Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

HMV going into administration

1…1920222425…33

Comments

  • #632
    chops018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    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.

    Intention may be subjective or objective, so one may not be able to draw inferences from the circumstances always. Nonetheless an intention to dishonestly appropriate must be proved by the prosecution. You're right, one doesn't always have to be acting intentionally to be guilty, there are numerous crimes of strict liability where no mens rea has to be proved and thus no intention, an example used to be statutory rape where it didn't matter if you honestly believed they were of consenting age, however after the 2006 case there is now a defence of honest mistake as it was unconstitutional not to have a defence. (Which is why I am somewhat critical of strict liability cases). Anyway back to my point, this isn't a strict liability offence, which is clearly set out in the legislation of theft (the law that is not grey in this area which and which has to be followed, which you like to remind us so much).

    Why are you mentioning consideration, this isn't contract law we are discussing, nor is it a civil matter, it is criminal law. The standard/burden of proof being much higher.

    Yes, a judge and/or jury (depending on whether he would be tried summarily or on indictment) may find him guilty, this is true, none of us can truly no and so we can only speculate.


  • #633
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Thwip! wrote: »
    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.



    ha that would've been class

    The had no legal basis for refusing his voucher


  • #634
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    I wouldn't have bet on Golden Discs outlasting HMV, They made Golden Discs near invisible. But maybe that's what helped Golden Discs stop expanding. They worked within their grasp. GD are going to have to change their market shape. Some drastic changes will need to be made.

    Just read this
    On 5 February 2011 HMV Ireland announced that its profits had fallen by almost 90% to €465,000, compared to €4.1 million the previous year. :eek:


  • #635
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

    Recievership

    Stores closed

    People like the thieving granddad have caused this


  • #636
    The One Who Knocks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,301 ✭✭✭The One Who Knocks


    Lapin wrote: »
    adminastration


    In other news, Lapin going back to collage with Lisa.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

    Recievership

    Stores closed

    People like the thieving granddad have caused this

    How?


  • #638
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    MagicSean wrote: »
    How?


    By robbing. Therefore reducing profits. It's not that difficult to understand


  • #639
    Thwip!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,234 ✭✭✭Thwip!


    Boombastic wrote: »
    The had no legal basis for refusing his voucher

    It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?


  • #640
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    Thwip! wrote: »
    It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY


  • #641
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    By robbing. Therefore reducing profits. It's not that difficult to understand

    You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    MagicSean wrote: »
    You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?

    It's one of the reasons.

    Every bit of stock loss hurts the bottom line

    Glad to see you realise that the granddad is a thief though


  • #643
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    chops018 wrote: »
    Why are you mentioning consideration, this isn't contract law we are discussing...

    For any sale to be legal and complete, "consideration" has to be made.
    This is the basis of any agreed exchange of goods be it across a counter from a member of the public or a company delivering its manufactured parts to a further company that makes a larger finished product.

    Be the scale big or small, no sale is legal till consideration is completed successfully.

    (This is why sometimes on a rare occasion you might see something (property for example) sold off for the value a Pound/Euro. Its to make a sale confirmed legal.)

    Historic note as regards Ireland laws: Currie v Misa (1875) defined the matter as 'some right, interest or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by another'.


  • #644
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Thwip! wrote: »
    It has been said already in this thread that that function was shut down on their tills... How were they supposed to put it through?

    Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills


  • #645
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    MagicSean wrote: »
    You think theft is the reason HMV is closing? Nothing to do with entering the digital age?

    While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

    Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

    Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

    But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.


  • #646
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills

    That's not down to store management, that's down to H/Q I.T. nerds


  • #647
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    That's not down to store management, that's down to H/Q I.T. nerds

    I never said store managers. I'm on about the people with the power who authorised it.


    Anyway company gone in to receivership now


  • #648
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Management should never have authorised for it to be shut on tills

    if the tills broke and the feature was disabled 5 years ago for an afternoon, would it have been ok for the silly old man to just walk out? no, you can dress it up all you want, the old man was trying to make a point, and he did, he's still a thief and i do hope that he gets the full whack of the law, this behavior shouldnt be condoned


  • #649
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    It's one of the reasons.

