12 year old walks into gaming shop changes his PlayStation

kingbhome

Hi, I'm looking information on where one stands when a 12 yr old walks into a gaming shop and swaps his xmass bought PlayStation for a 150euro phone . His parents just found out and are not happy about this and will be returning the phone and demanding the PlayStation back.

Where do they stand legally! Will they be able to get the PlayStation back?

Fibromyalgia

No legal standing whatsoever.

knockers84

He didn’t swap it for 100 cans of Dutch gold and a carton of fags from GameStop.

Only way around it is a police report saying your son nicked it which I doubt is what you want to do.

colm_mcm

The practical solution here is to not get the PlayStation back and take the phone off him. I know this is the legal discussion forum but it’s not the shops problem.

Atlantic Dawn

I thought you had to show photo ID and proof of address when trading stuff in?

bigtimecharlie

The shop did a trade with a 12 year old who I guess walked in with PlayStation under his arm and walked out with a phone in his pocket?

That can't be right, can it?

Samuel T. Cogley

Fibromyalgia wrote: »

No legal standing whatsoever.

Contracts with minors come under very strict rules. Under what theory do you, and others in this thread, suggest they've no legal remedy here?

fritzelly

I thought you had to be 18 to sell stuff in these types of shops? Like in cash converters and the ilk
A 12 year cannot understand the value of what they are selling

hullaballoo

Minors don't generally have capacity to contract other than for essentials.

So, I suppose the parents have a whole heap of legal standing so to speak.

fritzelly

Also did he have the receipt - thought they cracked down on the law on this to stop stolen goods being sold on

Think the parents have good standing to get the xbox back and sell it themselves if the kid no longer wants it

road_high

kingbhome wrote: »

Hi, I'm looking information on where one stands when a 12 yr old walks into a gaming shop and swaps his xmass bought PlayStation for a 150euro phone . His parents just found out and are not happy about this and will be returning the phone and demanding the PlayStation back.

Where do they stand legally! Will they be able to get the PlayStation back?

When the little gob****es get expensive things handed to them stuff like this will happen. Nothing to do with the shop ags everything to do with personal responsibility. It’s not a full nanny state just yet

Mod
Language!

Mr. Incognito

I dont think this is a consumer issue

I believe its a parenting issue.

The child obviously has no value on the Playstation so I would leave that in the shop and take the phone off him.

A better route to go would be to make him go to Jack and Jill to donate the phone himself

Guy:Incognito

hullaballoo wrote: »

Minors don't generally have capacity to contract other than for essentials.
.

So how can they buy anything , in any shop, other than "essentials"?

hullaballoo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So how can they buy anything , in any shop, other than "essentials"?

It's a good question. Unfortunately, the following is a very limited answer that is not going to deal with all of the ins and outs.

In very general terms:-

By and large, a child can go to a shop and purchase things like sweets, magazines etc. that would not be considered essentials. This clearly happens all the time without any issue.

However, should a dispute somehow arise regarding the sale, it is voidable ab initio by the child's parent in effect, due to the absence of contractual capacity. Sweets and magazines etc. rarely give rise to contractual disputes. They are very low-value items and rarely have material defects that would not be obvious even to a child in advance of handing over their parent's hard earned money.

For other non-essential items, particularly those of significant value for a child, retailers should really not be selling to unaccompanied children because of this lack of capacity. Many shops operate policies that children must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. This is the reason for it.

That is I suppose the default position but I should say that if, somehow, a contractual dispute involving a child arises that has to proceed to Court for resolution, a child can be found to have contractual capacity on a subjective analysis of, for want of a better turn of phrase, their maturity and understanding of the transaction and its value.

