HMV going into administration

melekalikimaka wrote: »

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

What?

Biggins wrote: »

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?

He believed he had a claim to the items. He was wrong. But being wrong doesnt make you dishonest.

Dodge

MagicSean wrote: »

He was wrong. But being wrong doesnt make you dishonest.

Ah the ol' ignorance of the law defence. Complete bunkem

MagicSean wrote: »

He believed he had a claim to the items. He was wrong. But being wrong doesnt make you dishonest.

He could believe all he wanted (we all can) - that don't give him or anyone a legal right just to walk off with goods before showing that legal consideration was offered and it was willingly accepted.

In his case being wrong could have seriously got him a criminal record.

c_man

Guy take games from shop.
Internet explodes.

Anyways, are HMV Ireland going into administration today? Or will they be re-opening and accepting vouchers?

dutopia

Nice going there HMV, wait until after the Christmas rush to pull this off.

c_man wrote: »

...Anyways, are HMV Ireland going into administration today? Or will they be re-opening and accepting vouchers?

For all, its a case of having to wait and see.
I hope they survive.

MagicSean wrote: »

What?

He believed he had a claim to the items. He was wrong. But being wrong doesnt make you dishonest.

It will be up to that man to prove his claim was reasonable which will be very hard to do considering the actions he took.

And remember a contract for sale is not complete until you interact with a member of staff. If you go into a store and see a product for €10, you cant just take the product and leave €10 at the till. A representative must ACCEPT your offer of €10 for the goods. Again this also applies to vouchers. A contract is not binding until the shop has accepted your offer to pay €X for the item.

Dodge wrote: »

Ah the ol' ignorance of the law defence. Complete bunkem

Good contribution. Two in a row. Pat yourself on the back.

Biggins wrote: »

He could believe all he wanted (we all can) - that don't give him or anyone a legal right just to walk off with goods before showing that legal consideration was offered and it was willingly accepted.

In his case being wrong could have seriously got him a criminal record.

Unlikely. You'd have to find a HMV employee to make a complaint, a Garda prepared to arrest and charge him, a dpp willing to prosecute him and a judge and jury prepared to convict him for theft. But we will have to agree to disagree on this matter I suppose.

Corruptedmorals

dutopia wrote: »

Nice going there HMV, wait until after the Christmas rush to pull this off.

Christmas is the busiest time in any shop. They'd have to be thick to close down before it when it offers the chance to last longer and get a buyer on the back of Christmas sales.

Hogzy wrote: »

It will be up to that man to prove his claim was reasonable which will be very hard to do considering the actions he took.

The state must prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. it would be up to the state to prove he was dishonest.

MagicSean wrote: »

The state must prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. it would be up to the state to prove he was dishonest.

And they could quite easily do that considering his actions.

MagicSean wrote: »

The state must prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. it would be up to the state to prove he was dishonest.

It would be up to him to prove that legal payment was accepted.
Was it?

Yet he still knowingly walked off with the goods... and all forms of possible payment.

In the eyes of the law, thats theft.

seamus

MagicSean wrote: »

The state must prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. it would be up to the state to prove he was dishonest.

He took the items in full knowledge that HMV would not accept the vouchers as payment. That's the dishonesty.

I see the point you're trying to argue - and I think you're right, it wouldn't get anywhere near a court - but that doesn't really negate the facts of the act.

Frank Bullitt

If they survive, would the people who have vouchers even bother going there to buy from them? Assuming of course that they still don't honor the vouchers.

In the long run if the company survives then surely not honoring the vouchers that were bought is awful practice at trying to build up customer confidence?

Hogzy wrote: »

And they could quite easily do that considering his actions.

Have you proven many cases of theft in court?

Biggins wrote: »

It would be up to him to prove that legal payment was accepted.
Was it?

Yet he still knowingly walked off with the goods... and all forms of possible payment.

In the eyes of the law, thats theft.

No it would not be up to him to prove legal payment was accepted. It would be up to the state to prove he acted dishonestly.

seamus wrote: »

He took the items in full knowledge that HMV would not accept the vouchers as payment. That's the dishonesty.

I see the point you're trying to argue - and I think you're right, it wouldn't get anywhere near a court - but that doesn't really negate the facts of the act.

Like I said, he was wrong in what he believed, but that doesn't make him dishonest and a thief.

MagicSean wrote: »

Have you proven many cases of theft in court?

No but I have written many assignments on criminal law, got a 2.1 in my Law degree, passed all 8 FE1 exams and I am currently training as a solicitor. So no, I havnt proven any cases of theft as a qualified solicitor but I plan on doing so in time.

MagicSean wrote: »

No it would not be up to him to prove legal payment was accepted. It would be up to the state to prove he acted dishonestly.

After a person could be charged with stealing, the thief indeed would have to very much prove payment was accepted in order to be found innocent.
How do you not understand this?

melekalikimaka

MagicSean wrote: »

Like I said, he was wrong in what he believed, but that doesn't make him dishonest and a thief.

only by your distorted definition, look up a legal definition, compare it to his actions, leaving your emotions aside, basing it on facts of what happened.

Thief

surprised nothing will come of it tbh, all it would take would be a person to kick up a who ha about the theft

[Deleted User]

MagicSean wrote: »

Have you proven many cases of theft in court?

No it would not be up to him to prove legal payment was accepted. It would be up to the state to prove he acted dishonestly.

Like I said, he was wrong in what he believed, but that doesn't make him dishonest and a thief.

What's all this dishonesty talk? He either broke a law or he didn't. When you buy something from a shop, it's an agreement between yourself and the shop for the transfer of goods for a certain price - Could I just walk up to your house, steal your TV and leave a 50 euro note behind saying it's mine now because I have paid you? No, I couldn't.

Invitation to treat.

marco_polo

Boombastic wrote: »

So HMV IRL LTD. were acting illegally

It sounds like they may well have been yesterday.

Allyall

Have HMV decided to do anything about this? I doubt it, but could be wrong. They realise that outside of the actual law, feelings were high, so many people annoyed with the amount of money that they got stung out of by HMV. It would be silly for them to go after him.

It's not always the letter of the law. They do allow for some movement. In this case, a guy got €46 worth of cr*p games. HMV are probably laughing because they thought they'd never be able to give them away.

Yer man is happy, because he got his vouchers worth and now has to post it and €6.xx into their head office.

If that's the worst thing that happen to HMV over this, then i'd say they'd be happy.

How is Xtravision still going?

marco_polo wrote: »

It sounds like they may well have been yesterday.

That is going to add so much more fuel to the fire. To think people were refused using vouchers when they had ever right to use them as tender. And to think now they are worthless.

Joe Duffy will be busy today.

Scruffles

hopefuly they will get bought out,is there any chance of that?

years ago before becoming unable to listen to music,had bought many a vinyl from hmv.
they sold everything vinyl wise from white label to promos,to chicago and detroit imports,to old repressings,to electronic, to albums etc,
a great place for vinyl,which is still a superb format plus vinyls last so much longer than cds.
wish was able to listen to music,woud still be collecting vinyl have got a sht ton of the stuff.
it is awful news that music shops are in trouble,not just because its peoples jobs on the go but because people will not have that freedom to walk around the store and choose,it coud also mean the end for vinyl...and the end of their historic logo.

[Deleted User]

Blockbuster just gone into administration now, not looking good at all

marco_polo

Hogzy wrote: »

That is going to add so much more fuel to the fire. To think people were refused using vouchers when they had ever right to use them as tender. And to think now they are worthless.

Joe Duffy will be busy today.

Yesterday may well have have opened an an interesting legal can of worms anyway, we shall wait and see I suppose.

Scruffles wrote: »

hopefuly they will get bought out,is there any chance of that?

years ago before becoming unable to listen to music,had bought many a vinyl from hmv.
they sold everything vinyl wise from white label to promos,to chicago and detroit imports,to old repressings,to electronic, to albums etc,
a great place for vinyl,which is still a superb format plus vinyls last so much longer than cds.
wish was able to listen to music,woud still be collecting vinyl have got a sht ton of the stuff.
it is awful news that music shops are in trouble,not just because its peoples jobs on the go but because people will not have that freedom to walk around the store and choose,it coud also mean the end for vinyl...and the end of their historic logo.

Administration is similar to examinership. Eircom were in examinership recently and came out of it after 8 weeks (maybe more, cant remember exactly.)

Its basically just court protection from being sued while you try to find out a the best option for the company, be it liquidation, trying to find an invester/buyer or making various changes to ensure the company can continue.

efb

Rabidlamb wrote: »

No, I believe he was perfectly within his rights.
Pedantic shematics is thrumped by a good dollop of common sense.

Should I care what you believe? I am correct.

efb wrote: »

Should I care what you believe? I am correct.

Thats what my girlfriend tell me all the time.

efb

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0116/breaking16.html

Dublin closed. I really feel for the staff.