HMV going into administration

hooradiation · 16-01-2013 01:19PM

MagicSean wrote: »

I'm simply stating the law in regards to theft and contracts. I need no mental gymnastics.

And your interpretation hinges on the concept of this thief acting "in good faith".
So far, no luck on that.

mathie · 16-01-2013 01:21PM

hooradiation wrote: »

And your interpretation hinges on the concept of this thief acting "in good faith".
So far, no luck on that.

Ah here leave it out your honour I only stole dat CD in gud faith!

16-01-2013 01:23PM

If they couldn't or wouldn't redeem them yesterday, the vouchers were no longer fit for purpose intended and a full refund should have been given. They weren't in administration at that point.

Corruptedmorals · 16-01-2013 01:23PM

He thought he could do it? He walked out of the shop with the games worth more than the vouchers AND the vouchers. That makes him no different to the scrotes fleecing Penneys and Tesco. 'Sticking it to the man' does not make him a hero who wasn't aware he was acting dishonestly- he knew exactly what he was doing.

Hogzy · 16-01-2013 01:23PM

Red Alert wrote: »

So what's to stop any shop, not in examinership/administration, who have a cash flow issue deciding on a whim that they're not taking vouchers?

When you buy a voucher you become an unsecured creditor to that company. If the company isn't given court protection (from administration or liquidation) then they have no right to refuse you because they 'owe' you the value of the vouchers. You could take them to the small claims court or technically speaking make a petition for an involuntary liquidation of the company of you believe they cannot pay their debts. This is extreme though, a court probably wouldnt grant it but it would scare the **** out of the company who are refusing to cash vouchers.

marco_polo · 16-01-2013 01:23PM

Red Alert wrote: »

So what's to stop any shop, not in examinership/administration, who have a cash flow issue deciding on a whim that they're not taking vouchers?

Probably the fact that it would be illegal if the company is not in examinership/administration?

Biggins · 16-01-2013 01:24PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

...Or just maybe the very ground staff were like many others in Ireland and England, busy trying to ring HQ to find out what the hell to do and in the meanwhile, store-staff took the decision to err on the side of caution even for a day?

Yesterday for store managers in both two countries must have been hell alone in trying to find out what was going on.

Please don't pick on the staff and consider them all just incredibly stupid.
You might be wrong.

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

He took the goods knowing no payment was made.
Hell, he even took home the credit note.

No dishonestly?
How hard does it have to be spelt out?

Boombastic · 16-01-2013 01:26PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Probably the fact that it would be illegal if the company is not in examinership/administration?

So HMV IRL LTD. were acting illegally

Corruptedmorals · 16-01-2013 01:28PM

This is not a decision store staff are able to make, they would never choose to do that to err on the side of caution. An email was sent from head office to all stores in the UK and Ireland, there's a photo of it early in the threads. It says that no vouchers or cards are to be accepted, no refunds or exchanges will be given. The function to do so was also suspended off the tills.

blackwhite · 16-01-2013 01:33PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

Taking the goods without leaving any form of consideration, or contact details would be a pretty good indicator of his intent.
Every scumbag who's up in court for shoplifting could claim they were going to send payment in the post. A judge would listen to it, and then disregard for what it is - unreliable testimony (i.e. bulls*t)

MagicSean wrote: »

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.

They can attempt to stop and detain (which they tried to do, even so far as following him down the street - read the story in the OP FFS), but they have no exemption from laws regarding assault if any degree of force is used. Any attempt to physically restrain the thief could potentially have resulted in a claim of assault.

The leaps of logic you are trying to make to defend this thief are laughable

GLaDOS · 16-01-2013 01:35PM

This is bad

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/lily-mae-supporters-fear-hmv-wont-pay-tiny-dancer-invoice-581348.html

It has emerged that part of the funds raised for a seriously ill child in Galway have been caught up in the problems facing HMV.

More than 300 musicians got behind a recording of Elton John's 'Tiny Dancer ' before Christmas, to help Lily Mae Morrison in her fight against neuroblastoma.

Her supporters say they have invoiced HMV for around €27,000 that was to have been divided between Lily-Mae and the Neuroblastoma Society.

Steve Macken, who produced the single, explained how the problem arose.

"Obviously until we got the final sales figure post-Christmas, we couldn't send in any invoices," he said.

"So the invoices went in last week, and now HMV are in administration, that's HMV UK, but the chances of us being paid right now are pretty close to nil, because we are an unsecured local supplier.

MagicSean · 16-01-2013 01:37PM

Biggins wrote: »

...Or just maybe the very ground staff were like many others in Ireland and England, busy trying to ring HQ to find out what the hell to do and in the meanwhile, store-staff took the decision to err on the side of caution even for a day?

Yesterday for store managers in both two countries must have been hell alone in trying to find out what was going on.

Please don't pick on the staff and consider them all just incredibly stupid.
You might be wrong.