But these things rarely end up in Court because most retailers know this and in any event children tend not to purport to enter contracts of sufficient value to warrant legal proceedings.

riffmongous

I love how retail laws are never as obvious as you think them to be or work like most people presume they do. Always interesting to read about

Suckit

My guess is that the shop will return the playstation as soon as the parents walk in. Similar thing happened to somebody I know a few years ago. The guy in the shop who did the exchange was only about 19, the parents were ready to tell him that a child under 16 was not legally able to do it blah blah...
The shop didn't say anything when the parents told them the issue, and gave them back the item that the kid traded.

One thing I would ask for though, is the same Playstation back. With the same issues/non issues.

Then, personally, I would sell the playstation online and buy myself something with the money

lalababa

What about the rights of the 12yr old? Ha? Anybody think of them? That was HIS play station, and NOW that is HIS phone. Fair f**ks to the lad. Much more socially mobile with a cool smartphone!

Smiles35

lalababa wrote: »

What about the rights of the 12yr old? Ha? Anybody think of them? That was HIS play station, and NOW that is HIS phone. Fair f**ks to the lad. Much more socially mobile with a cool smartphone!

Yeah. Sure he's saving money buy not having to buy games for the ps4. If those parents followed the ps4 to the shop, I'd call them knackers.

Suckit

Smiles35 wrote: »

Yeah. Sure he's saving money buy not having to buy games for the ps4. If those parents followed the ps4 to the shop, I'd call them knackers.

What has getting a Playstation back got to do with dead animals?


You don't know who owns the PS. It could be a case of the father buying it for himself and telling the young lad 'of course it's yours'. Or could shared among family.
Could be loads of things, but mainly, as mentioned, a 12 year old doesn't have the law on their side to make the exchange, and the store shouldn't have allowed the transaction.

Homelander

Well, it had to be either Gamestop or CEX if you describe it as a gaming shop and both require a guardian for under 18 trades....so I'd say be easy get a reversal for that reason alone.

Atlas_IRL

Do Cex sell phones? Gamestop Dont.

Doblin

Tbh I don't understand why parents get upset about such trivial matters.

barrier86

Atlas_IRL wrote: »

Do Cex sell phones? Gamestop Dont.

Yes

Tell me how

Smiles35 wrote: »

Yeah. Sure he's saving money buy not having to buy games for the ps4. If those parents followed the ps4 to the shop, I'd call them knackers.

If I buy my kid something and they think they can just trade it like that then we're going to have a serious conversation.

knockers84

Could of have just swapping it straight out with a friend

Smiles35

Tell me how wrote: »

If I buy my kid something and they think they can just trade it like that then we're going to have a serious conversation.

It's been 9 months since the child got the present. The op is probably just hanging around with some boozer and needs to find less ways to waste his own time.

Mod
No insults pls

Homelander

Smiles35 wrote: »

It's been 9 months since the child got the present. The op is probably just hanging around with some boozer and needs to find less ways to waste his own time.

Just think of how many bets the kid could've placed and how many fags he could have smoked, total amateur

GerardKeating

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So how can they buy anything , in any shop, other than "essentials"?

But, But, But is a mobile not essential for any 12 year old...

Victor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So how can they buy anything , in any shop, other than "essentials"?

In general, the law does not bother with trivialities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis So a 12 year old buys a packet of sweets for €1, the court will not get involved, short of the vendor knowing they have diabetes. This however would be more a child welfare issue than a contractual issue.

If a 12 year old spending a minor amount of money on pure necessities - food, medicine, transport home (bus, not private jet) will be treated just like that - it was necessary.

A 12 year old spending €10 on phone credit would probably be seen as a necessity, even if it is not absolutely necessary.

I've heard it said that necessity should take the class of child (category of child, not social class per se) into account and that, say, a debutante could enter into a binding contract for a dress. However, I think this is pushing the limits. A more modern example of this would be a 17-year old buying a box of condoms, which could be seen as a necessity, given that 17 year olds can legally have sex.

By current standards, a 12 year old disposing of an asset worth several hundred euros and acquiring a mobile phone is not a necessity. Giving a mobile phone to a 12 year old is the prerogative of a parent, not a stranger.