Is a retailer legally obligated to give change?

Dermo

Hi all, an interesting discussion (in my opinion) has popped up over here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056333607

The OP was complaining that Gamestop had stopped giving him 1cent in change because they didn't have any. I remembered reading some posts a good while ago in Consumer Issues that declared a retailer did not have to give change.
(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...6050563&page=4
&
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056036617)

When the customer is handing over the money they are making an offer to buy a product for the amount of money they are handing over. Change is only given out due to standard business practices.
I have been looking around for the legalese but IANAL and suck at even understanding a lot of legalese.

Does anyone have any insight, or preferably some laws that clearly define that? (I have a sneaking suspicion someone will find the correct law but the wording will be absolutely no help at all )

littlemac1980

Ok I had made a reply, but I've rethought it, as I'm not 100% sure as to the offerer in such a transaction. It seems it is actually the customer who makes the offer, that according to Pharmeceutical Society -v- Boots.

However, that wouldn't matter, in this case, as it is clearly the intention of a customer to offer, the displayed price - which incidentally is an invitation to treat. To offer more would not be logical, and handing over extra could only be interpreted as a necessity of commercial transactions. It therefore would be an impled term of the contract that the seller refund the difference, from their till.

Lest there be any doubt as to the intention of the parties, or the mutual meeting of minds as regards the price, then the receipt, issued by the seller (as they are obliged to do) would be clear evidence that would contradict any claim the seller might attempt to make that they intended to charge more before the money was handed in.

So in my opinion the claim that a shop is entitled to keep change is nonsense.

MagicSean

If a shop really had that big a problem sourcing 1c coins (a ridiculous excuse) then they should not sell things for €x.99. I never understood the point of this practice of awkward pricing anyway. Why is Ireland so obsessed with prices ending in 9?

Manach

The <x>.99 makes it look cheaper, so subconsiencously beguiling the shopper?

Dermo

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Ok I had made a reply, but I've rethought it, as I'm not 100% sure as to the offerer in such a transaction. It seems it is actually the customer who makes the offer, that according to Pharmeceutical Society -v- Boots.

However, that wouldn't matter, in this case, as it is clearly the intention of a customer to offer, the displayed price - which incidentally is an invitation to treat. To offer more would not be logical, and handing over extra could only be interpreted as a necessity of commercial transactions. It therefore would be an impled term of the contract that the seller refund the difference, from their till.

Lest there be any doubt as to the intention of the parties, or the mutual meeting of minds as regards the price, then the receipt, issued by the seller (as they are obliged to do) would be clear evidence that would contradict any claim the seller might attempt to make that they intended to charge more before the money was handed in.

So in my opinion the claim that a shop is entitled to keep change is nonsense.

Well I'm not just curious in this case. I'm curious about if there is an actual legal ruling and under what conditions it has against it.

If a receipt is given, then I agree, it is 100% proof that the contract is for example €49.99 amount and the buyer should not have to pay anything more.
But is it legal for a shop to say no we don't have any change and your choice is to either leave without finishing the transaction or to make a counter offer (in this case the full €50) and forfeiting their change? And in this case is it then illegal for the receipt to say €49.99 instead of €50?

This is all very confusing to me, and I've probably had a few too many coffees

edit: inserted quoted post

littlemac1980

Unfortunately, what you are asking for clarification of is much of the foundation of a contract law course, which involves examination of certain specific topics, of Offer, Acceptance, Revocation, Consideration, Invitation to Treat, and many other ancillary topics.

A detailed analysis of your query might appeal to someone studying for their FE1 in contract and so if there are any of those reading this, they might oblige with a long, reasoned answer supported with some legal authority, as it would be good exam practice.

All I can say is that, it seems that the shop is perfectly entitled to make the customer a counter offer, provided they have not accepted that customers offer. In my opinion taking the €50 is such acceptance, and so at that stage it would be too late to make a counter-offer, strictly speaking. However, what can you do about it?

A valid counter offer would revoke the previous offer so the customer would of course be free to walk out with their money. But as I said I would consider the contract complete once the vendor has taken the €50 note.

As regard the issuing of receipts. Without knowing the full details of the law obliging the issuance of receipts - I would imagine that they have to be accurate. There would also potentially be implications with revenue, and they don't leave you off the 1 cent!

Zambia

Here prices are quoted as <>.99 but we dont even have a one cent coin anymore. Or 2 cent for that matter.

valleyoftheunos

I recently passed my contract law exams so I'm going to weigh in on this

As per Boots when you approach the counter with your game for €49.99, you are making an offer to purchase that game for €49.99, it is now open to the shop worker to accept your offer to purchase or reject it (which, incidentally is why if an item is incorrectly priced on the shop floor they don't have to sell it to you at that price.)

If the shop worker accepts your offer to buy the game for €49.99 a contract for the sale of the game is formed, that is you agree to pay him €49.99 and he agrees to give you ownership of the game. There is now a debt from you to him of €49.99 and if you give him €50 in settlement of that debt (or say €100) the debt is settled but there is no contract relating to the over payment so he is not obliged to give you change.

It could of course be argued that there is an implied condition that he return to you an change, and in the highly unlikely that such a situation were to come before a judge this would be the finding.

Obviously no one is going to shop somewhere that doesn't give you change and people don't want to have to carry change to be able to pay for their purchases exactly so shops give change and it really isn't an issue.

So basically in contract law if you over pay someone in settlement of a debt they are not obliged to return the difference and to the best of my knowledge there is no legislation relating to it in a consumer context.

Contract law in relation to debts can be quite archaic and much of it spans form old, old decisions. there are also all sorts of myths and misunderstandings relating to contract law, it can appear confusing at first but once you understand the basic building blocks/requirements of a contract, i.e. offer, acceptance, capacity and consideration its possible to figure out any contract situation.

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I recently passed my contract law exams so I'm going to weigh in on this

As per Boots when you approach the counter with your game for €49.99, you are making an offer to purchase that game for €49.99, it is now open to the shop worker to accept your offer to purchase or reject it (which, incidentally is why if an item is incorrectly priced on the shop floor they don't have to sell it to you at that price.)

If the shop worker accepts your offer to buy the game for €49.99 a contract for the sale of the game is formed, that is you agree to pay him €49.99 and he agrees to give you ownership of the game. There is now a debt from you to him of €49.99 and if you give him €50 in settlement of that debt (or say €100) the debt is settled but there is no contract relating to the over payment so he is not obliged to give you change.

It could of course be argued that there is an implied condition that he return to you an change, and in the highly unlikely that such a situation were to come before a judge this would be the finding.

Obviously no one is going to shop somewhere that doesn't give you change and people don't want to have to carry change to be able to pay for their purchases exactly so shops give change and it really isn't an issue.

So basically in contract law if you over pay someone in settlement of a debt they are not obliged to return the difference and to the best of my knowledge there is no legislation relating to it in a consumer context.

Contract law in relation to debts can be quite archaic and much of it spans form old, old decisions. there are also all sorts of myths and misunderstandings relating to contract law, it can appear confusing at first but once you understand the basic building blocks/requirements of a contract, i.e. offer, acceptance, capacity and consideration its possible to figure out any contract situation.

Ok, focusing simply on the part above in bold. If that is correct, and the issue of an implied term does not come into the equation, then, the above answer, though well argued, in my view, is incorrect in its conclusion.

The fact that no contract exists in relation to the excess money would support the view that the shop owner is obliged to return that change.

In the absence of a contract to grant an entitlement, entitlement to that money does not arise simply by the shop owner being in possession of it.

Such is the essence of contract law, if the shop owner retains the money, he is retaining something he has no legal entitlement to, as there was no legally enforceable transaction which took place to support any claim he may make to it.

Therefore in the circumstances, he would be intentionally depriving the true owner, and in the absence of a reasonably held belief he was entitled to it, he would be guilty of a criminal offence.

In addition the concept of change probably falls into the category of a constructive trust, within the confines of the entire contractual transaction.

D1stant

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

If the shop worker accepts your offer to buy the game for €49.99 a contract for the sale of the game is formed, that is you agree to pay him €49.99 and he agrees to give you ownership of the game. There is now a debt from you to him of €49.99 and if you give him €50 in settlement of that debt (or say €100) the debt is settled but there is no contract relating to the over payment so he is not obliged to give you change.

Anyone remember Brewsters Millions? Get your 1 cent back every time. I wonder how much Tesco make every year on those 1 cent gifts.

who the fug

Reverse it , you are under no obligation to take the goods, No Change No Sale

valleyoftheunos

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Ok, focusing simply on the part above in bold. If that is correct, and the issue of an implied term does not come into the equation, then, the above answer, though well argued, in my view, is incorrect in its conclusion.

The fact that no contract exists in relation to the excess money would support the view that the shop owner is obliged to return that change.

In the absence of a contract to grant an entitlement, entitlement to that money does not arise simply by the shop owner being in possession of it.

Such is the essence of contract law, if the shop owner retains the money, he is retaining something he has no legal entitlement to, as there was no legally enforceable transaction which took place to support any claim he may make to it.

Therefore in the circumstances, he would be intentionally depriving the true owner, and in the absence of a reasonably held belief he was entitled to it, he would be guilty of a criminal offence.

In addition the concept of change probably falls into the category of a constructive trust, within the confines of the entire contractual transaction.

He does have entitlement to it, you gave it to him in settlement of the debt. the Debt was for €49.99 but you didn't give him only €49.99 in settlement, you gave him €50 (or €100 or whatever) in settlement of the debt. when you hand over your €50 note, you are effectively saying "please accept this €50 note in settlement of my debt of €49.99."

the original transaction allows him to retain the change so there is no question of any offence or trust.

In fairness this is pretty technical and nerdy .

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

He does have entitlement to it, you gave it to him in settlement of the debt. the Debt was for €49.99 but you didn't give him only €49.99 in settlement, you gave him €50 (or €100 or whatever) in settlement of the debt. when you hand over your €50 note, you are effectively saying "please accept this €50 note in settlement of my debt of €49.99."

the original transaction allows him to retain the change so there is no question of any offence or trust.

In fairness this is pretty technical and nerdy .

Well, as I've said I disagree that is the case. I've already explained above that the actual acceptance by the shop owner doesn't occur until he has taken the cash. At which time, there could be no confusion as to the intended contract price. The fact that an excessive amount is handed over prior to acceptance, is of no consequence as the intended consideration is clear, being the price.

In the absence of a statement to the effect, that "I am offering you more than the price attached" the presumption is that the buyer intends only to pay the displayed price. If the shop owner wants to keep any change he would have to state such, so that there would be a mutual meeting of minds re the contracted price, and the buyer would obviously have to accept.

I still think the actual issue boils down to an implied term in the contract, which would be seen to arise when the seller understands that he is taking from the buyer more than the price of the item, and the price intended to be paid, and thus is obliged to return the difference, or else breach the contract.

The provision of change is a term implied by conduct within the contract through course of dealing.

It is common practice for shops to offer change, including gamestop, in exchange for amounts in excess of those advertised when produced as payment. This is such a common practice that, in my estimation, it is an implied term of the contract that they will do so.

Wonder does that mean they are guilty of breach for not giving change?

Soby

So anyone care to give a definite answer in legal terms.Are retailers (or whoever) obliged by law to give change ?

valleyoftheunos

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Well, as I've said I disagree that is the case. I've already explained above that the actual acceptance by the shop owner doesn't occur until he has taken the cash. At which time, there could be no confusion as to the intended contract price. The fact that an excessive amount is handed over prior to acceptance, is of no consequence as the intended consideration is clear, being the price.

In the absence of a statement to the effect, that "I am offering you more than the price attached" the presumption is that the buyer intends only to pay the displayed price. If the shop owner wants to keep any change he would have to state such, so that there would be a mutual meeting of minds re the contracted price, and the buyer would obviously have to accept.

there isn't ay question of confusion over agreed price or what the customer is offering to pay, its about the settlement of debts.

Deleted User wrote: »

The provision of change is a term implied by conduct within the contract through course of dealing.

It is common practice for shops to offer change, including gamestop, in exchange for amounts in excess of those advertised when produced as payment. This is such a common practice that, in my estimation, it is an implied term of the contract that they will do so.

Wonder does that mean they are guilty of breach for not giving change?

Also officious bystander test would suggest that such a term is included.

Soby wrote: »

So anyone care to give a definite answer in legal terms.Are retailers (or whoever) obliged by law to give change ?

Kayroo has it bang on there.

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Also officious bystander test would suggest that such a term is included.

Great, so you agree with me that it is an implied term and the retailer doesn't have a right to retain the change.

valleyoftheunos

we were specifically discussing the situation under hypothetical circumstances where an implied term does not arise.

In an actual "real life" yes I would believe that an implied term as to the return of any owed change would exist.

littlemac1980

Ah no, now. You can't have it both ways. It either arises or does not.

valleyoftheunos

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Ok, focusing simply on the part above in bold. If that is correct, and the issue of an implied term does not come into the equation, then, the above answer, though well argued, in my view, is incorrect in its conclusion.

I understood the emboldened part above to mean we were discussing the situation without considering implied terms.

I have to say that I doubt your assertion that a contract is not formed until the Shop keeper accepts the cash or payment, its when he agrees to sell it to you for that amount not when he receives payment.

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I understood the emboldened part above to mean we were discussing the situation without considering implied terms.

I have to say that I doubt your assertion that a contract is not formed until the Shop keeper accepts the cash or payment, its when he agrees to sell it to you for that amount not when he receives payment.

No. If you'd read my earlier post you would see that I had been first to respond to the OP's post, and had clearly put across my view that the issue was resolved by way of an implied term.

The part in bold, in that post, was to indicate that even without considering the previous conclusion I had come to, and therefore analyzing your conclusion, without reference to an implied term (i.e. excluding that obvious avenue - with which I had previously dealt with), I still felt your finding that the Shopkeeper could retain the change, was incorrect, in my view.

I came to that conclusion, based on your assertion that the absence of a legally enforceable agreement entitled the shopkeeper to retain something that he had no title to previously. A point which I clearly disagreed with, and claimed was incorrect for the reasons set out in that response.

So if there was confusion regarding my reasons then, apologies for that, I tried to be as clear as possible, and I'm sure should you review all my responses, you will see now what the part in bold meant.

In relation to the point of acceptance. I can't see any other point in time either prior to the taking of cash, or subsequent to it, that could be construed as the act of acceptance. That's pretty obvious in my view.

valleyoftheunos

littlemac1980 wrote: »

No. If you'd read my earlier post you would see that I had been first to respond to the OP's post, and had clearly put across my view that the issue was resolved by way of an implied term.

The part in bold, in that post, was to indicate that even without considering the previous conclusion I had come to, and therefore analyzing your conclusion, without reference to an implied term (i.e. excluding that obvious avenue - with which I had previously dealt with), I still felt your finding that the Shopkeeper could retain the change, was incorrect, in my view.

I came to that conclusion, based on your assertion that the absence of a legally enforceable agreement entitled the shopkeeper to retain something that he had no title to previously. A point which I clearly disagreed with, and claimed was incorrect for the reasons set out in that response.

So if there was confusion regarding my reasons then, apologies for that, I tried to be as clear as possible, and I'm sure should you review all my responses, you will see now what the part in bold meant.

Fair enoughski

littlemac1980 wrote: »

In relation to the point of acceptance. I can't see any other point in time either prior to the taking of cash, or subsequent to it, that could be construed as the act of acceptance. That's pretty obvious in my view.

How about this little scene then;

Customer approaches counter with item, the price is displayed upon the item,
Customer: "I'll take that please"
ShopKeeper: "OK then"

is there not offer and acceptance there? the terms are sufficiently certain and the handing over and receiving of the cash is the performance of the contract not the acceptance.

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Fair enoughski



How about this little scene then;

Customer approaches counter with item, the price is displayed upon the item,
Customer: "I'll take that please"
ShopKeeper: "OK then"

is there not offer and acceptance there? the terms are sufficiently certain and the handing over and receiving of the cash is the performance of the contract not the acceptance.

Ok, then, I'm prepared to accept that a contract would be formed at that point, in that scenario.

So I think you'd still agree the price as displayed is the agreed consideration.

Why then would the implied term not be incorporated into the contract, given that the officious bystander, business efficacy, or custom as tests, would all clearly support the implication of such a term?

valleyoftheunos

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Ok, then, I'm prepared to accept that a contract would be formed at that point, in that scenario.

So I think you'd still agree the price as displayed is the agreed consideration.

Why then would the implied term not be incorporated into the contract, given that the officious bystander, business efficacy, or custom as tests, would all clearly support the implication of such a term?

there was never any question of what the consideration was, or whether the implied term would be incorporated. I did not address such a term as I was of the understanding that we were considering a hypothetical situation where such a term has not been incorporated, clearly we have been at cross purposes.

littlemac1980

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

there was never any question of what the consideration was, or whether the implied term would be incorporated. I did not address such a term as I was of the understanding that we were considering a hypothetical situation where such a term has not been incorporated, clearly we have been at cross purposes.

Well we may have been at cross purposes to an extent, but it hasn't been a waste of time, I think.

As far as I see, we've concluded that the OP's question should be answered 'Yes'.