adults).
>
> OK, thjere is no evidence in the case in hand, but I am merely
> pointing out that a pharmacist or shopkeeper with a liquor licence
> cannot permit repeated occurrences of people taking medicines or
> alcohol in this manner.
They could quite legitimate permit exactly this sort of occurence,
without any adverse legal consequences. I keep trying to hammer home
*it is not an offence to sell alcohol to adults*.
> > > it raises serious issues as to
> > > whether the pharmacist or shopkeeper were taking their
> > > responsibilities seriously,
>
> > But they're not taking their responsibilities seriously. They have
> > cashiers who are refusing to sell alcohol to adults. That is not
> > responsible, it is irresponsible and absurd.
>
> That is not the issue, and has no bearing on whether an offence
> occurred. It is like trying to argue that setting a very low speed
> limit is 'irresponsible' when trying to get off a speeding ticket.
No, what you are arguing is like arguing that an administrative
mistake has caused a 1mph limit to be brought into force (with signage
erected to that effect, even), and that people who break the resulting
limit of 1mph are "dishonest".
> > > This responsibility
> > > may include keeping restricted goods right out of reach of customers.
>
> > The bottom line is that the shop was not acting pursuant to any public
> > duty. The fact that they *claim* to be doing so does not make it true.
>
> Again this is not the point. Whether an offence has occurred is not
> coloured by such an argument.
Context is *everything* in determining whether a person is honest. As
I keep repeating myself (and eventually I might say that I've had
enough), the question of whether a person's actions are dishonest,
cannot be resolved by resort to asking whether legal rights were
infringed.
> It might possibly mitigate the penalty
> or a magistrate may choose to discharge without conviction. There
> would invariably be a conviction and penalty if the offender takes
> items such as medicines, poisons, alcohol, tobacco or spray paint cans
> which the shopkeeper has refused to sell. Whether the shopkeeper was
> allegedly 'right' or 'wrong' when deciding not to sell has no
> relevance.
It has total relevance as far as I'm concerned.
> > The fact of the matter is that the adult was entitled to buy alcohol,
>
> You mean that assuming the alcohol was for consumption by adults, the
> shop could lawfully sell it. However I do not think that anyone is
> 'entitled' to buy alcohol.
No, you make a mistake again. Away from licenced premises (and in some
cases, even on licenced premises), alcohol can be given to children,
and it can be consumed by children (provided they have reached 5 years
of age). That is perfectly lawful. Understand? Right. The offence is
to *sell* alcohol to *children*. It is not an offence to sell alcohol
to adults, even if they are buying it wholly for consumption by
children.
And by "entitled", I mean plainly what I'm saying. An adult is
entitled to enter into a contract of sale for alcohol, whereas a child
commits an offence by doing so.
> > and they had told the shopkeeper that they were the purchasor.
> > Refusing to sell alcohol to an adult who has a child with them does
> > not in the scheme of things prevent purchases by children (for
> > children will just wait outside in future), and nor is merely having a
> > child in your company reasonable grounds to suspect that the child is
> > the purchasor of the alcohol. The shop acted in an absurd manner, and
> > the customer was rightfully angry and took the goods by force anyway.
> > That appropriation is contrary to law, certainly, but not a dishonest
> > act in my view, on the grounds that the shop *would* have sold the
> > goods had they known the true facts of the matter.
>
> > And perhaps in the back of my mind here is that such people actually
> > do the rest of us a favour, by resisting such absurd decisions. I
> > don't agree that the shop should be supported in their absurd
> > decisions, and that's why I don't think a person who disobeys such a
> > decision is dishonest.
>
> And none of this rant is relevant with respect to whether an offence
> has been committed. If someone gets angry at a shopkeeper and kicks in
> the shop window, this anger is no defence to a charge of criminal
> damage.
No, because there is no test of dishonesty with a charge of criminal
damage. And what is more, it is quite unlikely that the shopkeeper
would have agreed to the smashing of the window under any
circumstances.
> Similarly if the angry customer grabs an item belonging to the
> shopkeeper and walks out with it, the anger is no defence to theft.
I never said anger was a defence to a charge of theft. I said if the
conduct is *honest*, then there is no theft.
