HMV going into administration

MagicSean

Theta wrote: »

Did he commit a crime? yes or no? regardless of if his heart is in the right place.

Did he take items from a shop without payment?

Theft requires an act of dishonesty.

Grayson

the groutch wrote: »

leader's questions in the Dail shortly, hopefully someone will raise the issue.

I would hope that the leader of the country has something better to do than to worry about gift vouchers.
The job loss is more important. but even then, would that number of jobs be enough to warrent a discussion in the Dail.

Grayson

Tazz T wrote: »

The man paid for the goods in advance. The company are trying to steal his money without giving him the goods.

The company is wrong. How can you steal something you've paid for?

I guess when any company goes bust it should be determined which creditor gets paid by who turns up first and can carry the most?

Penn

MagicSean wrote: »

Theft requires an act of dishonesty.

No it doesn't. If you walk into Easons, shout "I'M STEALING THIS BOOK!" and run out of the shop without paying for it, that's theft.

MagicSean

the groutch wrote: »

leader's questions in the Dail shortly, hopefully someone will raise the issue.

Why? It's not a government issue in any way.

DyldeBrill

Used to buy all my stuff in HMV...always looked to it as being much better than Golden Discs.

Well its doors are open today on Grafton Street with 25% Off all products, would be rude not to have a lurk around.

Theta

Penn wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you walk into Easons, shout "I'M STEALING THIS BOOK!" and run out of the shop without paying for it, that's theft.

Exactly, he didn't pay for the items so he stole them.

Penn

Boombastic wrote: »

What legal right do HMV have for refusing to honor their vouchers in Ireland? They are breaking their own terms and conditions by not giving notice that the vouchers would cease to be honored. They are not in administration or examinership in ROI

The staff are merely being told what to do by their management. Remember, yesterday was the first day of all this. If HMV in Ireland aren't in administration, they'll likely begin taking vouchers again in a few days. But for now, they don't know for sure what's going on so were told to not accept the vouchers.

MagicSean

Penn wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you walk into Easons, shout "I'M STEALING THIS BOOK!" and run out of the shop without paying for it, that's theft.

Yes it does. It's a legal definition under section 4 of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

Theta

MagicSean wrote: »

Yes it does. It's a legal definition under section 4 of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

He didnt have HMV's consent to take the goods so he has commited theft

Boombastic

Penn wrote: »

The staff are merely being told what to do by their management. Remember, yesterday was the first day of all this. If HMV in Ireland aren't in administration, they'll likely begin taking vouchers again in a few days. But for now, they don't know for sure what's going on so were told to not accept the vouchers.

I don't blame the staff and I understand that they are just doing as told. But the headguys who decided this. Can they do this legally as the company are not in administration or examinership?

Can my company sell vouchers and then just decide not to honour them?

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

Can they do this legally as the company are not in administration or examinership?

No.

MagicSean

Theta wrote: »

Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

He didnt have HMV's consent to take the goods so he has commited theft

All the conditions must be met, not just the one you put in bold. If there's is no dishonest act there is no theft.

Basq

HMV Grafton Street
(courtesy of @seanear1ey)

Wonder if other HMV's around the country will follow suit..

.. that's one way to battle administration... just close up shop immediately!

Looks like it - from thread in Consumer Issues:

After hearing about the NCA statement on HMV, I went down to Dundrum. They have the shutters pulled down and a message saying they might be open later.

Biggins

Boombastic wrote: »

Grandad walks out of HMV with computer games after staff refuse to accept gift voucher

Fair play to this guy

efb wrote: »

He stole those items, he didnt pay for them.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

You'd think he'd at least taken some decent games

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

Fair play to him, but no kid will want to play those games. No receipt now to return them!!!

Grayson wrote: »

He's from tyrellstown. It has nothing to do with HMV. They're just thieving gits

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Whilst HMV and their security staff were not willing to pursue a grandad, I doubt they will apply that level of leniency to anyone else who tries this.

I notice grandad didn't hand over the voucher or pay the surplus - this is plainly and simply theft. A fine example to set for your grandkids.

Before I get shouted down from on high, I'm not excusing HMV for not honouring the gift tokens, but this is not the way to tackle this!

Grayson wrote: »

Bet he was the kind of git that gives ordinary staff members abuse about things they have no control over.

blackwhite wrote: »

Fair play to him? The man's an idiot.

Step 1 - Commit theft from a retail store.
Step 2 - Confess to crime in national newspaper and pose for photographs with stolen goods.
Step 3 - ??????

Rabidlamb wrote: »

No, I believe he was perfectly within his rights.
Pedantic shematics is thrumped by a good dollop of common sense.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I have a read of your post & consider it to be bollix of the highest order.
Good day.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

No he isn't.

Tazz T wrote: »

The man paid for the goods in advance. The company are trying to steal his money without giving him the goods.

The company is wrong. How can you steal something you've paid for?

For the record:

According to the law, there was no "legal consideration" given for specific goods taken.

* The man had previously bought a legal form of credit. He paid for this in a form of "legal consideration" - ie; the transfer of money (or any item) for the obtaining of another.
NO sale is legally complete in the eyes of the law unless there is clear legal consideration taking place.

* The specific goods he took were taken without legal consideration being transferred back to HMV.

Legally he could still be charged with clear theft.

Rabidlamb

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Wow. Intelligent debating of the facts there.

Sorry about my abruptness, to many focusing on pedantic petty law issues for my liking, not a judge in the land would prosecute the man for what he did.
People losing the bigger picture, HMV trading vouchers over Christmas & the New Year sales knowing they'd never be honoured.
We all know these creditors will never see a penny, by your reckoning he should just chalk it up & move on.

I side with the man here as I've been on the receiving end of a similar situation.
I took his approach & felt more satisfied with myself afterwards.

omega666

Biggins wrote: »

For the record:

Legally he could still be charged with clear theft.

There's no chance he will be charged,
And now the shops are closed today it looks like he made the right decision getting his moneys worth just in time.

MagicSean

Biggins wrote: »

For the record:

According to the law, there was no "legal consideration" given for specific goods taken.

* The man had previously bought a legal form of credit. He paid for this in a form of "legal consideration" - ie; the transfer of money (or any item) for the obtaining of another.
NO sale is legally complete in the eyes of the law unless there is clear legal consideration taking place.

* The specific goods he took were taken without legal consideration being transferred back to HMV.

Legally he could still be charged with clear theft.

You are mixing criminal and civil law. Consideration has nothing to do with theft, it is an ingredient of a contract. The criminal offence of theft requires a person to act dishonestly.

Dodge

Rabidlamb wrote: »

People losing the bigger picture, HMV trading vouchers over Christmas & the New Year sales knowing they'd never be honoured.
We all know these creditors will never see a penny, by your reckoning he should just chalk it up & move on.

The bigger picture?

The bigger picture here is hundreds of people losing their jobs (mostly young people) and not 20-40 quids worth of a useless christmas presents.

Penn

MagicSean wrote: »

All the conditions must be met, not just the one you put in bold. If there's is no dishonest act there is no theft.

Section 8:

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

He dishonestly made off without having paid because it was not agreed with the staff that he could do so. If I get a breakfast roll, get to the till, realise I've no money and the cashier said I could pay tomorrow as she knows me, I'm not stealing the roll. I've been allowed to leave with the roll with the consent of the store, even though I haven't paid for it. This guy didn't have the consent of the store.

Again, what about my example of walking into Easons, being honest with them and saying I'm taking their product without paying them. Isn't that theft?

MagicSean

Dodge wrote: »

The bigger picture?

The bigger picture here is hundreds of people losing their jobs (mostly young people) and not 20-40 quids worth of a useless christmas presents.

I would think in a situation like that the smart policy would be to open the store and try to sell every bit of stock available. Discount the hell out of the **** stock. And of course you accept vouchers because people usually but more than just the vouchers worth.

MagicSean

Penn wrote: »

Section 8:

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

He dishonestly made off without having paid because it was not agreed with the staff that he could do so. If I get a breakfast roll, get to the till, realise I've no money and the cashier said I could pay tomorrow as she knows me, I'm not stealing the roll. I've been allowed to leave with the roll with the consent of the store, even though I haven't paid for it. This guy didn't have the consent of the store.

Again, what about my example of walking into Easons, being honest with them and saying I'm taking their product without paying them. Isn't that theft?

It might help if you read the definitions under section 2 of the act.

Penn

MagicSean wrote: »

It might help if you read the definitions under section 2 of the act.

But he doesn't have a right to it, he still has to go through the transaction process. Fine, my example of the breakfast roll then; If the shop didn't give me my full change one day, I am allowed to go in and take things of equal value?

This is nonsense. It's theft. He walked out of a shop with a product without the consent of the shop and after being told that he was not allowed to do so.

hooradiation

MagicSean wrote: »

Theft requires an act of dishonesty.

So, we're in agreement, the old guy is a thieving shit.

road_high

So are all their shops closed now this morning? Overwhelmed by voucher people I would imagine.

Biggins

Rabidlamb wrote: »

...not a judge in the land would prosecute the man for what he did.

I politely disagree. You would be in error.
The man had entered a private property, took goods (without permission/acknowledgement) without a complete sale taking place and exited.
Legally there was clear theft.
A judge would have no choice but to stick with the letter of tort law and follow a charge of theft through to a conclusion.

juicyduckie

Custardpi wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NCA doesn't actually have the power to enforce that, do they?

ButtersSuki wrote: »

They have zero legislative or enforcement powers. They are simply an advisory body.

The NCA does have the power to enforce:



"The NCA:

• Represents the voice of the consumer
• Enforces consumer legislation
• Defends consumer interests at the highest levels of national and local decision-making

As a consumer advocate and a defender of consumer rights, the NCA has an important role in working with businesses, to help them to support compliance with regulatory obligations and to encourage best practice as regards consumer rights.
Designated officers of the NCA work alongside business and representative organisations to promote awareness of consumer issues and to enforce consumer law."

Taken from their corporate site at http://corporate.nca.ie/eng/About/

:cool:

Biggins

MagicSean wrote: »

You are mixing criminal and civil law. Consideration has nothing to do with theft, it is an ingredient of a contract. The criminal offence of theft requires a person to act dishonestly.

You would be wrong.

Under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 a thief is a committed where a person dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of the owner (who is covered under additional torn law - crimes against a person, in this case the owner of HMV) and with the intention of depriving the owner of that property.

The stealing man could try a defence of "a claim of right" (see the case: The people v Grey, 1944) but he would have to show that for those specific good, he showed "legal consideration" that he clearly gave it and it was willingly accepted.
If he didn't, under additional sale of goods contract law, he has broken commercial law maybe additionally as there was no confirmed/accepted completion of a legal contract of sale.

melekalikimaka

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Sorry about my abruptness, to many focusing on pedantic petty law issues for my liking, not a judge in the land would prosecute the man for what he did.
People losing the bigger picture, HMV trading vouchers over Christmas & the New Year sales knowing they'd never be honoured.
We all know these creditors will never see a penny, by your reckoning he should just chalk it up & move on.

I side with the man here as I've been on the receiving end of a similar situation.
I took his approach & felt more satisfied with myself afterwards.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS

ratracer

In normal insolvency cases, a Sherrie can take goods to the value of the the amount owed. Can I make myself a sheriff?