Theft or not...
Discussion
jbsportstech said:
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?
Yes, those extended warranties are fHas £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?
king scandalous!I have done exactly this in my local WH Smiths quite a few times.
Pop in to buy a newspaper to read over lunch, for some reason WH Smith have decided it is best to only have one till operating at their busiest time.
Think what you like but I am not prepared to queue for 20 minutes just to buy a paper or magazine to read over lunch. You actually see lots of people join the queue and give up - leaving stuff behind..lots of tutting, looking at watches etc.
So, I show them what paper I have, pop down the exact change on the desk and walk out.
Not been arrested yet....
Pop in to buy a newspaper to read over lunch, for some reason WH Smith have decided it is best to only have one till operating at their busiest time.
Think what you like but I am not prepared to queue for 20 minutes just to buy a paper or magazine to read over lunch. You actually see lots of people join the queue and give up - leaving stuff behind..lots of tutting, looking at watches etc.
So, I show them what paper I have, pop down the exact change on the desk and walk out.
Not been arrested yet....
PurpleMoonlight said:
sparkythecat said:
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.
Probably because the losses through theft are less than the salaries they would have to pay people.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.
I guess the same could happen in store, buying wine.
Nimby said:
gcollins said:
There was only one item and it was a newspaper so payment was probably correct.
What if he hadn't paid but said he was going to read it and then bring it back? Would that fail the "intent to permanently deprive" condition for theft?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff