Theft or not...
Discussion
Red 4 said:
But he was not just willing to pay - he actually paid.
There is no dishonesty if he left full payment for the goods. There is no intent. You must prove mens rea (state of mind) to prove dishonesty.
Case dismissed .....
But he didn't pay, he merely offered payment, title to the goods does not pass to him until that payment is accepted by the retailer which it clearly wasn't.There is no dishonesty if he left full payment for the goods. There is no intent. You must prove mens rea (state of mind) to prove dishonesty.
Case dismissed .....
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 12th July 12:55
So when he left the store the goods remained the property of the retailer and the cash on the counter the property of the customer.
I don't dispute that the police would be very unlikely to take any action though, except charge him with being a selfish inconsiderate twunt perhaps ....
PurpleMoonlight said:
But he didn't pay, he merely offered payment, title to the goods does not pass to him until that payment is accepted by the retailer which it clearly wasn't.
So when he left the store the goods remained the property of the retailer and the cash on the counter the property of the customer.
I don't dispute that the police would be very unlikely to take any action though, except charge him with being a selfish inconsiderate twunt perhaps ....
It doesn't matter.So when he left the store the goods remained the property of the retailer and the cash on the counter the property of the customer.
I don't dispute that the police would be very unlikely to take any action though, except charge him with being a selfish inconsiderate twunt perhaps ....
You will not be able to prove dishonesty and the offence is not complete.
There's a stated case for this somewhere, but I can't remember the details and I'm not in a position to look it up.
I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
Mk3Spitfire said:
There's a stated case for this somewhere, but I can't remember the details and I'm not in a position to look it up.
I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
That would make a fair amount of sense to me actually. In terms of whether the honest, reasonable person would see something as dishonest, I can see a difference between helping yourself to someone else's property and leaving an amount of money that he might (or might not) have been willing to sell it for, and taking something which was already offered for sale and leaving the amount of money which was asked for it. I'm struggling to see the latter as dishonest myself - obnoxious and bad mannered perhaps, but not dishonest.I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
(And before anyone points out that a price tag in a shop is technically not an offer but an invitation to treat, the test is whether an honest reasonable person would see it as dishonest, not whether someone with a detailed knowledge of contract law and slightly pedantic tendencies would see it as dishonest
)My understanding is that the price (which is an invitation to treat, not set in stone) and therefore the amount left is irrelevant.
An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My understanding is that the price (which is an invitation to treat, not set in stone) and therefore the amount left is irrelevant.
An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
Rich people don't steal?An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
PurpleMoonlight said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My understanding is that the price (which is an invitation to treat, not set in stone) and therefore the amount left is irrelevant.
An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
Rich people don't steal?An item can be priced at a pound, you can hand over a pound, and the shop can say they now want £2. The marked price is a invitation to buy, not a set in stone price.
But for theft there must be dishonesty. A la Richard Madeley, who left the store with wine he hadn't paid for or even attempted to pay for. But in court he demonstrated that he paid for the rest of the goods, and he had £300K sitting in his current account, and he had no intention of not paying, it was an oversight. So he got off. I don't even like Richard Madeley but that was clearly the correct verdict.
Don't you think ability to pay is a factor? Many people steal from shops because they have no money and they need to sell what they steal to buy drugs or whatever. If you can demonstrate ability to pay in spades, it removes one of the possible motives.
What is it about that that you object to?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not sure I said that. But I think that showing you had the capacity to pay is a valid part of a defense case. Along with being in your 40s with no previous history and having paid for the vast majority of what you walked out with.
Don't you think ability to pay is a factor? Many people steal from shops because they have no money and they need to sell what they steal to buy drugs or whatever. If you can demonstrate ability to pay in spades, it removes one of the possible motives.
What is it about that that you object to?
People with money steal for the thrill of getting away with it. Having one item you stole among many that you paid for is typical.Don't you think ability to pay is a factor? Many people steal from shops because they have no money and they need to sell what they steal to buy drugs or whatever. If you can demonstrate ability to pay in spades, it removes one of the possible motives.
What is it about that that you object to?
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 12th July 16:56
Mk3Spitfire said:
There's a stated case for this somewhere, but I can't remember the details and I'm not in a position to look it up.
I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
What's wrong with writin "milk"?I do recall though, that were you to walk down the street in the early hours and fancy a cool bovine based refreshing drink, if you were to take it from someone's doorstep and leave the money, it would still be classed as theft, but were you to take it from a milk float and leave the money, it would not. Dissimilar I know, but still interesting.
Here's where I'm confused. The theory is great, but so far quite a few seem to think it's Ok and not theft. On that basis what's stopping me walking into any shop, throwing a tenner on the checkout desk and walking out with say a £500 suit?
Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 12th July 18:12
LoonR1 said:
Here's where I'm confused. The theory is great, but so far quite a few seem to think it's Ok and not theft. On that basis what's stopping me walking into any shop, throwing a tender on the checkout desk and walking out with say a £500 suit?
For that matter what is to stop me simply walking out with the suit throwing nothing on the checkout desk, just letting the cashier know i've not paid for itLoonR1 said:
Here's where I'm confused. The theory is great, but so far quite a few seem to think it's Ok and not theft. On that basis what's stopping me walking into any shop, throwing a tender on the checkout desk and walking out with say a £500 suit?
The crux of the matter is whether or not it's "honest". Honest according to a reasonable person. Leaving £10 for a £500 suits is likely to be seen as dishonest.
Leaving £500 for a £500 suit is less likely to be seen as dishonest.
With the original example I learn to the side of it not being theft, just ignorant and impatient.
LoonR1 said:
Here's where I'm confused. The theory is great, but so far quite a few seem to think it's Ok and not theft. On that basis what's stopping me walking into any shop, throwing a tender on the checkout desk and walking out with say a £500 suit?
The Ghosh test.Firstly, do reasonable people believe that it's honest to chuck a tenner at a cashier and get a £500 suit in exchange? That is the objective test and would clearly not be met.
We can then move on to the subjective limb.
Do you believe that it's honest? If you do, great - it's an affirmative defence, which means that the burden is on you to demonstrate why it's honest, or at least that you genuinely believe it. If you don't believe it, the appropriation is dishonest and assuming that it is indeed property belonging to another (i.e., the shop isn't a dry cleaner and you aren't picking up your own £500 suit that they've just cleaned for a tenner), that you have appropriated it (which you've just described doing), and there is an intention to permanently deprive then it's theft.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff