Theft: 100 Euro (conditional contribution ) is 'ill spent on booze' is it theft.

pirelli

I was wondering if the following scenario is theft,

A person damages an expensive prescription glasses during a tackle in a football game. There is a dispute between the owner and the player/tackler as to his responsible. The extent of the damage to the prescription glasses could not be verified as afterwards the owner throws the prescription glasses away in fustration.

The tackling player decides to be fair and contribute towards the purchase of a new prescription glasses and hands over 100 euro's as an indefinite loan on the condition that a new pair of prescription glasses are purchased with the money and much of this kindness is based on the fact the owner requires glasses for the quality of living and while the player feels he has no liability for the damage caused does sympathise that the owner needs glasses for his poor eyesight.


However the owner took the money and never purchased the glasses, 5 months later and he still hasn't purchased the glasses. He it seems has no intention of honouring the verbal conditions of the 100 euro loan towards the prescription glasses.

The owner has recklessly spent the 100 euro on booze and taxis.

How can the player get his 100 euro back?
Can he prosecute the owner for theft by deception?
What can the Garda do.

Delancey

pirelli wrote: »

How can the player get his 100 euro back?
Can he prosecute the owner for theft by deception?
What can the Garda do.

Can't get his 100 back.
Not a hope of prosecution.
Gardai can do absolutely nothing.

Donor would need to chalk up it as a character-building life experience.

pirelli

Delancey wrote: »

Can't get his 100 back.
Not a hope of prosecution.
Gardai can do absolutely nothing.

Donor would need to chalk up it as a character-building life experience.

So it is a crime but very hard to prosecute or it is not a crime at all.

If a thug with 'a scar on his right cheek' and tattoo on his forehead or a woman resembling a nun went door to door collecting money ' not even taking signatures on a piece of paper just house number' for a raffle for the local school the proceeds of which were to repair the classroom which was damaged by fire, Should the thug never repair the classroom with the money and instead get drunk down the pub spending money on his mates boozy antics ....then would it not be theft.

It's exactly the same circumstance. Is that not some form of theft or deception. What about section 6 of the theft and fraud act making a gain or causing a loss by deception. Do you mean that it might be a crime but it is just too frivolous a scenario to prosecute.

Now wonder this happens every other day with HSE/SIPTU and the Dail Eireann

if this is the case then Irish law is weak and lacks moral character. We need better laws.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

I was wondering if the following scenario is theft,

A person damages an expensive prescription glasses during a tackle in a football game. There is a dispute between the owner and the player/tackler as to his responsible. The extent of the damage to the prescription glasses could not be verified as afterwards the owner throws the prescription glasses away in fustration.

The tackling player decides to be fair and contribute towards the purchase of a new prescription glasses and hands over 100 euro's as an indefinite loan on the condition that a new pair of prescription glasses are purchased with the money and much of this kindness is based on the fact the owner requires glasses for the quality of living and while the player feels he has no liability for the damage caused does sympathise that the owner needs glasses for his poor eyesight.


However the owner took the money and never purchased the glasses, 5 months later and he still hasn't purchased the glasses. He it seems has no intention of honouring the verbal conditions of the 100 euro loan towards the prescription glasses.

The owner has recklessly spent the 100 euro on booze and taxis.

How can the player get his 100 euro back?
Can he prosecute the owner for theft by deception?
What can the Garda do.

This is a civil matter. It has nothing to do with criminal law. The player should demand the money back and if no joy, then must sue for the liquidated debt in the District Court as it is a loan that has not been paid back.

A person should not really be playing football with glasses on and if so should accept the consequences of doing so when or if they break. The player should not have given them the money in the first place in my opinion and how they spend it is none of the player's business.

Player should treat it as a life lesson and move on.

TheMilkyPirate

pirelli wrote: »

So it is a crime but very hard to prosecute or it is not a crime at all.

If a thug with 'a scar on his right cheek' and tattoo on his forehead or a woman resembling a nun went door to door collecting money ' not even taking signatures on a piece of paper just house number' for a raffle for the local school the proceeds of which were to repair the classroom which was damaged by fire, Should the thug never repair the classroom with the money and instead get drunk down the pub spending money on his mates boozy antics ....then would it not be theft.

It's exactly the same circumstance. Is that not some form of theft or deception. What about section 6 of the theft and fraud act making a gain or causing a loss by deception. Do you mean that it might be a crime but it is just too frivolous a scenario to prosecute.

Now wonder this happens every other day with HSE/SIPTU and the Dail Eireann

if this is the case then Irish law is weak and lacks moral character. We need better laws.

Although it's not the same scenario, That would be a fake lottery/raffle which you need a licence for and would be therefore breaking the law.

pirelli

baraca wrote: »

Although it's not the same scenario, That would be a fake lottery/raffle which you need a licence for and would be therefore breaking the law.

Alright if he was just collecting the money and there was no lottery?

Thanks

Pkiernan

OP:

The alleged victim suffered damages.

The victim was made whole (or at least partially whole) by being given €100.

It doesn't matter what the victim spent the money on.

Given the cost of glasses, you/your mate got away lightly with paying just €100.

How anyone can think this is theft is beyond me.

Next time be more careful who you tackle.

TheMilkyPirate

pirelli wrote: »

Alright if he was just collecting the money and there was no lottery?

Thanks

Your implying that he would call to the door and ask for money and then spend it on what ever he wanted. That isn't theft either, The person at the door made the choice to give him the money it was a gift in a sense.

Peregrinus

What in God’s name is an “indefinite loan”? Is it a loan that never has to be repaid? That’s not really a loan, so, is it? More like a gift. Is it a loan to be repaid at an uncertain time? If so, how will we know when that time has come?

Whatever you think it is, it’s a fairly unusual creature. A loan is created by contract, and a contract out of the agreement of the two parties. The recipient of the money cannot possibly be taken to have agreed to the creation of an “indefinite conditional loan” unless he knew that’s what you were offering. And, since the “indefinite conditional loan” is such a rare bird, he can’t possibly be taken to have known that unless you told him.

So, to establish the existence of this “indefinite conditional loan” you’ll have to show not just that it’s what you intended, but that it’s what he intended too; that you explained it to him in considerably more detail than you’ve explained it to us, and that he agreed. If you can’t establish this, then a court will view the payment as compensation for negligently injuring his glasses, or as a gift made out of goodwill, or some combination of the two, and this leaves him free to spend the money however he likes.

If you do succeed in establishing the terms, and the existence, of the “indefinite conditional loan”, then is his spending the money on booze theft, or theft by deception? No, it isn’t. Even if the loan became repayable when he failed to buy new spectacles, failure to repay a loan is not theft.

You could argue that he obtained money by deception, which is a form of fraud, if he assured you that he would use the money to buy new glasses and, but for that assurance, he would not have got the money. But to succeed you’d have to show that, at the time he gave this assurance, he intended not to honour it - i.e. he gave it dishonestly. If the evidence leaves open a reasonable possibility that the decision to spend the money on drink was made some time after he received it, he will not be convicted. And it will be difficult for you to show that he made that decision at any time before he actually spent the money.

Plus, he will undoubtedly argue that you owed him the money (because you were liable to compensate him for negligently breaking his glasses) and therefore that he was entitled to it even without given any undertaking as to how he would spend it. If he succeeds in that argument, then it’s not true that he only got the money because he gave the promise; he was entitled to it anyway.

Your case is not strong, and the Guards will take no interest in it.

pirelli

Peregrinus wrote: »

What in God’s name is an “indefinite loan”? Is it a loan that never has to be repaid? That’s not really a loan, so, is it? More like a gift. Is it a loan to be repaid at an uncertain time? If so, how will we know when that time has come?

Whatever you think it is, it’s a fairly unusual creature. A loan is created by contract, and a contract out of the agreement of the two parties. The recipient of the money cannot possibly be taken to have agreed to the creation of an “indefinite conditional loan” unless he knew that’s what you were offering. And, since the “indefinite conditional loan” is such a rare bird, he can’t possibly be taken to have known that unless you told him.

So, to establish the existence of this “indefinite conditional loan” you’ll have to show not just that it’s what you intended, but that it’s what he intended too; that you explained it to him in considerably more detail than you’ve explained it to us, and that he agreed. If you can’t establish this, then a court will view the payment as compensation for negligently injuring his glasses, or as a gift made out of goodwill, or some combination of the two, and this leaves him free to spend the money however he likes.

If you do succeed in establishing the terms, and the existence, of the “indefinite conditional loan”, then is his spending the money on booze theft, or theft by deception? No, it isn’t. Even if the loan became repayable when he failed to buy new spectacles, failure to repay a loan is not theft.

You could argue that he obtained money by deception, which is a form of fraud, if he assured you that he would use the money to buy new glasses and, but for that assurance, he would not have got the money. But to succeed you’d have to show that, at the time he gave this assurance, he intended not to honour it - i.e. he gave it dishonestly. If the evidence leaves open a reasonable possibility that the decision to spend the money on drink was made some time after he received it, he will not be convicted. And it will be difficult for you to show that he made that decision at any time before he actually spent the money.

Plus, he will undoubtedly argue that you owed him the money (because you were liable to compensate him for negligently breaking his glasses) and therefore that he was entitled to it even without given any undertaking as to how he would spend it. If he succeeds in that argument, then it’s not true that he only got the money because he gave the promise; he was entitled to it anyway.

Your case is not strong, and the Guards will take no interest in it.

Peregrinus,

Brilliant, I enjoyed your intelligent and witty dialogue that leads to such a convincing conclusion of guilt. So the loan makes no sense, good as i made that part up and it's hypothetical so not a real case.

However I am interested in your last paragraph: in such a scenario that the person assured he would use the money to purchase glasses was being dishonest when giving that assurance and had no real intention of purchasing the glasses then it could be argued he obtained the money by deception.

So one would have to prove the glass wearer was being dishonest and using his disability or need to wear glasses as leverage to try make the person part with his cash in the false assurance that he was going to buy much needed glasses.


The irony of all of this is that the person must have needed the glasses otherwise he wouldn't have been wearing them. So does that make a difference, i mean if i gave a chap who did somehow obtain from me money to buy a new seatbelt and was in fact being dishonest and had no intention of buying a seatbelt yet continued to drive around in dire need of a seatbelt make any difference.

Despite the fact this chap obviously needs a seatbelt and is required to have one and will eventually be forced to purchase one he could be still guilty of deception.

ArphaRima

Your hypotheticals are annoying and ill-fitting.

He could never have forced you to pay, you were fool to, and now he would be fool to pay you back as you will never be able to legally force him.

Gardai will laugh at you. Save face and never speak of this again.

pirelli

baraca wrote: »

Your implying that he would call to the door and ask for money and then spend it on what ever he wanted. That isn't theft either, The person at the door made the choice to give him the money it was a gift in a sense.

I think It's trickery and deception. The person has no intention of donating the money to the school but instead pays off his Bar tab and buy his mates booze


He could argue it was a change of plan and therefore he at the time of collection did intend to pay the school and it's just a case of 'that' he likes to get plastered with his mates and that's where the money went.

pirelli

fluffer wrote: »

Your hypotheticals are annoying and ill-fitting.

He could never have forced you to pay, you were fool to, and now he would be fool to pay you back as you will never be able to legally force him.

Gardai will laugh at you. Save face and never speak of this again.

I am answering your post but i am by no means paying any attention to it because I don't think your contributing anything and are just trying to be cool thinking your clever which your definitely not .

Your also chasing the assumption that in the hypothetical scenario the OP is seeking to get 100 euro when in fact he is trying to understand the elements that make up deception which are very hard to understand from reading the theft and fraud act.

I think in this hypothetical situation there are conflicting elements but i then if it was a straight forward theft there would be no reason to question it.

I think Peregrin explained it had you read his post.

You could argue that he obtained money by deception, which is a form of fraud, if he assured you that he would use the money to buy new glasses and, but for that assurance, he would not have got the money. But to succeed you’d have to show that, at the time he gave this assurance, he intended not to honour it - i.e. he gave it dishonestly.If the evidence leaves open a reasonable possibility that the decision to spend the money on drink was made some time after he received it, he will not be convicted. And it will be difficult for you to show that he made that decision at any time before he actually spent the money.

Thanks for nothing Fluffer.

psychward

pirelli wrote: »

The owner has recklessly spent the 100 euro on booze and taxis.

How can the player get his 100 euro back?

So hes walking around blind as a bat due to his own stupidity ? If so then thats punishment enough imo.

Only if he lied about needing glasses would I feel hard done by or defrauded.

By the way what has the reckless spending of the money got to do with worrying about how to get the money back ? If he had bought glasses with the money how would that change the chances of getting it back ? Realistically it wasn't a loan but was a gift in compensation unless there was a written agreement (not a legal view but a practical one)

pirelli

fluffer wrote: »

Your hypotheticals are annoying and ill-fitting.

He could never have forced you to pay, you were fool to, and now he would be fool to pay you back as you will never be able to legally force him.

Gardai will laugh at you. Save face and never speak of this again.

cheap, unpleasant and lacking sincerity... Is fluffer a type of cheese?

ArphaRima

You gave me 100 euro? When? No sorry I dont remember that. Did you get a receipt from me? No? Nothing on paper? Ah well I can't help you there.

A verbal contract is as good as the paper it was written on.

Lets say I did remember the "loan". You said it was an indefinite loan right? Ok. I plan to buy the glasses in 15 years. I'll pay you back in 60 years.

If you think the justice system exists for cases like this then youve been watching too many episodes of Judge Judy.

Fluffer is not a cheese. A fluffer is someone who masturbates porn stars to ready them for a scene. Delightful isn't it?

pirelli

psychward wrote: »

So hes walking around blind as a bat due to his own stupidity ? If so then thats punishment enough imo.

Only if he lied about needing glasses would I feel hard done by or defrauded.

By the way what has the reckless spending of the money got to do with worrying about how to get the money back ? If he had bought glasses with the money how would that change the chances of getting it back ? Realistically it wasn't a loan but was a gift in compensation unless there was a written agreement (not a legal view but a practical one)

I suppose he is walking around half blind, and he might need them but spent the money on booze.

I think the if he deceived the player into believing he was buying glasses and instead he had just wanted to get some money from the player for whatever reason ( compensation?) then the player might, as you have said, feel hard done by, and defrauded; so maybe that is why he is seeking his money back.

MagicSean

He may very well have intended to buy glasses but gave in to temptation. This is not dishonesty. Dishonesty in this case would be lying about his need for glasses, the cost of them or how they were broken.

pirelli

fluffer wrote: »

You gave me 100 euro? When? No sorry I dont remember that. Did you get a receipt from me? No? Nothing on paper? Ah well I can't help you there.

A verbal contract is as good as the paper it was written on.

Lets say I did remember the "loan". You said it was an indefinite loan right? Ok. I plan to buy the glasses in 15 years. I'll pay you back in 60 years.

If you think the justice system exists for cases like this then youve been watching too many episodes of Judge Judy.

Fluffer is not a cheese. A fluffer is someone who masturbates porn stars to ready them for a scene. Delightful isn't it?

I am personally just trying to understand the theft and fraud act definition of making a gain by deception. It must be so difficult to apply a law comprised of such a few lines to so many aspects of life. While Land law comprises dozens of books containing so many laws. Seems deception not unlike malice is elusive and hard to prove, but i am not surprised at the amount of hard nosed posters from that have such a disregard for fools and a high regard for the superficial, thrifty and streetwise person.

Not saying the irish haven't an ancient talent for the written language and are blessed with wit and can spin limericks and tell intricate stories but i think it's time we lose the attitude that we are gifted with supreme skills in some worldly brilliance that we can somehow avoid the difficult task of honesty and everyone still come's out profitable. I think we have a serious indifference to Honesty.

Zambia

Its not theft

One person gave the other the money. If they want it back they get a lawyer and sue them for it.

I am pretty sure any Garda would say similar.

pirelli

fluffer wrote: »

You gave me 100 euro? When? No sorry I dont remember that. Did you get a receipt from me? No? Nothing on paper? Ah well I can't help you there.

A verbal contract is as good as the paper it was written on.

Lets say I did remember the "loan". You said it was an indefinite loan right? Ok. I plan to buy the glasses in 15 years. I'll pay you back in 60 years.

If you think the justice system exists for cases like this then youve been watching too many episodes of Judge Judy.

Fluffer is not a cheese. A fluffer is someone who masturbates porn stars to ready them for a scene. Delightful isn't it?

Would you be happy with the term easy singles which are both handy and convenient.

234

I think the OP has something like a Quistclose trust in mind. But there is no chance of one being made out in these circumstances.

psychward

pirelli wrote: »

I suppose he is walking around half blind, and he might need them but spent the money on booze.

I think the if he deceived the player into believing he was buying glasses and instead he had just wanted to get some money from the player for whatever reason ( compensation?) then the player might, as you have said, feel hard done by, and defrauded; so maybe that is why he is seeking his money back.

Theres no reason to suppose that he won't buy glasses eventually (but how can the time of purchase be enforced ?) since as you indicate : he is probably half blind and actually needs them. The purchase of glasses by someone who needs them to function. He could be waiting for a sale or for a pair he actually likes. Theres no proof that the 100 euro spent on taxis was his only 100 euro.

RandolphEsq

Pkiernan wrote: »

OP:

The alleged victim suffered damages.

The victim was made whole (or at least partially whole) by being given €100.

It doesn't matter what the victim spent the money on.

Given the cost of glasses, you/your mate got away lightly with paying just €100.

How anyone can think this is theft is beyond me.

Next time be more careful who you tackle.

He shouldn't have given the guy €100 because he should not have been wearing glasses playing football!

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

I think It's trickery and deception. The person has no intention of donating the money to the school but instead pays off his Bar tab and buy his mates booze


He could argue it was a change of plan and therefore he at the time of collection did intend to pay the school and it's just a case of 'that' he likes to get plastered with his mates and that's where the money went.

Generally speaking, an unfulfilled future promise will be a civil wrong not a criminal offence. What constitutes a future promise is somewhat tricky but my understanding is if I say "If you pay me €100 I will deliver a bag of coal next tuesday" and the bag of coal never shows up it is not an offence, but if I say "I have arranged for a bag of coal to be delivered to you on tuesday, you can keep it if you pay me €100" and I have not arranged for the bag of coal to be delivered that can be an offence.

mcmoustache

RandolphEsq wrote: »

He shouldn't have given the guy €100 because he should not have been wearing glasses playing football!

Spot on. I wear glasses and play with a GAA club. I also play 5-a-side and I'd never consider trying to play with my glasses on. It's just too easy for them to get broken. In fact, all my other four-eyed colleagues do the same. I've never played with someone in glasses.

The tackler has no responsibility here and shouldn't have given the 100 quid. All he'll get from it is a life lesson. The guy who got tackled, unfortunately, won't have learned that you can't wear glasses in a physical game.

Peregrinus

pirelli wrote: »

However I am interested in your last paragraph: in such a scenario that the person assured he would use the money to purchase glasses was being dishonest when giving that assurance and had no real intention of purchasing the glasses then it could be argued he obtained the money by deception . . .

Failure to repay a loan is, basically, not a crime. Failure to use a gift for the intended purpose is also not a crime.

You're trying to shoehorn this into some category of crime, and the closest fit is obtaining financial advantage by deception, which is a form of fraud. But crimes have to be proved; you'd have to prove that he intentionally deceived you when he assured you that he would use the money to buy glasses.

This is not proven simply by showing that he used the money for some other purpose. You would need to show that, at the time he gave you the assurance, he had already decided to spend the money on something else. Unless he has, e.g., confessed (or boasted) to a third party that he deliberately fooled you, and that third party is willing to testify, I don't see how you're going to do this.