Man gets €20k for jambon embarrassment

colm_mcm

http://www.thejournal.ie/jambon-courts-3310881-Mar2017/

Another comical payout.

Will this affect the price of jambons now?

Bizzare considering the judges comments and the apparent lack of evidence.

Yawns

At the end it seems the store didn't bother to engage until court proceedings were issued. Think that's why Judge awarded something which is ridiculous.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I'm usually disgusted at sizeable compensation claims for trivial even ridiculous matters however in this instance I think the shop deserved it. They ignored 6 letters from the guys solicitor and so screw them. If they had the decency to reply even to deny the incident then I think there would have been a very different result.

suicide_circus

People make claims
Solicitors get hired
Judges award compo
The gravy train continues.

Oink

Yawns wrote: »

At the end it seems the store didn't bother to engage until court proceedings were issued. Think that's why Judge awarded something which is ridiculous.

Yup. Betcha they're taking customer complaints seriously now. Whether justified or not.

Also, you don't f%#} with a man's jambon. Some things in life must be respected.

Sam Kade

I presume another man walked out with the free jambon.

gifted

I read this as "jamrag" ....now that would be embarrassing lol lol

colm_mcm

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I'm usually disgusted at sizeable compensation claims for trivial even ridiculous matters however in this instance I think the shop deserved it. They ignored 6 letters from the guys solicitor and so screw them. If they had the decency to reply even to deny the incident then I think there would have been a very different result.

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.
If the shop did something wrong in not responding, is there not another way the judge can deal with that?
All this does is encourage scams and makes retailers war on scobes robbing stuff harder.

Sam Kade

suicide_circus wrote: »

People make claims
Solicitors get hired
Judges award compo
The gravy train continues.

That sounds like The Field

Outlaw Pete

Doesn't take much these days for someone to be able to jambon the compensation bandwagon.

Cee-Jay-Cee

colm_mcm wrote: »

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.
If the shop did something wrong in not responding, is there not another way the judge can deal with that?
All this does is encourage scams and makes retailers war on scobes robbing stuff harder.

You have to remember that the judge was possibly a member of the legal profession before being appointed a judge, he knows what it's like to have legal letters ignored and he punished them for it. I think he was right. It doesn't encourage fraudulent claims but may encourage businesses to settle silly little matters like it before they reach court stage.

colm_mcm

Is there not a way to punish the shop without a payout to jambon man?

rgace

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I'm usually disgusted at sizeable compensation claims for trivial even ridiculous matters however in this instance I think the shop deserved it. They ignored 6 letters from the guys solicitor and so screw them. If they had the decency to reply even to deny the incident then I think there would have been a very different result.

The judge is part of the legal system gravy train.

He wants to encourage other small business owners to hire solicitors who will send over-priced legal letters in response to the six over-priced legal letters.

please helpThank YOU

Jambon embarrassment Man get 20000 euros well done .JOLLY GOOD FELLOW.

whatawaster81

Accusing the poor man of eating a jambon. The shame.

nullzero

From Fortunestown Lane...

Yawns

I don't agree with the payout either. Punish the shop for letting it get to that stage sure. Make them pay legal costs, possibly a small compensation to the guy of what 500 euro maybe. Charity would be better. 20k tho? No way.

bucketybuck

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

You have to remember that the judge was possibly a member of the legal profession before being appointed a judge, he knows what it's like to have legal letters ignored and he punished them for it. I think he was right. It doesn't encourage fraudulent claims but may encourage businesses to settle silly little matters like it before they reach court stage.

What legal requirement is there to respond to random letters from a solicitor? Is a letter from a solicitor a legal document? If the shop felt the mans claims were frivolous why should they waste their time responding to what they may have felt was correspondence from some ambulance chaser?

Unless I am wrong the shop responded immediately to contact from the court, is that not how it should be?

Sam Kade

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Doesn't take much these days for someone to be able to jambon the compensation bandwagon.

It's called slander Pete, you can't come running out of a shop accusing someone of stealing when they paid for the item. €20k is a bit much though.

aaronjumper

Imagine how much he could have gotten if it was a roll.

robinph

bucketybuck wrote: »

What legal requirement is there to respond to random letters from a solicitor? Is a letter from a solicitor a legal document? If the shop felt the mans claims were frivolous why should they waste their time responding to what they may have felt was correspondence from some ambulance chaser?

Unless I am wrong the shop responded immediately to contact from the court, is that not how it should be?

The jambon man and his solicitor should both be fined for starting a frivolous case.

The only damage to the jambon mans reputation happened once he hired a solicitor to go after the shop.

Samuel T. Cogley

Seriously would these threads ever fcuking stop? The guy was defamed, it was a profitable business that decided to do it (by not training it's staff). The begrudary in this country really grinds you down after a while.