Biggins wrote: »

I clearly said the people in charge of HMV Ireland. Not the store managers or the staff at the tills.

He took the goods knowing no payment was made.
Hell, he even took home the credit note.

The irony being that the "credit note" was no longer worth the paper it was printed on. The man was owed €40 by HMV. The voucher itself is not really the issue. It's not worth anything, just a symbol of the debt owed to him by HMV. As they were no longer accepting them then it makes no difference what he did with it. It's not like someone else could have used it.

Biggins wrote: »

No dishonestly?
How hard does it have to be spelt out?

Do you believe he had no intention to send on the vouchers and the remaining money? That is what it comes down to.

drdeadlift · 16-01-2013 01:37PM

when you buy a voucher from a store are there t&c explaining the possibility of the company not honoring the voucher if unforeseen stuff happens.
And could he not have gotten his moola back

Solair · 16-01-2013 01:41PM

I no longer see the point of buying vouchers. They're poorly regulated and you can clearly lose your money should something like this happen.

It's far easier to just give people cash if you're looking for a totally unimaginative present. At least cash can be redeemed without any fuss!

I'd say plenty of people will be going back to Gift Cheques and Postal Orders.

Or, if you're not being lazy, get them an actual gift!

MagicSean · 16-01-2013 01:43PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Taking the goods without leaving any form of consideration, or contact details would be a pretty good indicator of his intent.
Every scumbag who's up in court for shoplifting could claim they were going to send payment in the post. A judge would listen to it, and then disregard for what it is - unreliable testimony (i.e. bulls*t)

Yes any scumbag can try and defend their shoplifting by claiming it was not a dishinest act. Many have tried. And it's up to the judge to decide wether they are worth believing.

blackwhite wrote: »

They can attempt to stop and detain (which they tried to do, even so far as following him down the street - read the story in the OP FFS), but they have no exemption from laws regarding assault if any degree of force is used. Any attempt to physically restrain the thief could potentially have resulted in a claim of assault.

The leaps of logic you are trying to make to defend this thief are laughable

Yes they can indeed restrain someone if that person has committed and arrestable offence (theft) and they try and leave before Gardaí arrive.

If they use too much force or are wrong in their belief an arrestable offence has been committed then they have no protection. Again, this is something a professional security guard should know. They often restrain people legally.

mikeym · 16-01-2013 02:05PM

HMV never moved on with the times.

Sure since it opened up in Cork in the nineties I dont ever remember the premises being renovated.

guttenberg · 16-01-2013 02:08PM

You were able to avail of the discounts online yesterday, if their website is now offline, does that mean anyone who risked ordering through their website yesterday won't be getting their order and will be lumped with the giftcard holders?

seamus · 16-01-2013 02:10PM

If you placed an order online then you will have used a card. You can claim this transaction back from your card supplier as the contract has not been honoured.

TwoShedsJackson · 16-01-2013 02:11PM

To be honest anyone who placed an order via their website yesterday once they had heard the company was going into administration deserves to lose their money.

But no doubt you'll get it back with a chargeback.

Hogzy · 16-01-2013 02:15PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

This is bad

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/lily-mae-supporters-fear-hmv-wont-pay-tiny-dancer-invoice-581348.html

Without going too deep into the legalities of it, I would imagine that girl will get her money. That money would have been held on trust by HMV to the benefit of Lily Mae so would never have been HMV's money in the first place. I am only speculating here but that would be my educated guess.

guttenberg · 16-01-2013 02:17PM

I was just wondering, don't worry I didn't order anything:) Can a Mod fix the spelling mistake in the thread title please? it's starting to bug me!

Biggins · 16-01-2013 02:34PM

MagicSean wrote: »

The irony being that the "credit note" was no longer worth the paper it was printed on. The man was owed €40 by HMV. The voucher itself is not really the issue. It's not worth anything, just a symbol of the debt owed to him by HMV. As they were no longer accepting them then it makes no difference what he did with it. It's not like someone else could have used it.

The credit note was set-up by HMV (in this case) as a form of legal consideration that in standard times, they were willing to accept just as that, legal consideration to be used in the process of transferring goods in exchange for other item(s).

The voucher as such, was the real issue.
As far as HMV was/is concerned, it is worth something.
(it still is worth something if a person wishes to submit it to a legal process in order to try claiming money back at some stage. Its still has legal worth. Yes, in the pecking order of things regarding larger creditors, there is small chance of gaining anything back but the point is that it IS worth something still for the moment.)

MagicSean wrote: »

Do you believe he had no intention to send on the vouchers and the remaining money? That is what it comes down to.

We can have all the best future intentions in the world.
A judge can't often use possible future intentions as solid evidence.
He/she has to deal with the law and facts of a case.
They are that a person left with goods without showing legal consideration being accepted - and knowingly knew they had left with the very goods AND the form of consideration that was supposed to be handed over had it been valid at the time to do so.

I can walk into a shop and carry a sheep (I'm strong!

) and ask the shop to take it as transfer for goods I wish to take.
Staff can refuse my form of legal consideration - as they (HMV) have done so.
Refusal of anyone to take my offered legal consideration does not still entitle me to still take any goods from them, 1. without permission/acceptance and 2. just enter any private premises and just walk off with goods.

MagicSean · 16-01-2013 02:38PM

Biggins wrote: »

The credit note was set-up by HMV (in this case) as a form of legal consideration that in standard times, they were willing to accept just as that, legal consideration to be used in the process of transferring goods in exchange for other item(s).

The voucher as such, was the real issue.
As far as HMV was/is concerned, it is worth something.
(it still is worth something if a person wishes to submit it to a legal process in order to try claiming money back at some stage. Its still has legal worth. Yes, in the pecking order of things regarding larger creditors, there is small chance of gaining anything back but the point is that it IS worth something still for the moment.)

We can have all the future intention in the world.
A judge can't often use possible future intentions as solid evidence.
He/she has to deal with the law and facts of a case.
They are that a person left with goods without show legal consideration being accepted - and knowingly knew they had left with the very goods AND the form of consideration that was supposed to be handed over had it been valid at the time to do so.

I can walk into a shop and carry a sheep (I'm strong! ) and ask the shop to take it as transfer for goods I wish to take.
Staff can refuse my form of legal consideration - as they (HMV) have done so.
Refusal of anyone to take my offered legal consideration does not still entitle me to still take any goods from them, 1. without permission/acceptance and 2. enter enter any private premises and just walk off with goods.

You are still mixing civil and criminal law. Theft is a criminal offence. it does require an element of intent and a judge can take this into consideration.

Consideration is a part of civil law relating to contracts. It is irrelevent in this matter because a contract is not formed without mutual consent anyway.

Solair · 16-01-2013 02:40PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

To be honest anyone who placed an order via their website yesterday once they had heard the company was going into administration deserves to lose their money.

But no doubt you'll get it back with a chargeback.

Not unless they put a warning notice up on the website. Not everyone's glued to the news all day.

Since you're paying by card online, it would be worth contacting your card issuer to look into doing a chargeback if the goods cannot be delivered.

Visa, MasterCard and Visa Debit schemes all have chargeback facilities.
Laser doesn't.

seamus · 16-01-2013 02:42PM

Just to clarify what MagicSean means in civil -v- criminal - it is not a defence in the criminal charge of theft to show that you intended to pay for something.

I can't take someone's car and post €10k through their letterbox. It's still theft because he never agreed to sell it.

HMV refusing to accept the vouchers as payment is a civil issue. They are refusing to honour the debt attached to those vouchers. Taking stock from HMV without their agreement to sell it, is theft, a criminal issue.

Biggins · 16-01-2013 02:43PM

MagicSean wrote: »

You are still mixing civil and criminal law. Theft is a criminal offence. it does require an element of intent and a judge can take this into consideration.

Consideration is a part of civil law relating to contracts. It is irrelevent in this matter because a contract is not formed without mutual consent anyway.

Where civil laws are broken (the stealing of goods - in this case specifically due to the non-working of a credit transfer system as recognised under commercial law) then the taking of goods unwarranted enters in to the area of criminal law.

Please tell me that you get and understand this.
The law is very clear on this matter.

Mutual consent was not reached between the specific store/staff and the person taking the goods 1. without permission (criminal law) and 2. showing legal consideration under the laws of contract as laid out in commercial law.

MagicSean · 16-01-2013 02:48PM

Biggins wrote: »

Where civil laws are broken (the stealing of goods - in this case specifically due to the non-working of a credit transfer system as recognised under commercial law) then the taking of goods unwarranted enters in to the area of criminal law.

Please tell me that you get and understand this.
The law is very clear on this matter.

Mutual consent was not reached between the specific store/staff and the person taking the goods 1. without permission (criminal law) and 2. showing legal consideration under the laws of contract as laid out in commercial law.

It doesn't change the fact that theft requires a dishonest act, which is not present in the story in question.

melekalikimaka · 16-01-2013 02:49PM

MagicSean wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that theft requires a dishonest act, which is not present in the story in question.

if he was honest he wouldnt have left them on the table

Biggins · 16-01-2013 02:50PM

MagicSean wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that theft requires a dishonest act, which is not present in the story in question.

He LEFT with goods (obtained knowingly without permission) and also with all his forms of possible legal consideration.

What do you still not get about this?

Dodge · 16-01-2013 02:53PM

Its pretty astonishing that there's people here who try and claim he didn't steal stuff.

Argue all you like about the morals, but it couldn't be clearer about the theft.

"He wasn't dishonest..." LOL

HMV going into administration

Comments