A game trading shop

cathy01

a shop that trades games accepted a console to trade in from a young adult age 15.
His mother had bought it for him for christmas and he decided totrade it in without her knowledge.
He got € 70 for something worth €190 new or there abouts.
When I looked on the shops web site it said terms and conditions, bring it in we will buy it and give you cash, thats it, no mention of age......
when I rang up aboput it I was told the customer service girl nevers talks to anyone over the phone, only in writeing..they where very cagey.
What do you think.
cathy

swingking

name and shame :rolleyes:

Mr. Presentable

OK. So what's it worth second hand? The shop is entitled to make a profit. What's the problem, the sellers age?

Mr. Presentable

cathy01 wrote: »

when I rang up aboput it ..they where very cagey.
What do you think.
cathy

It was none of your business, so they were being careful about disclosing information.

Gillo

The shop did nothing wrong in fairness.

As for the boy, ungrateful little f*&ker, he should only get a very small token present this year.

Gary ITR

Gillo wrote: »

The shop did nothing wrong in fairness.

As for the boy, ungrateful little f*&ker, he should only get a very small token present this year.

+1

The boy is the one at fault not the shop

cathy01

the problem is the age.Hes to young to make an agreement with the shop.Also, not that it should matter really , the boy has ADHD, and implusiveness.
The shop, refused to even acknowledge that they did something wrong.
cathy

Zonda999

I agree that it was the boy at fault.I did similiar things a few years ago when i was around that age.I did tell my parents about it though.There is no legislation sayin that this kinda thing is illegal so the shop were completely within thier rights

cathy01

is it not ture that an agreement , like that , or a contract, which is what it is, is illigeal if the person is a minor.
cathy

JohnC.

Are you saying it is illegal for someone under 18 to use a shop? Remember that contracts go both ways. Buying something from a shop is a contract too.

Gillo

cathy01 wrote: »

the problem is the age.Hes to young to make an agreement with the shop.Also, not that it should matter really , the boy has ADHD, and implusiveness.
The shop, refused to even acknowledge that they did something wrong.
cathy

The boy was only in the shop for at a guess five minutes for the trasnaction to take place, unless he has extremely bad ADHD (in which case why was he let out alone) it'd be hard for the shop to realise that he suffered from ADHD.

It's an unfortuante situation, but at the end of the day they shop did nothing wrong.

Incidently what did he spend the money on?

cathy01

no, point is , a legal agreement with a shop and a minor???
cathy

Zonda999

cathy01 wrote: »

is it not ture that an agreement , like that , or a contract, which is what it is, is illigeal if the person is a minor.
cathy

if it was like this, then a 17 year old goin into a shop for a bar of chocolate would also be illegal.I agree with another poster - contracts go both ways

razorblunt

cathy01 wrote: »

no, point is , a legal agreement with a shop and a minor???
cathy

In that case kids could never buy anything in a shop.

Gillo

razorblunt wrote: »

In that case kids could never buy anything in a shop.

Yes, but you are forgetting that contracts only matter when it suits people, if it doesn't suit them the contract can be forgotten about. It's the law you know, I heard it on the Joe Duffy show.

thefinalstage

razorblunt wrote: »

In that case kids could never buy anything in a shop.

The laws contract do not apply to essential items.

Potential-Monke

It happens thousands of times everyday when kids trade in their old games for new ones. Granted, it may not be right, but thats the way it seems to be... I'm sure if you fought it, then maybe you might get the console back. Maybe.

Taken from here, so i don't know if it's fact here.

Minors, which in most states refers to persons under the age of 18, may enter into contracts. However, anycontract involving a minor is voidable. When a contract involving a minor goes unfulfilled it may be affirmed or disaffirmed when the minor reaches maturity, or legally becomes an adult.

Also, might be interesting to look this possibility up...

Parties to a contract also must have the legal right to do what the contract promises; for example, one cannot sell whatone does not own.

You could argue that you bought it, so he didn't ahve the right to sell it...

Gillo

That's taken fom an American site so unless said kid also traded in WMD's it wouldn't be relevant here.

wyndham

No issue with his age and the price was fair.

If the console was €190 pre Christmas, chances are it has fallen in price so new price now may be €160-170, for arguments sake. Secondhand price would probably be in the region €100-€120 tops so €70 was a good price.

Try the parenting forum.

cathy01

no need for the parenting forum, its the consumer issue I felt was wrong.
I understand that that law , about minors is valid in Ireland.I also thought that terms and conditions should be shown to a person before they go into a contact such as selling the console.
Like I said they have no terms and conditions on their web site and nearly went through me when I questioned it.
cathy

Doctor DooM

cathy01 wrote: »

no need for the parenting forum, its the consumer issue I felt was wrong.
I understand that that law , about minors is valid in Ireland.I also thought that terms and conditions should be shown to a person before they go into a contact such as selling the console.
Like I said they have no terms and conditions on their web site and nearly went through me when I questioned it.
cathy

By this logic, you should also be shown terms and conditions before you buy a bar of chocolate.

Its the purchasers responsibility to know their rights, not the seller.

tbh

if the child can't be trusted not to flog the console first chance he's got, he shouldn't be left alone for long enough to do it. I know that's a perfect answer for a perfect world, but it serves to illustrate that it's not the shops fault. Saying that however, I'm put in mind of the time when an eight-year old tbh wanted spikes in his hair and the hairdresser wouldn't do it without a note from mammy.

So, should the shop have checked with the parents? Probably, although there is no obligation on them to do so.

dudara

Sorry to say this, but you need to talk to your son, and not try to apportion the blame onto the shop.

tvnutz

tbh wrote: »

if the child can't be trusted not to flog the console first chance he's got, he shouldn't be left alone for long enough to do it. I know that's a perfect answer for a perfect world, but it serves to illustrate that it's not the shops fault. Saying that however, I'm put in mind of the time when an eight-year old tbh wanted spikes in his hair and the hairdresser wouldn't do it without a note from mammy.

So, should the shop have checked with the parents? Probably, although there is no obligation on them to do so.

Bit of a difference between an 8 year old and 15 year old. Hairdressers would do what a 15 year old wanted and I would imagine a game trading shop would not take a console from an 8 year old without a parent. A teenager who is 15 and could possibly look at least 16 or 17,well then I see no reason why they wouldn't.

cathy01

emmm, just to say it was my friends son, not mine.
I think its the age thing.The legalits behind it.
Agreement with a minor.
Not displaying terms and conditions.

cathy

mickoneill30

What terms and conditions are you expecting? The kid was the seller. Is it not him that creates the T&C?
In any transaction I've ever been in the terms have been provided by the seller. The only condition the buyer normally has is to hand over the money.

If it was my kid he'd be getting the €120 value taken from his pocket money in installments so he could figure out the value of what he sold. Blaming the shop is not doing him any favours.

Actually what else I'd do is.

1: Go down to the shop with the kid and €70 and explain to them the situation. They don't owe you anything so don't mention T&Cs or get annoyed or threaten legal action (I used to work in a shop years ago and doing any of the above means that you'll get what the law says you're entitled to, which is usually less than you think). Most people are actually decent and will sell it back to you.
2: If they give it back to you, sell it on adverts.ie. Give the kid his €70.
3: Next time buy him a present that he can't sell. Like clothes. Kids love clothes

TheDriver

I agree with majority of posters here, the shop provided a service and the teen took the service and I am sure its one of their main sales.
I work with teens with ADHD etc and to be honest, it doesn't make them incompetent or incapable of dealing with shops etc so its got little bearing here, the boy is ungrateful about his Christmas Present and now his mother wants to backtrack. Approach the shop nicely but in reality, tough! Shop did nothing wrong and in fact, they must make sure the margin is enough to ensure repairs/warranties are covered if machine is out of warranty.

cathy01

Thanks all for the replies,
cathy

Musha

What if the Console had been stolen? Surely the Game Shop has some check to say that the property belonged to the Boy via receipt etc

Leaves themselves open to handeling stolen gear

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Musha wrote: »

What if the Console had been stolen? Surely the Game Shop has some check to say that the property belonged to the Boy via receipt etc

Leaves themselves open to handeling stolen gear

i would have thought that this could be an opening issue you could use to try and reverse the deal. The kid surely wouldn't have had a receipt, so you could get them on that, maybe?