Cee-Jay-Cee

bucketybuck wrote: »

What legal requirement is there to respond to random letters from a solicitor? Is a letter from a solicitor a legal document? If the shop felt the mans claims were frivolous why should they waste their time responding to what they may have felt was correspondence from some ambulance chaser?

Unless I am wrong the shop responded immediately to contact from the court, is that not how it should be?

No I don't think there is any legal requirement but as they ignored 6 letters and you can be absolutely sure the solicitors informed them if they didn't respond they'd issue legal proceedings so to continue to ignore those letters was at their own peril and they paid a hefty price for it. If they had replied then I think the case would have been thrown out or would have at least resulted in a much small award.

Doctor Nick

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Seriously would these threads ever fcuking stop? The guy was defamed, it was a profitable business that decided to do it (by not training it's staff). The begrudary in this country really grinds you down after a while.

Agreed. As they say sh!t sticks and this man has cleared his name and was justified in doing so, there are only a few other things worse than a thief. Maybe the business will think twice against falsely accusing somebody of theft.

blue note

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Seriously would these threads ever fcuking stop? The guy was defamed, it was a profitable business that decided to do it (by not training it's staff). The begrudary in this country really grinds you down after a while.

Are you serious? I do agree that the guy deserved an apology and probably a token gift or something - give him a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates or something to say sorry for our mistake. Then for ignoring the solicitor's letters and the hassle of it all the shop deserved to be punished and the man compensated for the original mistake and the hassle of chasing them for it. A thousand euro plus costs would have thought the shop a lesson and been a nice little windfall for the customer.

But how the hell did we get to twenty thousand euro?!? That's just insane. Where's your line for what you regard as begrudgery and what you regard as reasonable criticism of a ridiculous award? If they awarded him 50 or 100 thousand would it still just be begrudgery if people gave out about it?

H3llR4iser

What does a "jambon" cost, 2 Euro? I honestly think one needs to have a specific mentality to kick up a storm over such an incident immediately; Frankly if it happened to me I would have pointed out I paid already but hey, not gonna lose it for a couple of Euro - here's the money once again and would have walked. Good to know it would have costed me 20 grands...there are people who live literally waiting to pounce on such opportunities, I had the misfortune of meeting a couple of them.

Then again, maybe the store manager was the power-trippin' type you sometimes find in retail, shouting accusations and such - in which case, I can understand the whole thing.

osarusan

blue note wrote: »

Where's your line for what you regard as begrudgery and what you regard as reasonable criticism of a ridiculous award?

In fairness, the post just before the one you quoted (and possibly very much the comment that prompted them to post at all) said that the man should be sued for starting a frivolous lawsuit.

robinph

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

No I don't think there is any legal requirement but as they ignored 6 letters and you can be absolutely sure the solicitors informed them if they didn't respond they'd issue legal proceedings so to continue to ignore those letters was at their own peril and they paid a hefty price for it. If they had replied then I think the case would have been thrown out or would have at least resulted in a much small award.

But why would there even be an obligation on them to respond to the threat of legal proceedings? They have to respond to the court, but you don't need to respond to someone threatening to take you to court ... until they do.

If they had responded to the solicitors letters then it would only have been to tell them "see you in court", and that would hardly have helped them as it would be antagonising. The company just were not expecting anything to come of it, and the solicitor and jambon man got lucky.

Panrich

H3llR4iser wrote: »

What does a "jambon" cost, 2 Euro? I honestly think one needs to have a specific mentality to kick up a storm over such an incident immediately; Frankly if it happened to me I would have pointed out I paid already but hey, not gonna lose it for a couple of Euro - here's the money once again and would have walked. Good to know it would have costed me 20 grands...there are people who live literally waiting to pounce on such opportunities, I had the misfortune of meeting a couple of them.

Then again, maybe the store manager was the power-trippin' type you sometimes find in retail, shouting accusations and such - in which case, I can understand the whole thing.

Whatever about the wrongs and rights about the way this ended up, I'd certainly be digging my heels in about paying again for something that I've already bought.

robinph

Panrich wrote: »

Whatever about the wrongs and rights about the way this ended up, I'd certainly be digging my heels in about paying again for something that I've already bought.

Which he did, and they looked at the CCTV footage, and then he left the shop not having paid anything more.

1874

colm_mcm wrote: »

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.
If the shop did something wrong in not responding, is there not another way the judge can deal with that?
All this does is encourage scams and makes retailers war on scobes robbing stuff harder.

I saw this thread and was thinking, wow, 20k, mad, but it seems fairly clear after reading that the guy was defamed, his reputation is worth more than the cost of the item he purchased.
In my experience, Centra are/appear fairly shoddy with their staff training, prices not ringing up on the till as they are advertised (routine overcharging) or giving out receipts unless you ask for them, and then they only seem to be doing it grudgingly as if you are some kind of inconveneience. I still have felt a certain awkwardness asking for receipts when I shouldn't have to ask, mostly I do it due to the problem with them charging incorrectly, but know I could be accused of theft without one even if I pay.
It doesn't suprise me one bit reading this, they'd have covered themselves had they simply given a receipt and asked him for proof of purchase in a sensible and discreet way, they know they don't hand out receipts as a matter of routine practice.

Yawns wrote: »

I don't agree with the payout either. Punish the shop for letting it get to that stage sure. Make them pay legal costs, possibly a small compensation to the guy of what 500 euro maybe. Charity would be better. 20k tho? No way.

The penalty for defamation is much more than 500 euro, I think it starts around 15k, and why should it go to a charity? would you be happy for someone to accuse you falsely in earshot of others that may know you or who may decline to have dealings with you because of a false statement or accusation? his reputation may be irreversibly tarnished and that could affect him in numerous ways. I consider I have been defamed in the past a number of times and I let it go, In hindsight I shouldn't have, its a serious matter and as Im not a criminal, Id take it very seriously if I was ever defamed again myself.

Panrich

What are the actual rights associated with the practice of accusing someone of shoplifting once they have left the premises? If for instance, you have just left a shop and a staff member approaches you to come back inside as they suspect you of stealing something, are you obliged to agree even if there is no evidence to back up such a claim? I would be highly annoyed to be accused in the first place, and would want some form of upping the ante on the shops part before agreeing (eg if you are accusing me of not paying for x, then I'll come back on the agreement that if you're wrong, I get it for free).

Panrich

robinph wrote: »

Which he did, and they looked at the CCTV footage, and then he left the shop not having paid anything more.

I was quoting the poster who said that he'd say whatever, he'd just pay again.

__Alex__

colm_mcm wrote: »

Can't see why jambon man should get the 20k though.

There is probably different set levels of compensation for each type of ruling. The guy was slandered. As someone who has been falsely accused of stealing myself before, it's not fun.

Samuel T. Cogley

blue note wrote: »

Are you serious? I do agree that the guy deserved an apology and probably a token gift or something - give him a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates or something to say sorry for our mistake. Then for ignoring the solicitor's letters and the hassle of it all the shop deserved to be punished and the man compensated for the original mistake and the hassle of chasing them for it. A thousand euro plus costs would have thought the shop a lesson and been a nice little windfall for the customer.

But how the hell did we get to twenty thousand euro?!? That's just insane. Where's your line for what you regard as begrudgery and what you regard as reasonable criticism of a ridiculous award? If they awarded him 50 or 100 thousand would it still just be begrudgery if people gave out about it?

He was called a thief, embarrased infront of people. When Ireland declared itself independant the people at the time decided to enumerate the right to a good name. This guys rghts were breached in a very serious way and you reckon it's worth a bottle of wine?

You and I were not party to the case we have no basis to cricise the award other than our own assuptions. Assumptions that given the usual way these threads go aren't grounded in relaity.

theteal

I genuinely don't know what a jambon is.

It appears it might be in my best interests to find out. . .

AlmightyCushion

theteal wrote: »

I genuinely don't know what a jambon is.

It appears it might be in my best interests to find out. . .

This is the real crime here. Get yourself to the local deli immediately.

robinph

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

He was called a thief, embarrased infront of people. When Ireland declared itself independant the people at the time decided to enumerate the right to a good name. This guys rghts were breached in a very serious way and you reckon it's worth a bottle of wine?

You and I were not party to the case we have no basis to cricise the award other than our own assuptions. Assumptions that given the usual way these threads go aren't grounded in relaity.

There was nothing to suggest they were sticking wanted posters up for him, or screenshots of their CCTV showing him incorrectly as being a shoplifter.

Just that he got stopped on the way out of the shop, they queried if he'd paid, looked at the CCTV, and then he left. The only one kicking up a fuss over this according to the article is jambon man himself. If he started to get excessivly argumentative with the store questioning if he'd paid or not then it's all his own fault. Nothing to suggest that the store detained him or wrestled him to the ground on the way out the door. There may have been a few words spoken out of turn by each party according to the report, but nothing that suggests the shop started it other than by querying the payment which they are entitled to do.

__Alex__

^^^^
Why was he questioned though? That is not an everyday occurence.

Samuel T. Cogley

robinph wrote: »

There was nothing to suggest they were sticking wanted posters up for him, or screenshots of their CCTV showing him incorrectly as being a shoplifter.

Just that he got stopped on the way out of the shop, they queried if he'd paid, looked at the CCTV, and then he left. The only one kicking up a fuss over this according to the article is jambon man himself. If he started to get excessivly argumentative with the store questioning if he'd paid or not then it's all his own fault. Nothing to suggest that the store detained him or wrestled him to the ground on the way out the door. There may have been a few words spoken out of turn by each party according to the report, but nothing that suggests the shop started it other than by querying the payment which they are entitled to do.

They are not entitled to do it in this manner. They guy had every right to get upset.

They should have checked their CCTV and if found to be a thief pass the information on to the guards. If he came in again then they would have been entitled to arrest him or at the very least bar him.

There is no justification for calling someone a thief, other than the person being a thief. He wasn't, they pay.

pilly

I hate frivolous claims but having read the article Centra ****ed up rightly on this. They did defame the gentleman in question and paid the price. They won't be so quick about it again.

I also agree with another previous poster that my local Centra continually overcharges especially when it comes to "Special Offers" so everyone should ask for a receipt.

robinph

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They are not entitled to do it in this manner. They guy had every right to get upset.

They should have checked their CCTV and if found to be a thief pass the information on to the guards. If he came in again then they would have been entitled to arrest him or at the very least bar him.

There is no justification for calling someone a thief, other than the person being a thief. He wasn't, they pay.

Not that the article can be taken as an accurate transcript of what was said or done, but from Jambon mans evidence the shop staff were only querying if he'd paid or not. Jambon man was the one that then brought up denials of being a thief and therefore escalated the situation. He didn't even claim that the store was calling him a thief, they were only trying to confirm if he'd paid or not. Subtle difference, but I don't see that the shop were accusing him of stuffing items down his jumper and trying to sneak out, as a thief, merely that he'd neglected to pay.

Doctor Nick

robinph wrote: »

Not that the article can be taken as an accurate transcript of what was said or done, but from Jambon mans evidence the shop staff were only querying if he'd paid or not. Jambon man was the one that then brought up denials of being a thief and therefore escalated the situation. He didn't even claim that the store was calling him a thief, they were only trying to confirm if he'd paid or not. Subtle difference, but I don't see that the shop were accusing him of stuffing items down his jumper and trying to sneak out, as a thief, merely that he'd neglected to pay.

Eh.....neglecting to pay = thieving does it not??? :rolleyes:

H3llR4iser

Panrich wrote: »

Whatever about the wrongs and rights about the way this ended up, I'd certainly be digging my heels in about paying again for something that I've already bought.

But why? I would understand if it was 100, 50 or even 20 Euro, but why kick up a giant fuss for 1-2 Euro? It's not like it happens every day; Sure enough there's the matter of the way it's handled, but if you walked out and the store manager came up to you with "Sir, I'm sorry but I think we forgot to include article X in your total" - why go nuclear about it, involving CCTV inspections, solicitors and courts - unless one is "smelling" the opportunity for a large payout already?

Samuel T. Cogley

robinph wrote: »

Not that the article can be taken as an accurate transcript of what was said or done, but from Jambon mans evidence the shop staff were only querying if he'd paid or not. Jambon man was the one that then brought up denials of being a thief and therefore escalated the situation. He didn't even claim that the store was calling him a thief, they were only trying to confirm if he'd paid or not. Subtle difference, but I don't see that the shop were accusing him of stuffing items down his jumper and trying to sneak out, as a thief, merely that he'd neglected to pay.

That still defmation, it still could have been handled compeltely differently. The qunatum of the award is potentially up for debate given simialr cases, although without reading the case it's difficult to know. It's certainly not outrageous or even thead worthy; it's only become so becuase of the twisted sense of begrudary that exists with 'compo' claims. If it wasn't the OP would have started a thread in legal discussions and asked about whther this was usual and would have got a non-sensationalist answer.

Samuel T. Cogley

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Eh.....neglecting to pay = thieving does it not??? :rolleyes:

Just proving I'll argue with anyone, including to the detriment of my own point :pac: no it's not. And infact there was a ver similar case with a tomato plant which had a significantly different outcome.

__Alex__

robinph wrote: »

Not that the article can be taken as an accurate transcript of what was said or done, but from Jambon mans evidence the shop staff were only querying if he'd paid or not.

Again, this is not an everyday occurence. Nobody would like an insinuation of being a thief levelled at them, no matter how breezy they might come across on this thread. Of course, most of us would just leave it at that and rant about it at home later. Most but not all. They defamed him and were unlucky enough that he pursued it. End of story.

robinph

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Eh.....neglecting to pay = thieving does it not??? :rolleyes:

One would be a making a mistake, the other would involve intent.

skankkuvhima

€20k is a bit much alright but I bet 100% that the company could have avoided it completely if they had simply answered his first letter, apologized, and given him 10% of jambons for a year. Their own fault completely.

Samuel T. Cogley

skankkuvhima wrote: »

€20k is a bit much alright but I bet 100% that the company could have avoided it completely if they had simply answered his first letter, apologized, and given him 10% of jambons for a year. Their own fault completely.

Thats not very much of a Jambon. It's just the crusty bit on the edge.

(I know I know last person who should be commenting on spelling.)