Woman sues shop over ludicrous defamation claim.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

So the scammer/thief is the beneficiary. Just because that's always the way it's been, doesn't make it right.

No, because there are defamation laws which apply to these scenarios. You do realize this same law/principle covers genuine people who have been falsely accused of stealing? (and not engaging in some kind of scam)

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

It doesn't matter if it's 'serious' or not, you and others seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. The shop left themselves open to being sued, sure it sucks in this case, but that's the harsh reality of what can happen if you do what they did.

mfceiling

Wow!! Just before christmas I was in a shop and picked up a couple of items and paid for them. Went to another shop 2 doors down to get something else. At the till the guy (think he might have been eastern european) pointed at the 2 items under my arm and said "and those". "Got them down there"..."ah, ok"

I could be 20k better off!!

FML

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's 'serious' or not, you and others seem to be incapable of grasping this fact. The shop left themselves open to being sued, sure it sucks in this case, but that's the harsh reality of what can happen if you do what they did.

The customer picked up an item off the shelf and didn't pay for it. The shop assistant asked if it had been paid for - reasonably assuming that as the customer had picked it up off the shelf in that shop that it was her intention to buy it. But somehow the assistant in this case needed to be aware that the customer actually bought the item elsewhere and rather bizarrely left it on the shelf in the shop with similar items before picking it up again. Sorry but that to me is bonkers, and no amount of "the shop left themselves open to this" nonsense will change that.

Omackeral

mfceiling wrote: »

Wow!! Just before christmas I was in a shop and picked up a couple of items and paid for them. Went to another shop 2 doors down to get something else. At the till the guy (think he might have been eastern european) pointed at the 2 items under my arm and said "and those". "Got them down there"..."ah, ok"

I could be 20k better off!!

FML

Lucky you included that part or I'd be lost.

Seve OB

I hope it was a really nice and expensive bottle of wine. I hope she goes home and celebrates in style, savouring said wine from a really nice crystal glass. An of course I hope it goes down the wrong way and she chokes on it.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Madness. Why in the world would they settle this?
Surely asking if someone paid for their product is not defamation.



No they dont need harsher sentences for fraudsters, they just need to stop siding with people who make stupid claims.

Even if it was ruled that what he did was defamation 20k is crazy. She should have been given a free bottle of wine and told to jog on.

The thing is once there is a legal claim made against you, you have to defend yourself. Even a stonewall stupid claim, you have to defend it. That means getting a solicitor, barrister etc. It will be months or even years before the claim gets anywhere near a court or settlement discussions. Do you know how easy it is to go into a solicitors and bring a claim against some shop that you may well haev never been in? Shop will still have to defend themselves There comes a time when it makes more financial sense to pay it off just to make it go away.

Look we don't know what went down. Did the shop keeper really just ask if she paid for it, or did they really say stop thief and call the cops in front of loads of people... we just don't know. But it shouldn't matter one way or another, all she had to do was say, I'm no thief, I bought it down the raod and here is my receipt. A humble apology should of been all that was required, despite it being an obvious set up, I'm not so sure I would have given her a free bottle of wine....... unless of course it was poured over her

Nobody sided with this chancer, except of course I'm sure she probably had Jimmy McGill on the case for her! It was a stupid claim, but it was a claim none the less and that's the problem. They need to stop allowing people to make stupid claims.

There should be some sort of application process that someone making a claim like this should have to go through before they can actually bring a claim. And cases like this should be hung out to dry and the claiment needs to be told to cop the F*** on.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I'm not aware of courts finding defamation occurred where staff merely asked if somebody paid for something, though I'm open to correction.

I kinda agree that I'm not even sure the case passes the basic requirements, much less that any award would have been significant. Even the classic "alarm goes off" cases of the 2000s were all worth only a few grand, and that was pretty much telling the entire shop that the person had stolen items.

ford2600

Deleted User wrote: »

I kinda agree that I'm not even sure the case passes the basic requirements, much less that any award would have been significant. Even the classic "alarm goes off" cases of the 2000s were all worth only a few grand, and that was pretty much telling the entire shop that the person had stolen items.

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Sue Pa Key Pa

namloc1980 wrote: »

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

Would you give over? Insurers pay out because it is a cover provided in most retail policies to cover the shop owners costs when he or his staff cock up. There are now gangs of scammers attempting this on unsuspecting shop assistants and the 'right's' of these people are being ably and vigorously asserted by their legal representatives. Defending 'snowflakes' is the new nice little earner

ford2600

ford2600 wrote: »

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Who was the Judge?

Here's a claim that was not only dismissed, but costs awarded against the Plaintiff too...

http://www.thejournal.ie/baby-buggy-defamation-2454881-Nov2015/

listermint

Well looks like once again the Judiciary in this country are out of touch with their interpretation of the law. One fool of a judge puts a ruling out and he sets a precedent.

Ridiculous judges.

razorblunt

Jesus wept, that's atrocious.

Mint Sauce

So tell me this. What if I innocently went into the shop after her, picked up the two bottles of wine, thinking they were for sale, successfully paid for them, and walked out.

Accused of stealing her property?

Seve OB

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So tell me this. What if I innocently went into the shop after her, picked up the two bottles of wine, thinking they were for sale, successfully paid for them, and walked out.

Accused of stealing her property?

lol, probably

skinny90

Why is the lady in question not named and shamed?

Samuel T. Cogley

People misunderstanding settlements and precedent as usual I see.

BrokenArrows

ford2600 wrote: »

I've seen two cases run in past 2 years (same judge), the most recent where the Plaintiff was asked had she paid for a drink (soft drink). That was the height of her case.

She got 20,000 from judge.

I spoke to a different barrister after case and a retail client of his, is effectively letting people steal as it's cheaper that the defamation costs.

Ill have to remember this.
If i ever get asked for a receipt ill be rolling in cash.

astrofool

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

People misunderstanding settlements and precedent as usual I see.

I don't really think so, but would be good to see a blustering explanation from you on this point. The more hyperbolae the better!

It will also be fun to see how much you misunderstand the case and the reaction to it.

Samuel T. Cogley

astrofool wrote: »

I don't really think so, but would be good to see a blustering explanation from you on this point. The more hyperbolae the better!

It will also be fun to see how much you misunderstand the case and the reaction to it.

I'm having that too much fun watching all the misunderstandings and rules of precedent informed by three episodes of law and order I'm afraid. But if you like you can give a concise and well thought out explanation of the above if you like...

I'm sure you'll understand why tomato plants explain why precedent is being misinterpreted here.

Allinall

listermint wrote: »

Well looks like once again the Judiciary in this country are out of touch with their interpretation of the law. One fool of a judge puts a ruling out and he sets a precedent.

Ridiculous judges.

There was no judge involved.

More's the pity.

Samuel T. Cogley

Allinall wrote: »

There was no judge involved.

More's the pity.

She should have been told to piss off and had costs awarded against her. Utter scam.

Mutant z

Disgraceful but not in the least bit surprising this is sadly all too common in society where people are suing for the most minor trivial things.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

People misunderstanding settlements and precedent as usual I see.

Allinall wrote: »

There was no judge involved.

More's the pity.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

She should have been told to piss off and had costs awarded against her. Utter scam.

Ah lads,

no understanding why an insurance company would pay out a settlement then i see..


Dont understand precedent i see, i suppose the Insurer does. You should ask them why.

awe bless.

Mutant z

skinny90 wrote: »

Why is the lady in question not named and shamed?

Indeed she should be splashed on the front pages of every newspaper that way she and others may think twice before they try this sort of con again.

Mint Sauce

Seve OB wrote: »

lol, probably

Then sue her for defamation!

astrofool

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm having that too much fun watching all the misunderstandings and rules of precedent informed by three episodes of law and order I'm afraid. But if you like you can give a concise and well thought out explanation of the above if you like...

I'm sure you'll understand why tomato plants explain why precedent is being misinterpreted here.

I'd much prefer your version rather than sneering from the side. And what you want to do with the tomato plants, however kinky, is your own business, I'm sure your son doesn't mind.

Skihunta13

baylah17 wrote: »

Case was settled , therfore no Judge involved.

Why was it settled? Because insurance companies know the judge would award something to the complainant.