Man gets €20k for jambon embarrassment

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.)

pilly

If you think about it, the shop staff and management didn't use much common sense or cop on. The man paid for other items and then they claimed he didn't pay for the jambon.

1. If he didn't pay then it was their fault for not ringing it up unless he had it down his underpants.
2. If he was a robber why would he go for such a low value item?
3. Either way, why potentially open up your company to a lawsuit over max €2?

Imo they got what they deserved for not having basic customer service skills.

robinph

__Alex__ wrote: »

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.

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

__Alex__

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

Well, the courts agree that he was defamed. And the award was based on that.

But again, and this is the third time, what happened to him is out of the ordinary. I know this from my own retail days. There was likely a bit of profiling going on. And nobody would be happy being put in the position he was put in.

Doctor Nick

robinph wrote: »

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

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

__Alex__

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

+1

I've been falsely accused of stealing and it still upsets me now, 14 years later.

osarusan

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

Samuel T. Cogley

osarusan wrote: »

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

Indeed defamation requires the statement to be published. They could have called him a thief, a rapist, a coke head or anything else they liked as long as it was not overheard. It was proven to the cvil standard it was over heard.

Now we can level the assuation that it was his fault but that was for Centra to argue thorugh their barrister.

robinph

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

But there is nothing to suggest that they did call him a thief. He's the one that made that accusation against himself.

osarusan wrote: »

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

I got the impression from the article that it was him who was the one being indiscreet and drawing attention to the situation, including going back for a second argument with the staff after they had said it was all OK.

1874

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

I just read the article, they did accusse him of being a thief from his account, in the link to the article in the first post, whether they called him an actual thief or not, they certainly seemed to be suggesting it from his account of what they said and their actions. Why would he have felt obliged to stay until the matter was resolved? any instance I've witnessed with people making off with stuff (Ive seen a small handful), the thief invariably attempts to get away

You are incorrect about his account not suggesting they accused him of anything underhand, it appears very much that they did, from the link, quote below.
He stated, They said he did not pay for the item, (his account).
If he was a thief, why would he go back inside and insist on checking the till and cctv?

"A DUBLIN MAN, who claimed he was falsely accused of not paying for a jambon pastry, has been awarded €20,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court for defamation.
Anthony Maher claimed that on 7 August 2014 he bought and paid for a number of items at Centra Corduff in Blanchardstown, Dublin, and had been followed outside the store by two staff members.
Maher, of Fortunestown in Tallaght, said that one of the staff members, Marian Fletcher, told him that he had not paid for the jambon he had bought from the deli counter.
He told his barrister, Maeve Cox, that he tried to explain he had paid for all of the items but Fletcher had asked him to go back into the store where he pointed out to her the cashier who had served him.
Maher said that as the cashier had not remembered him he had asked for the till and security cameras to be checked, arguing he was not a thief. There had been customers inside and outside the store throughout the incident.
Cox, who appeared with John O’Leary Solicitors, said Maher had felt obliged to remain in the shop until the matter was resolved to their satisfaction despite having done nothing wrong."

Your Face

I don't see anything wrong with that.
It was a false accusation.