Theft or not...
Discussion
Zeeky said:
tenpenceshort said:
...I think you ought to revisit the meaning of 'dishonest'. In the OP circumstances, leaving sufficient money to cover the goods but openly refusing to wait for them to be scanned may be uncooperative, but it is not dishonest. It is not untrustworthy, deceitful or insincere in any way.
That is your opinion. It may be popular opinion but it isn't mine. In these circumstances there is sufficient detriment to the owner of the goods for it to be dishonest. In my opinion. You are correct to point out that the mere fact that consent has not been given isn't dishonest but it doesn't follow that it cannot be dishonest because he left some cash behind. No amount of opinion can state the law on this point because it is simply a matter of opinion.
It's interesting.
The bit about payment in the Theft Act effectively covers taking items that aren't for sale and leaving payment. For instance if you took away the dustbin at the side of my garage, but posted money sufficient to equate to its value through my letterbox, or even in excess of its worth, then theft would have been committed. There was no contract to sell and buy - the bin was obviously not intended for sale so the taker is dishonest.
Now a shop displays goods for sale. This is an invitation to enter into a contract with them to buy the goods. In this case the man picked up goods to value potentially unknown, then left money on the side. We don't know his thought processes. He may have kept a record of all the unit prices as he was going round, totalled up on a piece of paper, and left the correct amount. Alternatively he may have just left what he thought the goods were worth. He may even, in frustration, have paid the shop less.
Therefore we start to come back to dishonesty. It would have to be tested in court: his thought process would be key really. If he was thinking along the lines of: "This is probably enough money, if it isn't I don't care and they can p
s off" then we have dishonesty. We don't know that but it's a possible scenario. Therefore potentially enough to charge for theft, if not perhaps convict for it. Leaving an amount of money doesn't negate dishonesty as in the example above.
The bit about payment in the Theft Act effectively covers taking items that aren't for sale and leaving payment. For instance if you took away the dustbin at the side of my garage, but posted money sufficient to equate to its value through my letterbox, or even in excess of its worth, then theft would have been committed. There was no contract to sell and buy - the bin was obviously not intended for sale so the taker is dishonest.
Now a shop displays goods for sale. This is an invitation to enter into a contract with them to buy the goods. In this case the man picked up goods to value potentially unknown, then left money on the side. We don't know his thought processes. He may have kept a record of all the unit prices as he was going round, totalled up on a piece of paper, and left the correct amount. Alternatively he may have just left what he thought the goods were worth. He may even, in frustration, have paid the shop less.
Therefore we start to come back to dishonesty. It would have to be tested in court: his thought process would be key really. If he was thinking along the lines of: "This is probably enough money, if it isn't I don't care and they can p
s off" then we have dishonesty. We don't know that but it's a possible scenario. Therefore potentially enough to charge for theft, if not perhaps convict for it. Leaving an amount of money doesn't negate dishonesty as in the example above. 
MagneticMeerkat said:
It's interesting.
The bit about payment in the Theft Act effectively covers taking items that aren't for sale and leaving payment. For instance if you took away the dustbin at the side of my garage, but posted money sufficient to equate to its value through my letterbox, or even in excess of its worth, then theft would have been committed. There was no contract to sell and buy - the bin was obviously not intended for sale so the taker is dishonest.
Now a shop displays goods for sale. This is an invitation to enter into a contract with them to buy the goods. In this case the man picked up goods to value potentially unknown, then left money on the side. We don't know his thought processes. He may have kept a record of all the unit prices as he was going round, totalled up on a piece of paper, and left the correct amount. Alternatively he may have just left what he thought the goods were worth. He may even, in frustration, have paid the shop less.
Therefore we start to come back to dishonesty. It would have to be tested in court: his thought process would be key really. If he was thinking along the lines of: "This is probably enough money, if it isn't I don't care and they can ps off" then we have dishonesty. We don't know that but it's a possible scenario. Therefore potentially enough to charge for theft, if not perhaps convict for it. Leaving an amount of money doesn't negate dishonesty as in the example above.
There was only one item and it was a newspaper so payment was probably correct. The bit about payment in the Theft Act effectively covers taking items that aren't for sale and leaving payment. For instance if you took away the dustbin at the side of my garage, but posted money sufficient to equate to its value through my letterbox, or even in excess of its worth, then theft would have been committed. There was no contract to sell and buy - the bin was obviously not intended for sale so the taker is dishonest.
Now a shop displays goods for sale. This is an invitation to enter into a contract with them to buy the goods. In this case the man picked up goods to value potentially unknown, then left money on the side. We don't know his thought processes. He may have kept a record of all the unit prices as he was going round, totalled up on a piece of paper, and left the correct amount. Alternatively he may have just left what he thought the goods were worth. He may even, in frustration, have paid the shop less.