Also like the idea of going to the shop and saying that the kid has ADHD and asking them if they will reverse the transaction. This approach would involve being excessively nice to them.

cathy01

really the adhd shouldnt come into it.My point was more, taking candy from a baby type of thing.
wrong.
cathy

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

cathy01 wrote: »

really the adhd shouldnt come into it.My point was more, taking candy from a baby type of thing.
wrong.
cathy

surely, it is, "taking candy from a baby and then paying them for it", as the most appropriate analogy?

parsi

I think that the OP will just have to get over it.

Kids have been hawking their possessions since time immemorial and starting to make it contingent upon receipts or being in the presence of their Mammy and Granny won't be appreciated.

In this case there isn't anybody at fault except maybe for junior not having full appreciation of his console but at the end of the day (to coin a phrase) it was a normal transaction.

chrislad

GameStop make you sign something to say the goods are yours. How can they possibly know what is stolen and what's not?

chuckles30

The problem here is between the mother and the son. The shop is the innocent party. They probably carry out this type of transaction with teenagers regularly and it's never question as the teenagers get what they want - new/updated games/consoles - and the shop makes some money, so everyone is happy.

Ian Beale

cathy01 wrote: »

My point was more, taking candy from a baby type of thing.
cathy

I've watched this thread since it was created and I have to say whats the point of this as you've read the t&c and theres nothing in the t&c about age restrictions?
The person went in and traded in their console,no legal obligation not to accept the trade in,the shops not at fault either way you look at it if the shop assistants said hey want to trade in your console and we'll give you €70 the kid still made the decision.
Its a business theres no legalities with a child selling something to them,in my view if a child is capable of communicating that he wants to trade in his console for cash then theres nothing ethically wrong with that.If it was a 5 year old now thats different but clearly this child madethe decision to trade it in.

tbh

well the point that the OP was making was that in law, no-one under 18 can enter a contract.

Ian Beale

Ah right now I see but in saying that there is nothing in the law that says a child can not exchange an item which he owns for cash/item,if there was any legal implications it would be in the t&c of all game shops to protect themselves from this kind of occurence,which I just had a look at the major ones and theres no age restrictions.
Chuckles30 was right when he said this was between mother and son and the shop was an innocent party,if someone is willing to trade in their console that they received as a present without consulting the giver well then that falls on their shoulders and not the shops as someone else has said the shop was happy and the kid was happy,if the parent was unhappy with it well then they'll have to have a word with the kid the shop fulfilled their obligation.
No-one under 18 can enter a contract - I think thats a little to broad in saying that, a 6 year old going into a shop and buying some sweets shouldn't be allowed because s/he is entering a contract by handing over money for the item.So what would be done about that?At the end of the day the responsibility is with the kid not the shop,there not under any obligation to return the console as they fulfilled their part of the agreement and so did the kid,both were happy - parent wasn't - parent should teach the child the value of money.

tbh

just to reiterate, I don't blame the shop here. If the parents didn't want him selling the console, it's up to them to enforce it. That's my opinion, tho, and I don't have kids. However, the op raises a valid point. Of course a 6 year old can buy sweets from a shop, but can a 6 year old sell sweets to a shop? If a 6 year old comes into a shop with a console, I doubt any shop would buy it, agreed? So, that establishes the fact that there's a line somewhere, right? the point the op is making is, who decides where this line is? The law says it's 18, like it does for drink, and no off-license in the country can get around that, so why should game shops be different?

again, that's not the argument I'm making, it's my interpretation of the argument I think the op is making I don't think it's as black and white as I thought it was when I made my first post in this thread.

Ian Beale

tbh wrote: »

If a 6 year old comes into a shop with a console, I doubt any shop would buy it, agreed?

Oh I do completely agree with that, my point was if a child is capable of agreeing to sell their item to a shop for €X amount and the exchange goes through thats where the line is,obviously if a child goes in and doesn't understand that their selling their console by taking the money then that I would find a disgrace and obviously try and get the console back.
However as the OP has pointed out it was a 15 year old and I think that most 15 year olds can understand what there doing in that situation,by the sounds of it it was the boys parents that were unhappy at what he had done and wanted to try and blame the shop for going through with the transaction.

tbh

and I agree with you - but again, the argument is that while you and I may say that a 15 year old is capable of that, the law says that they can't and they have to wait until they are 18. You know, the more I reply, the more I come around to the OP's way of thinking... I don't agree with it, but technically she's right.

mickoneill30

If you're legally able to work when you're 14 why is 15 too young to buy or sell something with a shop?

cathy01

that is my point.
The law was broken, in the sense that a child was allowed sell goods to a company who,
didn't ask for proof of ownership.
didn't ask for proof of age.
Didn't display any terms and conditons of exchange of goods for cash.
All three points as far as I know are against the law.
It is irresponsible of the shop to take the console without identifying if any of the above where true.
Yes the parents where annoyed, but not as annoyed as me.
I see that the shop exploit a young child, who wanted cash .
15 is a child, ok they can work in a shop , but at 16.
15, is to young.
The shop should have shown reasonable care, they didn't .They wanted to make a profit , a % of money and they did.At the child's and families expense.
its wrong.
In order to sell something to a shop they should first make sure the person selling owns the goods and that they are legally allowed to enter into a contract such as selling an item.
that is my point.
I haven't named the shop , to protect boards etc.But again when I looked at their site, there are no terms , no request for ID, .
cathy

jhegarty

cathy01 wrote: »

The law was broken, in the sense that a child was allowed sell goods to a company who,
didn't ask for proof of ownership.
didn't ask for proof of age.
Didn't display any terms and conditons of exchange of goods for cash.

What law is this ?

Or are you just guessing that is is a law?

Ian Beale

They don't have to check for proof of age thats the point if this was against the law it would have long since been stated in their terms and conditions they are reputable businesses and they wouldn't over look something like that.
As for their terms and conditions if you went up and asked to see the t&c they would show you it,thats why on the banners its says terms and conditions apply ask and you will receive :rolleyes:

As for proof of ownership thats the businesses risk by not signing any document saying its yours,last week I went into the biggest retailer of games and consoles and traded in over 60+games and I never had to sign anything no questions asked.

It was a business transaction the 15 year old would've realized this when he handed his console in and got money back from the assistant and walked out of the shop.

As for reasonable care thats up to the parents and as for the business wanting to make a profit of course thats why there in business you hardly thought they would give a big cash amount?They would've given more in store vouchers then cash :rolleyes:

Musha

I personally think that the bottom line is "ownership" of the goods, Little gurrier goes into your house, Robs Playstation, Games, DS + Games and can then go to the nearest Game Shop and "trade" them for cash surely the shop are acting as a fence they should have some duty of care at the very least for their own protection that the Person completing the transactions has rightful ownership of the goods, this should not have any age limitations on it and there are plenty of thevies out there over the age of 18. For high value items like console there would be some discreation as far a 2 year old game worth less than €20 on trade.

cathy01

law=contract with minor.child is a child.
Terms and conditions where asked for , by me, with the head office as non where viewable on their web site.I was told to send in a request in writeing.I asked could I speck to the person in relation to this and was told, she talks to noone over the phone, honestly every question I asked had to be relayed to her.

Guy:Incognito

cathy01 wrote: »

law=contract with minor.child is a child.
Terms and conditions where asked for , by me, with the head office as non where viewable on their web site.I was told to send in a request in writeing.I asked could I speck to the person in relation to this and was told, she talks to noone over the phone, honestly every question I asked had to be relayed to her.

You only seem to be looking at this "Law= contract with minor" thing from the side that suites you. If you had to go to a shop for any person under 18 that was in your care everytime they wanted to buy anything from a penny sweet to a new car youd be on giving out abouyt the ridiculous inconvenience of young "adults" (as you described him in you op) not being abole to buy things without an over 18 with them.

Nightwish

everytime a child buys something, they are entering into a contract with the store. There is no law that states the minor can be the vendor and a store the buyer. The store did nothing wrong. Its the child who was an ungrateful little git who decided to sell a gift from his parents.

If the OP personally finds the actions of the store to be reprehensible, she should take it up with the store - write a letter explaining your opinions, but just be aware they broke no law.

cathy01

why do poster keep seeing buy , I am of course referring to selling.
But thanks anyway for the replies.:)

Ian Beale

Its the same buying or selling and if your so sure that the shop did something illegal would you please post a link to the article of the law that states a child can not sell something.