Cynic
>My 7-year-old regularly "helps" me at the supermarket self-scan checkout by
>scanning the items (including alcoholic bevvies) and putting the money in
>the slot. Fortunately the staff who have to "OK" the alc transactions are
>blessed with common sense.
Try doing the same thing at 10PM and see if the staff are equally
accomodating.
IME the supermarket in-house rules apply only after a certain time -
otherwise many people would be unable to buy booze on their weekly
shopping trip unless they find a baby sitter!
--
Cynic
Iain
news:ca1b591e-a155-4379...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Nov, 10:50, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:55 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And none of this rant is relevant with respect to whether an offence
> has been committed. If someone gets angry at a shopkeeper and kicks in
> the shop window, this anger is no defence to a charge of criminal
> damage.
No, because there is no test of dishonesty with a charge of criminal
damage. And what is more, it is quite unlikely that the shopkeeper
would have agreed to the smashing of the window under any
circumstances.
> Similarly if the angry customer grabs an item belonging to the
> shopkeeper and walks out with it, the anger is no defence to theft.
I never said anger was a defence to a charge of theft. I said if the
conduct is *honest*, then there is no theft.
-----------------
I am at a bit of a loss to understand how the removal of someone else's
property can be honest - the intention at the time was clearly to
permanently deprive.
The contract of selling had not taken place. There simply was no agreement,
for whatever reason. The wine therefore did not belong to the customer. He
therefore had absolutely no right to remove it. The fact he offered payment
in lieu, I would say has no relevance. It was not his to take in the first
place.
It could be considered as mitigation that he offered payment for the wine.
But clearly it was not being accepted at the time. Therefore no contract
had taken place, therefore the wine did not belong to him.
As we are always taught, ignorance of the law is no defence.
Am I being too basic here?
IANAL
Iain
peterwn
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
IMO this is an excellent summary of the situation and would be the way
that a magistrate or judge sees it.
Cynic
>It could be considered as mitigation that he offered payment for the wine.
>But clearly it was not being accepted at the time. Therefore no contract
>had taken place, therefore the wine did not belong to him.
Whether the person was dishonest or not would however depend upon what
*they* believed to be the case, not what the reality was.
>As we are always taught, ignorance of the law is no defence.
I suspect that ignorance of contract law might be a defence against
theft if that ignorance meant that the person had no dishonest intent.
I believe that the ignorance that is no defence refers only to
ignorance of the law being broken.
--
Cynic
Steve Walker
That may be so, but it would still be vulnerable to quashing on appeal by a
higher court. The absence of mes rea is critical, especially in the
context of s2 Theft Act
Steve Walker
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:25:06 +0000, Big Les Wade put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>>> dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>>> dishonesty.
>>>
>>> What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
>>
>> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
>
> Really, Mark. So, for example, it is dishonest to read out the names of
> dead soldiers in Whitehall? How many people do you think would agree
> with you there?
Well bowled, sir!
Steve Walker
>>>> I'm just listening to You & Yours - a woman tried to buy some wine
>>>> from a supermarket but was refused because the supervisor said she
>>>> didn't believe that the woman was not going to give the wine to her
>>>> teenage daughter. The woman left the correct cash at the till and
>>>> took the wine.
>>
>>>> To cut a long story short, she was arrested at home and given a fixed
>>>> penalty which she refused. But is there a crime here? Other than the
>>>> possible "buying alcohol for an under age person"? If you take
>>>> something from a shop, leaving the payment, but against the specific
>>>> instruction of the shop keeper, is that any sort of theft?
>>
>>> magistrate / judge is quite entitled to enter a conviction in such
>>> circumstances ....
>>
>> I think you're wrong, Peter. Theft cannot be committed w/o mens rea, and
>> there was clearly no dishonest intention here.
>
> In R v Cockburn [1968] 1 WLR 281 Winn LJ said:
> ...... nevertheless larceny has been committed because with full
> appreciation of what is being done, the laecenous person, 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 on the owner a substitution to
> which the owner has not consented.
>
> So there you have it.
There I have what, exactly?
Cockburn was taking money from his employer, with the supposed "reasonable
possibility, that he intended to replace the money.... ". He was
responsible for the management of the till & takings, so had committed a
'breach of trust' offence. He admitted he knew it was wrong.
In the present case, the lady in the supermarket left full payment
immediately and reportedly believed she was entitled to do so. She
therefore has a viable defence under s.2 Theft Act 1968.
Steve Walker
If they were stood on the street with a sign reading "Mobile Phone for Sale,
�50" .....
Steve Walker
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:25:06 +0000, Big Les Wade put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>>>
>>> I disagree. If she actually knows the law then she was acting
>>> dishonestly to make a point. Gaining money is not the only kind of
>>> dishonesty.
>>
>> What do you think dishonesty actually *means*, then?
>
> Doing something that you know you are not allowed to do.
No, that's disobedience.
Dishonesty in it's everyday usage is surely meant as encompassing deliberate
cheating, stealing or lying.
peterwn
But there is no absence of mens rea. One has to get back to basics.
The goods were taken with the intention of depriving the shopkeeper
ownership of the goods - the woman intended to consume the alcohol (or
give it to her daughter to consume). That she left money behind is
immaterial.
If you went to the Tate, took a painting worth a million pounds and
left one million pounds behind, you have still stolen the painting.
Ian Jackson
<spam...@beeb.net> writes
However, acting dishonestly may be unlawful/illegal.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dishonesty
Taking the wine was not 'dishonest'. It was unlawful.
--
Ian
peterwn
>
> I suspect that ignorance of contract law might be a defence against
> theft if that ignorance meant that the person had no dishonest intent.
>
> I believe that the ignorance that is no defence refers only to
> ignorance of the law being broken.
>
Except the aspect of contract law in question is hardly the legal
equivalent of rocket science.
Even if displaying the goods were an offer (which it is not), and the
customer's presenting them for payment is an acceptance, if the
shopkeeper refuses to hand them over, the lawful approach is to sue
the shopkeeper for breach of contract, not taking the goods so as to
deprive the shopkeeper of possession. And yet another reason a court
would prefer this approach is that it avoids a potential breach of the
peace. The law frowns on 'self help' remedies, with one of the few
exceptions being 'distress damage feasant' which enables an occupier
of land to remove trespassing livestock or cars.
Steve Walker
> On Nov 14, 8:30 am, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> peterwn wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 7:50 am, "Iain" <s...@smaps.net> wrote:
>>>> As we are always taught, ignorance of the law is no defence.
>>
>>>> Am I being too basic here?
>>
>>>> IANAL
>>>> Iain
>>
>>> IMO this is an excellent summary of the situation and would be the way
>>> that a magistrate or judge sees it.
>>
>> That may be so, but it would still be vulnerable to quashing on appeal
>> by a higher court. The absence of mes rea is critical, especially in the
>> context of s2 Theft Act
>
> But there is no absence of mens rea. One has to get back to basics.
> The goods were taken with the intention of depriving the shopkeeper
> ownership of the goods
I respectfully disagree - by her account, the goods were taken with the
intention of completing a purchase.
I assume that in NZ you pay for fuel after filling your car, like in UK?
Imagine that you squirted NZ$20 of premium unleaded into your car, and went
in to pay. An officious assistant says that you can't buy the fuel,
because in his opinion you are not going to use it responsibly.
Would you seriously say that if you placed a NZ$20 bill on the counter and
drove away, you have committed a criminal theft?
Old Codger
> peterwn wrote:
>> But there is no absence of mens rea. One has to get back to basics.
>> The goods were taken with the intention of depriving the shopkeeper
>> ownership of the goods
>
> I respectfully disagree - by her account, the goods were taken with the
> intention of completing a purchase.
But *after* the shopkeeper refused to sell them to her.
> I assume that in NZ you pay for fuel after filling your car, like in UK?
> Imagine that you squirted NZ$20 of premium unleaded into your car, and went
> in to pay. An officious assistant says that you can't buy the fuel,
> because in his opinion you are not going to use it responsibly.
>
> Would you seriously say that if you placed a NZ$20 bill on the counter and
> drove away, you have committed a criminal theft?
Assuming fuel is dispensed in NZ in the same way as here, no. Driving
up to a pump and inserting the hose in to the filler is an offer to buy,
the assistant turning the pump on so that it will deliver fuel to you is
the acceptance of that offer. There is a contract which is completed by
payment.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>peterwn wrote:
In such a case, no. But the fact that you are allowed to fill up
before paying is a key difference here. If the vendor allows you to
take possession prior to payment, in a situation where taking
possession is irreversible (to all practical intents and purposes,
anyway), then the vendor is explicitly agreeing to sell the goods to
anyone capable of taking possession. That is the case at a petrol
station, and hence if someone is willing and able to pay after taking
possession then they cannot be guilty of theft if the vendor refuses
to accept their payment. But it is not the case in a supermarket,
where payment is required prior to taking possession. In this case, if
payment is declined then the purchaser never has legal possession and
therefore if they take possession anyway then they have committed
theft.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No one has said it was his to take. The sticking point here is that,
if we say it is always dishonest to appropriate goods that belong to
someone else, then borrowing someone else's money to spend (without
their express permission), taking a newspaper and leaving the money
behind while the cashier is away, leaving a store without paying after
a credit card billing error (as per Cynic's example), even drinking
someone else's beer at a party (but having already supplied an equal
amount of the same beer), would under this test all *necessarily*
involve dishonesty (because the test is simply "taking possession of
goods that you have no legal right to possess"). It would also mean
that unknowing buyers of stolen cars, for example, faced with a
situation where the real owner simply came up to them and said "This
is my car. It belongs to me. Give me the keys." would be "dishonest"
if they refused to immediately surrender possession of the car.
And by the same token, many frauds and deceits which are not in
themselves illegal, would all be "honest" under this test, because
they do not involve any breach of the law or legal rights.
> It could be considered as mitigation that he offered payment for the wine.
> But clearly it was not being accepted at the time. Therefore no contract
> had taken place, therefore the wine did not belong to him.
>
> As we are always taught, ignorance of the law is no defence.
>
> Am I being too basic here?
Yes. Ignorance of the law *can be* a defence where honesty is
concerned, insofar as otherwise dishonest conduct was made honest by
the person's mistake of law.
Ste
>
> If you went to the Tate, took a painting worth a million pounds and
> left one million pounds behind, you have still stolen the painting.
Even if there is an employee standing in the room ringing a bell
shouting "Tate for sale!", and even if there is a price tag attached
to the painting, and even if the gallery is renowned as a place at
which you can buy fine art if you're willing to pay the price? And let
us suppose you were a renowned art collector yourself, and the gallery
had specifically invited you there to treat. But the bell-ringing
employee, not recognising you, says "I don't like the cut of your jib.
No sale!". And when he cannot be reasoned with, you slam the money
down and take the painting. Both the owners of the painting and the
employee admit that they would have sold you the painting had the
employee only realised who you were. Now was the taking really
dishonest, given that you believed (correctly) that they would be
willing to sell it to you if they only knew who you were?
Iain
> I am at a bit of a loss to understand how the removal of someone else's
-----------------
But in all of these examples, the circumstances are very different and
therefore different principles come into play - typically things like
'marche ouvert' in determining ownership.
It could be that in the original example in this thread, the vendor was
completely aware of the law and his rights in relation to the contract, and
might even have expressed them to the woman at the time. Yet the woman
proceeded to take something which was not hers because the vendor had
refused to sell it. It would appear that the vendor knew his rights because
he followed it up with the police.
I only expressed it in the principles that I was aware of. Surely without
knowing the finer details of events it is impossible to determine whether
dishonesty was in fact involved or intended.
-----------------
> It could be considered as mitigation that he offered payment for the wine.
> But clearly it was not being accepted at the time. Therefore no contract
> had taken place, therefore the wine did not belong to him.
>
> As we are always taught, ignorance of the law is no defence.
>
> Am I being too basic here?
Yes. Ignorance of the law *can be* a defence where honesty is
concerned, insofar as otherwise dishonest conduct was made honest by
the person's mistake of law.
------------------
As I mentioned above, without knowing the finer details of events, it would
be unfair to comment on the honesty of the woman's intentions.
IANAL
Iain
Iain
-----------------
Here you are providing additional circumstances and facts which clearly
alter things. Whilst certain basic principles apply, additional information
brings more into play.
In the OP's story, we were not fortunate enough to have so much detail.
IANAL
Iain
Iain
news:7m7aqsF...@mid.individual.net...
(Not quite correct netiquette to reply to my own post, I know!)
I was watching the programme, 'Don't Get Screwed', episode 1.
One of the last items was where an mp3 player was (intentionally) mispriced
very low (decimal point 'error'). A purchaser spotted it. He knew that it
was incorrectly priced. He therefore intentionally took advantage of the
error and purchased it. His payment was accepted and he left the shop. The
vendor went after him, explained the error in pricing and took the mp3
player back. He was eventually forced to accept a credit note.
It was explained that the shop was in error. The purchase contract had been
completed and the mp3 player was legally the purchaser's. It was wrong for
the shop to take back the mp3 player.
Here, the purchaser's intentions could be described as 'dishonest' because
he was absolutely aware that the mp3 player had been incorrectly priced. He
took advantage of this and was able to purchase it at the 'incorrect' price.
The law supported his purchase.
Whilst this particular incident covers the incorrect pricing of an item, it
nonetheless seems to confirm that the contracted action of purchase
(payment - and it is reasonable to assume that the payment must be accepted)
is the key factor here, and the 'dishonest' intention of taking advantage of
the pricing error is of little significance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nnnt3/b00nvxf1/Dont_Get_Screwed_Episode_1/
starting at position 18:39.
IANAL
Iain
Ste
> "Iain" <s...@smaps.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7m7aqsF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> starting at position 18:39.
I watched that programme on television. I too am of the view that that
customer's actions were fundamentally dishonest, but there is no test
of honesty when entering a contract, and the shop nevertheless entered
the contract. The goods therefore sold to the customer, and could not
be taken back.
But I fail to see what this adds to the present discussion.
Percy Picacity
news:2db078f2-f378-43eb-bd62-39eae1802319
@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.co
m:
> On 14 Nov, 12:50, "Iain" <s...@smaps.net> wrote:
>> "Iain" <s...@smaps.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7m7aqsF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:48886d66-3018-4602-befe-e422fb69b093
@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups
>> >.com...
>> rew... starting at position 18:39.
>
> I watched that programme on television. I too am of the view that
> that customer's actions were fundamentally dishonest, but there is
> no test of honesty when entering a contract, and the shop
> nevertheless entered the contract. The goods therefore sold to the
> customer, and could not be taken back.
This is not absolutely true. At least, there is no test of honesty,
but there is a test of intention and knowledge. If a valuable
machine tool was being sold, and an employee carelessly sold it for
150,000GBP when it should have been 1,500,000GBP, then the selling
company would probably not be bound by the contract which was the
result of a mistake. In the case of the MP3 player it is a bit of a
grey area, but if it was one of the posh ipods and there was a three
figure sum involved the shop might well succeed in getting it
returned by a court.
--
Percy Picacity
Ste
I'm not sure to be honest Percy. I briefly checked Chitty before
making my previous reply. I didn't scour the work, but there seemed to
be no obvious way to avoid such a contract once there had been offer
and acceptance. It would, on the one hand, seem absurd that a vendor
could rescind a binding contract because he later says "I meant to
sell the goods for more, and the buyer should have known they were
worth more". I would think it safe to say that, if a buyer acts
honestly and conscionably, then there could be no rescission at all
and the contract would be binding on the vendor.
On the other hand, in cases where the purchasor has acted
unconscionably, and has taken advantage of an obvious and extreme
pricing mistake, then I'm sure the court would strain every sinew to
find a technicality on which to void the contract - no doubt they'd
try to say the vendor's employee acted outside his authority, for
example. Also, if the mistake was discovered before the goods were
delivered, and the vendor refused to deliver up the goods, and the
buyer sued for damages instead, perhaps the court would use it's
discretion to award only the sale price rather than the replacement
value in damages. Alternatively, perhaps there would be equitable
relief available to the vendor, for example unjust enrichment.
But certainly, with a sale at the level of ££ or £££ involving a large
corporation, I don't think a court would interfere with the bargain on
any account, no matter how reprehensible the buyer's actions may
appear.
Percy Picacity
news:c3876177-ca5e-49fa-b0fe-70cc7eff0116
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
:
Well I am not a lawyer, but I suggest you look up "mistake" in a
basic contract law book.
--
Percy Picacity
peterwn
wrote:
>
> >I assume that in NZ you pay for fuel after filling your car, like in UK?
> >Imagine that you squirted NZ$20 of premium unleaded into your car, and went
> >in to pay. An officious assistant says that you can't buy the fuel,
> >because in his opinion you are not going to use it responsibly.
>
> >Would you seriously say that if you placed a NZ$20 bill on the counter and
> >drove away, you have committed a criminal theft?
>
> In such a case, no. But the fact that you are allowed to fill up
> before paying is a key difference here. If the vendor allows you to
> take possession prior to payment, in a situation where taking
> possession is irreversible (to all practical intents and purposes,
Which it is not. Service stations in NZ have been known to drain /
syphon petrol out where the purchaser has insufficient money.
> anyway), then the vendor is explicitly agreeing to sell the goods to
> anyone capable of taking possession. That is the case at a petrol
> station, and hence if someone is willing and able to pay after taking
> possession then they cannot be guilty of theft if the vendor refuses
> to accept their payment.
The mode of payment must be acceptable to the vendor ie cash to 'legal
tender' limits or an acceptable card which actually works.
See below for an instance where a vendor may refuse to complete a
sale.
> But it is not the case in a supermarket,
> where payment is required prior to taking possession. In this case, if
> payment is declined then the purchaser never has legal possession and
> therefore if they take possession anyway then they have committed
> theft.
>
I woud argue that you have not taken possession of the petrol unless
it is paid for (or the vendor allows a credit sale) You no more take
possession of the petrol than you would with peanuts if you fill a bag
with 'bulk' peanuts in a supermarket. If you eat the peanuts on route
to the checkout, you have committed theft.
If you put the petrol into a container not allowed by law (eg you are
purchasing it for a lawn mower, outboard motor etc), the contract is
illegal and the vendor need not complete it. The purchaser would still
need to pay for the petrol and the vendor would need to dispose of the
(now) tainted petrol in a safe manner at the expense of the
purchaser. If at that point the purchaser leaves the money and does a
'runner' with the container of petrol, theft would have occurred. The
vendor may choose to make an issue of it to deflect any claims that he
acquieses to the filling of containers not allowed by law.
That a shopkeeper will ordinarily complete sales without challenging
them does not provide a defence for theft in the odd casev where the
shopkeeper declines to complete the sale.
Ste
That's exactly what I did do Percy. I checked Chitty on Contract, 29th
Ed. (4th Supp.), and "Mistake" was precisely the chapter I looked at.
As I say I had only checked it very briefly, but this time I have
scoured it, and I can give you an authoritative answer.
You have two potentially different situautions here. One is where the
vendor makes an offer, which the buyer purports to accept. And the
other is where the buyer makes an offer (whether following an
invitation to treat or not), which the vendor purports to accept.
In the latter case (which will be the most common case where goods are
advertised as being for sale), where the buyer makes the offer, and
the vendor accepts the plain offer, there is no remedy. To quote
Chitty directly: "A mistake which is entirely the product of the
[acceptor's] own carelessness will afford no ground for relief, except
(perhaps) in the case of considerable harshness or hardship".
In the former case, where the vendor makes the offer, and the buyer
"snaps up" an offer in which there has been an obvious mistake, there
may be relief available to the vendor (including, in some cases,
ordering performance of the contract on the terms *intended* by the
vendor). In cases where the mistake is not obvious and the buyer acts
honestly in accepting the offer, there is a grey area which will
depend on the circumstances, but regularly the vendor will be bound.
The basic rule, then, seems to be that there is relief available for
vendors, where a buyer takes unconscionable advantage of an obvious
mistake in the vendor's offer. However, there is no relief available
to vendors when the buyer makes an offer, and the vendor *accepts* the
plain terms of the buyer's offer.
So, in other words, if a buyer walks into a shop offers £15 for an
iPod (suspecting that it is marked up incorrectly), and the retailer
says yes, then it is not enough for the retailer to later say "we
meant to sell it for more". Again to quote directly from Chitty: "It
is not sufficient that one party knows the other has entered the
contract under a mistake of some kind". There has been offer and
acceptance without any misrepresentation by the buyer, and without any
mistake as to the terms or subject matter of the offer, and so the
retailer is bound.
peterwn
I did not know that the Tate had exhibitions of paintings that were
for sale. Anyway AFAIK purchasers do not take possession of such
paintings until the exhibition closes - so there.