Therefore we start to come back to dishonesty. It would have to be tested in court: his thought process would be key really. If he was thinking along the lines of: "This is probably enough money, if it isn't I don't care and they can p
s off" then we have dishonesty. We don't know that but it's a possible scenario. Therefore potentially enough to charge for theft, if not perhaps convict for it. Leaving an amount of money doesn't negate dishonesty as in the example above. MagneticMeerkat said:
Therefore we start to come back to dishonesty. It would have to be tested in court: his thought process would be key really. If he was thinking along the lines of: "This is probably enough money, if it isn't I don't care and they can p
s off" then we have dishonesty. We don't know that but it's a possible scenario. Therefore potentially enough to charge for theft, if not perhaps convict for it. Leaving an amount of money doesn't negate dishonesty as in the example above. As with most criminal offences you need to prove intent - in the case of theft you need to prove that the man knew his actions were dishonest and went ahead anyway.
It is called mens rea - state of mind.
If he left sufficient funds to pay for the goods and did not consider himself to be acting dishonestly there is no offence.
Mk3Spitfire said:
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
Absolutely the correct classification. If you deprived me of my morning Bovril, I would want you to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible 
Whilst I don't in any way condone shoplifting, the problem is that many high street retailers make it far easier to steal stuff than pay for it.
The understaffed tills are often hidden at the back of the store or in some other obscure place, rather than than in the obvious place which is beside the exit. By the time you've trekked around the store and eventually found the pay desk, you have to stand in line to pay, behind an inevitably slow moving queue. There you slowly lose the will to live, knowing that should you have chosen, you could in all probability, have escaped with your loot and been long gone, with very little chance of detection and lot less hassle.
The whole point of running any retail establishment is to get customers money in the till. Why they chose to make it so unnecessarily difficult is beyond me.
The understaffed tills are often hidden at the back of the store or in some other obscure place, rather than than in the obvious place which is beside the exit. By the time you've trekked around the store and eventually found the pay desk, you have to stand in line to pay, behind an inevitably slow moving queue. There you slowly lose the will to live, knowing that should you have chosen, you could in all probability, have escaped with your loot and been long gone, with very little chance of detection and lot less hassle.
The whole point of running any retail establishment is to get customers money in the till. Why they chose to make it so unnecessarily difficult is beyond me.
gcollins said:
There was only one item and it was a newspaper so payment was probably correct.
The newsagent near where I lived had a pile of change on the counter. Early in the morning, whilst the shop owner was stacking shelves etc you'd pay for your paper by adding the appropriate amount to the pile, taking change as appropriate. Seems a sensible way to do business.How about this mate goes to currys to bay washing machine and dishwasher.
Has £500 cash on him to pay and tells the guy this whilst choosing the appliances.
Chooses the appliances and gets 3 year warranty deal at discount price so now needs to pay £560.
Gives the chap at the till £500 cash and states he will pay the rest by card.
Guy on till proceeds to have something I would describe as a senior moment (guy was late 50s early 60s) and is the same person all the way through the sale. My mate puts his card in the chip and pin machine the guy then enters £600 cash into the till and gives my mate £40 change and he walks about with the goods.
Now I asked when outside and he was like yea not sure what was going on but hey ho cash back.
Is that theft?
Has £500 cash on him to pay and tells the guy this whilst choosing the appliances.
Chooses the appliances and gets 3 year warranty deal at discount price so now needs to pay £560.
Gives the chap at the till £500 cash and states he will pay the rest by card.
Guy on till proceeds to have something I would describe as a senior moment (guy was late 50s early 60s) and is the same person all the way through the sale. My mate puts his card in the chip and pin machine the guy then enters £600 cash into the till and gives my mate £40 change and he walks about with the goods.
Now I asked when outside and he was like yea not sure what was going on but hey ho cash back.
Is that theft?
Assuming he knew what was going on (i.e., saw that the amount rung up was over) then I would say yes, as ordinary, reasonable people would consider that dishonest and the defendant would have no special reason not to know that.
If he thought the washing machine was £500 and it rung up at the till at £400 then that is not dishonest, because he is legitimately only being asked for less than he thought.
If he thought the washing machine was £500 and it rung up at the till at £400 then that is not dishonest, because he is legitimately only being asked for less than he thought.
CYMR0 said:
Assuming he knew what was going on (i.e., saw that the amount rung up was over) then I would say yes, as ordinary, reasonable people would consider that dishonest and the defendant would have no special reason not to know that.
If he thought the washing machine was £500 and it rung up at the till at £400 then that is not dishonest, because he is legitimately only being asked for less than he thought.
Interesting he hasn't heard anything I felt sorry for the guy when they work out his till £100 down! Working in retial when I was 16 I rmember being £20 down one day and getting a right telling off so I can relate to certain degree.If he thought the washing machine was £500 and it rung up at the till at £400 then that is not dishonest, because he is legitimately only being asked for less than he thought.
gcollins said:
Whilst queuing to pay for goods at my local Tescos last week a gentleman decided rather than wait, he decided to walk past the counter with his money, leave it at the counter and walk out. The nice lady tried to explain that she had to scan his items but the gent was having none of it.
So is this theft/shoplifting. He had paid but has no receipt.
78 posts in and still no-one has spotted the most glaring error in your opening post. How can someone be called a gentleman and act in such an offensive way?So is this theft/shoplifting. He had paid but has no receipt.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff