HMV going into administration

Allyall · 16-01-2013 04:41PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm in agreement that this is a terrible idea and totally unacceptable behaviour, however, essentially what they were selling was a piece of paper/plastic card of store credit that they were under no specific legal obligation to even honour - as it explains on the back.

I doubt that would hold much water, other than the fact they are in administration. Just because it says it, shouldn't make a difference. If they weren't in Administration then they would have to honour it.

Apparently they are going to re-open n Ireland, The NCA says that as a separate entity to the UK HMV stores, that HMV should accept voucher with immediate effect.

I can't think of any other circumstances where someone sells you a voucher worth the money you pay for it, and then tell you it's not worth the paper/plastic it's printed on.

How much are the top staff getting paid, or do they get nothing also?

Lesson for everyone here anyway is, never, ever, ever buy vouchers again, ever, for any reason. Pay as you purchase. No need for their artificial money that can go bad. It's the only example of your money expiring, i can think of.

Some people think it's better than cash, as it looks like they had an idea for a present, but then couldn't think any further. Other people think that the recipient of the gift wouldn't be responsible with cash. For whatever reason, Voucher is a terrible idea.

DyldeBrill · 16-01-2013 04:41PM

krudler wrote: »

people are saying that since 2008 ffs. The recession didn't close hmv, their business model and changing media forms did.

Yes I agree, they would have eventually fizzled out due to ongoing changes within the World of media, but my initial statement stands....as depressing as it is.

Biggins · 16-01-2013 04:42PM

chops018 wrote: »

Let me straighten it out for all ye "law" talkers on here. There must be a corresponding mens rea to the actus reus, if he honestly believed he was entitled to products in the store to the value of the voucher and he took them, well then he doesn't have the mens rea for theft. Of course, as has been mentioned, it has to be proved by the prosecution.

Also, why is the talk of contract law mixing with criminal law?

This is just full of wavering irrelevant rubbish.
I cannot believe this has to be spelt out like speaking to a five year old child.

* Notes of credit are drawn up and made legal under commercial law.
Right have we got that bit yet?

Good.

The law sometimes is grey - some times it is VERY clear.

The man took goods from a private business/property without paying for them, without permission and without giving the appropriate on the day, form of legal consideration that was acceptable to the business enterprise, again, on the day.

This is called stealing which is a criminal act - how the fcuk does anyone not get this?

This is where commerical laws of contract (ie: sales) combine with criminal law.
How the fcuk does anyone not get this also?

This is the bloody ABC stuff of legal law.

All this bullschite about so called "further intentions" is a load of hogwash and holds absolutely no water in a court.
If "future intentions" was a valid defence, it would be by the way, a valid legal defence in statues of law, which it is not - nor never has been. It has also NEVER worked for any thief.

chops018 wrote: »

...No respect being given on here to people who have spent years studying the intricacies of the law (be it procedural or academic).

In that your quite right.
As part of my IATI* qualification as an accountant technician, I studied in depth Criminal, Business and Commercial law.
Some of us actually do know what the fcuk we are talking about!

* Institute of Accountant Technician of Ireland

chops018 · 16-01-2013 04:49PM

Biggins wrote: »

This is called stealing which is a criminal act - how the fcuk does anyone not get this?

This is where commerical laws of contract (ie: sales) combine with criminal law.
How the fcuk does anyone not get this also?

This is the bloody ABC stuff of legal law.

All this bullschite about so called "further intentions" is a load of hogwash and holds absoluyely no water in a court.
If "future intentions" was a valid defence, it would be by the way, a valid legal defence, which it is not - not never has been. It has also NEVER worked for any thief.

In that your quite right.
As part of my IATI qualification as an accountant technician, I studied in depth Criminal, business and commercial law.
Some of us actually do know what the fcuk we are talking about!

How do you not get that to be convicted of a criminal act the prosecution must prove the elements of an ACTUS REUS and MENS REA (which is a person acting intentionally, or in some areas, recklessly).

Someone does not dishonestly appropriate (actual wording from section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act 2001, which is the section on theft), unless they do so intentionally, if they reasonably believe that they were acting honestly then they lack the mens rea for theft. This means the person is not guilty.

I studied in depth criminal law as part of my MASTERS in Criminal Justice, along with my law degree.

Also, it's called THEFT, not stealing, if you would have taken the time to look the relevant section of the act up you would know the difference between theft, robbery and burglary.

EDIT: "a valid legal defence is in statutes of law", are you for real, we are a common law system and so laws can be created and developed through case law, which is called precedent. Duress has no statutory footing in criminal law, it was developed and accepted through case law. Insanity was developed by the M'Naghten principles, although that is provided for under statute now in the 2006 act. Intoxication, developed by case law.

If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or

(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or

(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

^^thus allowing for a defence of honest belief.

P_1 · 16-01-2013 04:49PM

In light of the news that the Irish HMV (for lack of a better term) wasn't actually in administration yesterday I wonder if anybody who tried to use a voucher yesterday would have a case for suing HMV (or the administrators).

They would have witnesses to them trying to use them (other customers and the staff who had to refuse them) would HMV still have had to accept them in its Irish stores yesterday?

Allyall · 16-01-2013 04:51PM

Biggins wrote: »

This is just full of wavering irrelevant rubbish.
I cannot believe this has to be spelt out like speaking to a five year old child.

* Notes of credit are drawn up and made legal under commercial law.
Right have we got that bit yet?

Good.

The law sometimes is grey - some times it is VERY clear.

This is called stealing which is a criminal act - how the fcuk does anyone not get this?

This is where commerical laws of contract (ie: sales) combine with criminal law.
How the fcuk does anyone not get this also?

This is the bloody ABC stuff of legal law.
Some of us actually do know what the fcuk we are talking about!

Etc..

This is After Hours. Where we can change the law at a whim, if it so suits us.
We can make up anything and publish it as fact. Are you with me so far?

Now, if the man went into HMV and took said items, and did not return with the voucher, then..

He owes HMV two plastic ducks, a button from an old coat and a three dollar bill.. FACT!

This is basic sh!t i learned at a young age. Some of us have loads more to say on the matter.

I learned this at the AHBS school..

Thank you, and goodnight sir.

Biggins · 16-01-2013 04:52PM

chops018 wrote: »

How do you not get that to be convicted of a criminal act the prosecution must prove the elements of an ACTUS REUS and MENS REA (which is a person acting intentionally, or in some areas, recklessly).

Someone does not dishonestly appropriate (actual wording from section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act 2001, which is the section on theft), unless they do so intentionally, if they reasonably believe that they were acting honestly then they lack the mens rea for theft. This means the person is not guilty.

I studied in depth criminal law as part of my MASTERS in Criminal Justice, along with my law degree.

In that case if we are using your Latin term for the "guilty act" - there was one.
As for MENS REA - one does NOT have to be acting intentionally every time in order to break the law but seeing as in this case, the man took the goods off the premises, acting intentionally to do so after being refused his legal form of consideration, he very much was of a then guilty mind.

Go argue that with a judge.

johndoe99 · 16-01-2013 04:54PM

I went up to HMV Kilkenny this morning, arrived at 12.00, to see that they were closed, they had signs posted that they'd be re-opening in the afternoon. At 2.00pm a large crowd was waiting, when we were informed they would not be opening until tomorrow morning.

I wonder if they will be opening tomorrow morning.

Allyall · 16-01-2013 04:56PM

P_1 wrote: »

In light of the news that the Irish HMV (for lack of a better term) wasn't actually in administration yesterday I wonder if anybody who tried to use a voucher yesterday would have a case for suing HMV (or the administrators).

They would have witnesses to them trying to use them (other customers and the staff who had to refuse them) would HMV still have had to accept them in its Irish stores yesterday?

I think HMV issued a statement on the radio yesterday morning, saying that yesterday was the last day they were going to accept vouchers. Which makes it all the more weird that they refused that Oul Lad.

Maybe someone thought they'd get away with it, saying the store was in Britain? Who knows, but it was reported that they hadn't gone into administration here at the time.

Biggins wrote: »

In that case if we are using your Latin term for the "guilty act" - there was one.
As for MENS REA - one does NOT have to be acting intentionally every time in order to break the law but seeing as in this case, the man took the goods off the premises, acting intentionally to do so after being refused his legal form of consideration, he very much was of a then guilty mind.

Go argue that with a judge.

CHRIS REA - This is to road to hell.

16-01-2013 04:56PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Why would somebody buy the product they already have gotten for free?

You'd be surprised.
There was a nearly out of print book which the mises website finally got permission to put on their site for free download. The publishers demanded a massive fee up front for potential "lost sales". Once the book was freely available to download, sales of the actual book shot up. It's a way for people to avoid risk and try something out first, then decide to buy it.

We have another example where I think radiohead did very well for themselves with their "pay if you want" release.

Penn wrote: »

I have, on several occasions, downloaded seasons of a tv show, and then gone out and bought the dvds. I've downloaded films and if I thought it was really good, went out and bought the dvd (which I wouldn't have otherwise). I've downloaded music and then gone to see that band in concert (which I wouldn't have otherwise). I've downloaded films and then gone to see the sequel in the cinema (which I wouldn't have otherwise).

I know how to download stuff for free. And by doing that, I have spent money on products I wouldn't have otherwise. Not everyone is like that, and a lot just download for free. But not everyone does, and in some ways, people downloading something for free can act as an advertisement for a sequel/next album/ next season of tv show etc.

+1

Anyway as for HMV, I don't shop in there except for headphones. I buy my box sets on amazon (cheaper than HMV when I looked last)

Biggins · 16-01-2013 04:57PM

Allyall wrote: »

...CHRIS REA - This is to road to hell.

He sure knows a thing or two then!

Basq · 16-01-2013 04:57PM

Allyall wrote: »

I think HMV issued a statement on the radio yesterday morning, saying that yesterday was the last day they were going to accept vouchers.

I'd be suprised if they made that statement considering an e-mail was sent to all UK & ROI branches at 7.45pm on Monday evening telling them to refuse vouchers from that point onwards.

P_1 · 16-01-2013 05:00PM

Basq wrote: »

I'd be suprised if they made that statement considering an e-mail was sent to all UK & ROI branches at 7.45pm on Monday evening telling them to refuse vouchers from that point onwards.

The thing is though, if they sent out that email (which I presume is out in the public domain), but they WEREN'T in administration in Ireland, could they have put themselves in a legal mess over here by refusing to accept the vouchers?

Maybe that's why the shops are closed in Ireland at the moment. Are the UK shops open today?

Allyall · 16-01-2013 05:00PM

Basq wrote: »

I'd be suprised if they made that statement considering an e-mail was sent to all UK & ROI branches at 7.45pm on Monday evening telling them to refuse vouchers from that point onwards.

They said something Someone said something.
I heard it, and then later my mother also re-iterated it to me later. I posted something about it here shortly after, but couldn't find the statement, so i edited it, and posted links to the newspapers.

It was around the start of Joe Duffy. - Actually it was on Morning Ireland, and someone was reading a statement from HMV.

But does it matter, if NCA aren't going to allow them away without honouring them anyway? Or can they even stop them?

RobbieTheRobber · 16-01-2013 05:01PM

P_1 wrote: »

The thing is though, if they sent out that email (which I presume is out in the public domain), but they WEREN'T in administration in Ireland, could they have put themselves in a legal mess over here by refusing to accept the vouchers?

Maybe that's why the shops are closed in Ireland at the moment. Are the UK shops open today?

I don't think there is any legal obligation to accept vouchers, regardless of administration or not.

P_1 · 16-01-2013 05:04PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I don't think there is any legal obligation to accept vouchers, regardless of administration or not.

True, invitation to treat and all that. I'd put a fairly hefty bet on them having some clause in their T's and C's to cover their arses too

seamus · 16-01-2013 05:04PM

Receivers have been appointed to HMV Ireland.

Still looks bad for HMV staff, but it may mean that they will allow vouchers.

Biggins · 16-01-2013 05:04PM

Allyall wrote: »

They said something. I heard it, and my mother also re-iterated it to me later. I posted something about it here shortly after, but couldn't find the statement, so i edited it, and posted links to the newspapers.

It was around the start of Joe Duffy. - Actually it was on Morning Ireland, and someone was reading a statement from HMV.

But does it matter, if NCA aren't going to allow them away without honouring them anyway? Or can they even stop them?

Sadly the NCA are limited in their powers of forcing things.
They do have some ability to inforce decisions but these powers are not considered to be very strong.
(In fact under one Mr Ahern in government, he supposedly actually weaken their powers somewhat for his Drumcondra Mafia mates so their could also do what they did in the banking sector.)

Allyall · 16-01-2013 05:07PM

Why doesn't that surprise me..

arse..biscuits · 16-01-2013 05:07PM

Not sure if this has been posted already

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/irish-grandfather-defies-hmv-voucher-133805131.html

Fair f*cks to him

Allyall · 16-01-2013 05:09PM

arse..biscuits wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/irish-grandfather-defies-hmv-voucher-133805131.html

Fair f*cks to him

Uh-oh.. Can o' Worms alert..

16-01-2013 05:10PM

I guess I'll wander in and steal whatever I like and "promise to post the payment later"

Biggins · 16-01-2013 05:11PM

arse..biscuits wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted already

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/irish-grandfather-defies-hmv-voucher-133805131.html

Fair f*cks to him

It has by another source.

By the way, I don't know if its true or not but the wife informs me that a number of people did the same thing in a store in Balbriggan yesterday.
Apparently they at least left behind their vouchers for staff to hold on to (if they wished to accept them or not).
Apparently the staff were unhappy about the situation and thus closed the store themselves till clarity was gained on the matter.

Dodge · 16-01-2013 05:11PM

Receivership is a step beyond Examinership. It pretty much means the end of HMV in Ireland.

Shame for all staff involved

Allyall · 16-01-2013 05:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

It has by another source.

By the way, I don't know if its true or not but the wife informs me that a number of people did the same thing in a store in Balbriggan yesterday.
Apparently they at least left behind their vouchers for staff to hold on to (if they wished to accept them or not).
Apparently the staff were unhappy about the situation and thus closed the store themselves till clarity was gained on the matter.

:eek::eek::eek:

Hadn't heard that. That's mad.. Someone could have taken a PS3 and given a voucher for €25 (or no voucher at all).. The staff wouldn't be able to monitor all of that.

Where's HMV in Balbriggan? In the mall?

Jaysus, that's nuts..

Amirani · 16-01-2013 05:15PM

Mr.S wrote: »

Wait a few days till the receivers sort things out. Chances are giftcards will be accepted again soon. The stores aren't just going to close down with stock inside.

Receivers will sort things out for preferred creditors, HMV is likely finished in Ireland. Most of the stock in HMV stores currently doesn't belong to HMV.

arse..biscuits · 16-01-2013 05:18PM

Mr.S wrote: »

What an idiot tbh.

Theft, plain and simple.

I'd say he was a pain to deal with in store and abused staff thinking he was in the right :rolleyes:

Yes, it sucks if you have a HMV voucher at the moment, but it doesn't mean you can just go into a store and take goods.

Wait a few days till the receivers sort things out. Chances are giftcards will be accepted again soon. The stores aren't just going to close down with stock inside.

Hold onto the giftcards and wait. Don't be a knob and go down to your local HMV and abuse staff and act like a twat and steal goods.

People these days~

Abuse staff??? You just made that up out of nowhere.

They gladly took his money three weeks ago and now won't honor the agreement. Why is it that as soon as someone starts to stand up everyone on the internet loves to knock them back?

Biggins · 16-01-2013 05:19PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

Receivers will sort things out for preferred creditors, HMV is likely finished in Ireland. Most of the stock in HMV stores currently doesn't belong to HMV.

Indeed, a lot of it like kegs from a brewery (just used as an example) would have been obtained on terms of credit also, with a specific number of days in which to pay the amount back.

123balltv · 16-01-2013 05:22PM

I'll miss HMV be weird not seeing them in shopping centres more empty shops pretty
soon everything will be online more people will be stuck indoors
Sorry for the staff hope they get some help

redundancy etc

Thwip! · 16-01-2013 05:25PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Grandad walks out of HMV with computer games after staff refuse to accept gift voucher

Fair play to this guy

For being a thief? oh yeah, fair play :rolleyes:

Reminds me of those London Riots idiots who stole stuff and then posted it up on twitter/fb etc

His voucher was refused, he didnt like that so he took them and didnt leave the voucher or the surplus cost (which he plans to post on afterwards :rolleyes:). He stole and publicised it.

Penn wrote: »

Man, I wish the games he stole were ones where they keep the discs in a draw behind the counter. That would have been f*cking brilliant

ha that would've been class

HMV going into administration

Comments