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.
ButtersSuki wrote: » Whilst HMV and their security staff were not willing to pursue a grandad, I doubt they will apply that level of leniency to anyone else who tries this. I notice grandad didn't hand over the voucher or pay the surplus - this is plainly and simply theft. A fine example to set for your grandkids. Before I get shouted down from on high, I'm not excusing HMV for not honouring the gift tokens, but this is not the way to tackle this!
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 the law and follow a charge of theft through to a conclusion.
Rabidlamb wrote: » I'll have you know that I am a District Court Judge...
RainMaker wrote: » Maybe he would get a fine... payable using HMV vouchers
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.
hooradiation wrote: » So, we're in agreement, the old guy is a thieving shit.
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.
MagicSean wrote: » “dishonestly” means without a claim of right made in good faith The key words are "in good faith" And this is why solicitors are needed. People make no effort to comprehend the laws they live under. 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. 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.
MagicSean wrote: » And this is why solicitors are needed. People make no effort to comprehend the laws they live under.
Rabidlamb wrote: » As a District Court Judge I agree with MagicSean here.
Theta wrote: » Surely if he did it in "good faith" he would have left the money and the vouchers but in fact now he has both the items and the vouchers and money. He has committed a crime.
hooradiation wrote: » The idea he was "acting in good faith" is laughable. Get out.
Dodge wrote: » As I Supreme Court judge, I diasgree
MagicSean wrote: » ...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.
MagicSean wrote: » And the staff also seemed to think he wasn't stealing or they would have stopped him.
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?
hooradiation wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
Biggins wrote: » I haven't been reading through this thread so apologies if I post something thats been stated already - the general so called expert analysis is that top HMV management failed to move with the times and sadly they are now in the unfortunate situation that they are. Maybe if they had created a more on-line presence to meet Amazon (not particularly out to beat them) in the web shopping market, they might have gained some more revenue to keep themselves out of trouble. Just a maybe... I do hope a buyer comes a long and manages to save some of the jobs that are on the line right now. As one of the last large street shop-front music retailers around, it would be a sad day for them to eventually close.
Boombastic wrote: » What legal basis do HMV have for refusing to accept the vouchers?
mathie wrote: » The legal basis of the law.
Boombastic wrote: » However, the NCA said today that it has now clarified that HMV in the Republic of Ireland is a separate corporate entity to the UK operation and HMV Ireland Ltd is not currently in administration or examinership.
Strawberry Fields wrote: » it's not just illegal downloads, itunes has taken over.
MagicSean wrote: » ...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.
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.
omega666 wrote: » No confusion by the front line staff, the option to accept vouchers was disabled on the tills so there was no way for them to accept them.
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.
