Not charged at Till

Reality tv

Just looking for people's thoughts on this. If you buy several items in a store and get home and realise something wasn't scanned in by the cashier, where would you stand legally?
Would it almost rouse suspicion to return and try to pay for an item not paid for (albeit through no fault of your own)?

hullaballoo

I do this a lot due to absent mindedness rather than dishonesty, which means it's not theft. However, it can become theft if, having realised you have done it, you fail to return the item to its owner or otherwise rectify the situation by offering to pay.

The last part about riding suspicion is not a legal question.

zoe 3619

Reality tv wrote: »

Just looking for people's thoughts on this. If you but several items in a store and get home and realise something wasn't scanned in by the cashier, where would you stand legally?
Would it almost rouse suspicion to return and try to pay for an item not paid for (albeit through no fault of your own)?

I'm not sure about the legal aspect,but I don't imagine anyone would question your integrity if you returned and tried to pay.
Obviously the cashier was at fault,and I'd worry that highlighting the issue would get them into trouble.I guess if the item in question was a loaf of bread I'd forget about it.

L1011

Reality tv wrote: »

Would it almost rouse suspicion to return and try to pay for an item not paid for (albeit through no fault of your own)?

Most retailers would be entirely happy to take your money without further question. Having done so once with something (where I was sure I'd need to claim on the warranty and needed a receipt!) the payment was refused as a 'reward' - wouldn't expect that normally though.

usernamegoes

hullaballoo wrote: »

I do this a lot due to absent mindedness rather than dishonesty, which means it's not theft. However, it can become theft if, having realised you have done it, you fail to return the item to its owner or otherwise rectify the situation by offering to pay.

The last part about riding suspicion is not a legal question.

If she didn't form the mens rea until after she left the store there is no coicidence of mens rea with actus reus.

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

I do this a lot due to absent mindedness rather than dishonesty, which means it's not theft. However, it can become theft if, having realised you have done it, you fail to return the item to its owner or otherwise rectify the situation by offering to pay.

The last part about riding suspicion is not a legal question.

If it happens a lot, I would begin to worry.......

hullaballoo

Marcusm wrote: »

If it happens a lot, I would begin to worry.......

I have two children under 2.

magentis

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have two children under 2.

I remember those days well.That will definitely do it!

oleras

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have two children under 2.

You have trained them well.

cml387

usernamegoes wrote: »

If she didn't form the mens rea until after she left the store there is no coicidence of mens rea with actus reus.

Rumpole of the Bailey defending a notorious east end criminal.

Judge "Is your client aware of the concept of mens rea?"
Rumpole"My lord, down the East End they speak of little else"

I may paraphrase as I can't find the quote.