HMV going into administration

Penn wrote: »

But he doesn't have a right to it, he still has to go through the transaction process. Fine, my example of the breakfast roll then; If the shop didn't give me my full change one day, I am allowed to go in and take things of equal value?

This is nonsense. It's theft. He walked out of a shop with a product without the consent of the shop and after being told that he was not allowed to do so.

“dishonestly” means without a claim of right made in good faith

The key words are "in good faith"

hooradiation wrote: »

So, we're in agreement, the old guy is a thieving shit.

And this is why solicitors are needed. People make no effort to comprehend the laws they live under.

Biggins wrote: »

I politely disagree. You would be in error.
The man had entered a private property, took goods (without permission/acknowledgement) without a complete sale taking place and exited.
Legally there was clear theft.
A judge would have no choice but to stick with the letter of tort law and follow a charge of theft through to a conclusion.

A judge has every choice. And where are you getting tort law from? With all due respect Biggins, you are talking nonsense. You are mixing up many different legal concepts.

Biggins wrote: »

You would be wrong.

Under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) act 2001 a thief is a committed where a person dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of the owner (who is cover under additional torn law - crimes against a person, in this case the owner of HMV) and with the intention of depriving the owner of that property.

The stealing man could try a defence of "a claim of right" (see the case: The people v Grey, 1944) but he would have to show that for those specific good, he showed "legal consideration".
If he didn't, under additional sale of goods contract law, he has broken commercial law.

And as I've already mentioned, and you have to in that post, theft requires an act of dishonesty. This man appears to have acted in good faith believing he had a right to pay whit the voucher.

As for your talk of consideration, the consideration is the vouchers and money which he claims he intended to send on in full. It would have to be proven that he did not intend to honour the contract by sending on the vouchers and exact change. In any case it's irrelevent because it would not be related to a charge of theft.

Dodge wrote: »

As I Supreme Court judge, I diasgree

As GOD, you are both wrong:P

MagicSean wrote: »

He believed they should accept the vouchers. So does the National Consumer Agency it appears. And the staff also seemed to think he wasn't stealing or they would have stopped him. So what exactly supports your opinion he wasn't?

As people have pointed out, he's taken good of a greater value than the vouchers, kept the vouchers, knew full well they wouldn't be accepted before he even started and security did try to stop him, but as has been pointed out private security usually don't restrain someone for fear of assault charges.

The mental gymnastics needed to make it look like this guy was in the right are simply stunning.

blackwhite wrote: »

The man, by his own admission, took goods of a greater value than the vouchers had originally been for. In addition to that, he had been informed whilst in the store that the vouchers were no longer valid.
Leaving aside the vouchers for a moment, no person would be given a shred of credibility by a judge if they claimed that they believed "in good faith" that a store would allow them remove goods and then send on their payment fully in cash in the post - without even asking for agreement in the store.

You've obviously never been to court. They would very much be willing to listen to this reasoning. It would have to be proven that he never intended to pay for the goods.

Biggins wrote: »

The man might have been morally right (debatable) but legally as the vouchers were apparently NOT going to be willingly accepted as a form of closure of a sale - and the man knew this - then yes, he acted legally dishonestly by further taking the goods.

And to repeat, "legal consideration" was given for the purchase of the credit note itself.
(Money has handed over for the sale of a specific item - in this case a credit note to the value of a specific number)

Totally separately in another tried transaction, the attempted transfer of the credit note back to HMV which was it appears REJECTED, then the completion of a sale for those good he then took home, was not a valid one.

The law is very clear on this.

Will he be charged? Highly unlikely.
Was he morally right? Maybe so - I have great sympathy for him and others in his situation.
Just as regards the law of the land, anyone trying the same stunt, is legally breaking the law if the vouchers are not willingly accepted - and for specific goods.

Again you are mixing civil and criminal law. The man claims to have acted in good faith. There is nothing to suggest he didn't intend paying in full using the vouchers. This is what is important to a criminal charge of theft.

The element of consideration is a moot point because a contract is not valid anyway if both parties dont agree to it. But it is irrelevent for the purpose of a charge of theft.

blackwhite wrote: »

The staff tried to stop him - by his own admission - read the story.

Private security cannot physically restrain somebody without the danger of the person claiming assault.

If a civilian knows a theft has occurred they can arrest and detain a person until the arrival of Gardaí. A professional security guard would know this. They obviously did not fully believe he had committed a theft.

Strawberry Fields wrote: »

it's not just illegal downloads, itunes has taken over.

iTunes?? That's sooo 2010! It's already moving towards online streaming services like Spotify and Deezer etc.
Apple will probably copy those and launch something similar itself, but that's where it's headed nowadays.
Once LTE becomes widespread this year and in 2014, it'll also be pretty much the norm to have huge download speeds on your iPhone, Android, etc..

If anything, the paid streaming services are not only wiping out traditional retailers, they're eating into iTunes and other pay-per track download systems and also encouraging a lot of people to stay away from pirated music as it's just way easier, safer and more reliable (and also not illegal) to just there services and they're not insanely expensive either.

I remember the days when I was a young teenager and HMV, Virgin and the likes were charging close to and more than €20 for a CD.
For half that nowadays I can access a vast library of material.

The business model's changing so rapidly that these ancient bricks and mortar outfits can't keep up and the old industry itself is trying to sue itself back to the 1950s where it controlled everything.

HMV should have gone into some totally different area of retail. If you look at their French counterpart, FNAC, they're now more of an electronics, lifestyle and high-tech store and a bit of a 'destination store'.

They still sell DVDs and CDs, but it's increasingly a side-line product.

HMV could have used the old brand to create a similar 'retail experience'. Bring in bands, open a café, launch a clothing line, they had an amazingly recognisable cool brand that dates back to the early 1900s and they just didn't innovate.

I'd say the whole concept of selling any content on plastic disks will be pretty much extinct other than for obscure collectables fairly soon.

There'll always be a small market for LPs and CDs and DVDs etc, but the mainstream is all about digital downloads and streaming.

I think the other technology that's going to vanish more rapidly than people realise is the landline telephone. Once mobile prices reach (and they already are getting there) to the level where you've unlimited calls for about €30/month... bye bye landline. Most of the nails are already in the coffin, it's only a matter of time and it will be joining the telegram, the telex and the fax machine...

Biggins wrote: »

Thats a whole complicated legal mess in itself but tried to put simply (not easy by any means), as trading was suspended for example on stock exchanges which also involves the transfers of credit, all forms of said credit related to the company HMV were put into suspension.

Now if Ireland (as some say) is a somehow a separate entity to a degree, there seems yesterday to have been some confusion on the staff ground level by those very staff.
They were probably in confusion mode (totally understandable) themselves and might have erred of the side of caution till clarity was obtained.

Yes it seems the people in charge of HMV Ireland are either acting dishonestly or are incredibly stupid. It just goes to show the standard of person that gets high paying jobs in this country.

Biggins wrote: »

At the time, the staff were unwilling to accept the form of payment he was giving.

Just because a staff member don't accept my credit note (or €20 note, etc) for goods I have in my hand - does not legally give me the right to still walk out with the goods.

There is no if's or buts about this.

Right but it still comes down to there being no act of dishonesty. You know that you cannot do that so it would be dishonest to do it anyway. He thought he could do it so that is why it is not a dishonest act.