    Every bit of stock loss hurts the bottom line

    No it is not one of the reasons. How much theft do you think happens in your average HMV?
    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    Glad to see you realise that the granddad is a thief though

    Childish comment is childish.
    Allyall wrote: »
    While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

    Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

    Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

    But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.

    Blu-Ray never took off the way shops had hoped.


  • #650
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    if the tills broke and the feature was disabled 5 years ago for an afternoon, would it have been ok for the silly old man to just walk out? no, you can dress it up all you want, the old man was trying to make a point, and he did, he's still a thief and i do hope that he gets the full whack of the law, this behavior shouldnt be condoned

    That's not the same thing as I suspect you already know...blah, blah, blah


  • #651
    chops018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    Biggins wrote: »
    For any sale to be legal and complete, "consideration" has to be made.
    This is the basis of any agreed exchange of goods be it across a counter from a member of the public or a company delivering its manufactured parts to a further company that makes a larger finished product.

    Be the scale big or small, no sale is legal till consideration is completed successfully.

    (This is why sometimes on a rare occasion you might see something (property for example) sold off for the value a Pound/Euro. Its to make a sale confirmed legal.)

    Historic note as regards Ireland laws: Currie v Misa (1875) defined the matter as 'some right, interest or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by another'.

    I'm very familiar with the principles of contract law. But if you want to discuss contract law then I would say to you: the Granddad, paid for the voucher so his offer was already accepted and he provided the consideration by giving the money for the voucher, HMV are therefore breaching the original contract as that was already complete, I'm assuming the T's and C's mention that it is allowed to be used as legal tender in their stores, let's just hope it doesn't mention anything about being allowed to not accept such vouchers when being in administration - although this would be considered an unfair term (assuming he was the one who purchased the voucher that is).

    So, back to the original argument, there was no contract formed for the games he took, the issues here are theft - which we have discussed already. Contract law doesn't come into the equation with the games he took as there was or never had been any contract.

    The only issue related to contract law is the agreement of the Granddad and HMV relating the voucher purchased and their refusal to accept it.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Allyall wrote: »
    While theft probably contributed, HMV's downfall was definitely down to them not making the correct changes at the correct times.

    Okay, they went from Vinyl to Cassette. And from Cassette to CD.

    Video to DVD, DVD to Blu-Ray etc.

    But. No. They are the destruction of their own demise. They got the guy blamed for Jessops failing in to fix them, For Gods Sake, makes you wonder could a 12 year old have done better.

    They (for some public unknown reason) didn't manage to grasp the internet concept alone well.
    The workings of the top people were certainly behind the times it seems - and unwilling to be progressive.


  • #653
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    This has been bugging me- could the misspelling in the Thread title be corrected?


  • #654
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    MagicSean wrote: »
    No it is not one of the reasons. How much theft do you think happens in your average HMV?



    Childish comment is childish.



    Blu-Ray never took off the way shops had hoped.

    I've no idea how much theft happens..... But stock loss is stock loss, It doesn't matter how it happens, it's still loss.

    as for childish comments, out of the mouths of babes and all that.


    The guy is a thief. Simple as.


  • #655
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Boombastic wrote: »
    The had no legal basis for refusing his voucher
    They don't require a legal basis to refuse the voucher. They're entitled to refuse anything as payment.
    A company is only required to accept legal tender to discharge a debt. Where there is no debt, the company can refuse to accept whatever form of payment they wish, including legal tender.

    As the company is in receivership, if the receivers refuse to honour the vouchers, then all people can do is get their name on the list of creditors for HMV. Any money left over after the company is ripped apart and sold off is then used to pay off the creditors.

    It's a long shot, but it's about all you can do.


  • #656
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    chops018 wrote: »
    I'm very familiar with the principles of contract law. But if you want to discuss contract law then I would say to you: the Granddad, paid for the voucher so his offer was already accepted and he provided the consideration by giving the money for the voucher...

    It might be argued that earlier 'consideration' was completed by someone originally (handing over cash) for just the previous purchasing a note of credit.

    The later tried further transfer of 'consideration' for later goods could be seen as a separate entity/business transaction.
    chops018 wrote: »
    So, back to the original argument, there was no contract formed for the games he took, the issues here are theft - which we have discussed already. Contract law doesn't come into the equation with the games he took as there was or never had been any contract.

    The only issue related to contract law is the agreement of the Granddad and HMV relating the voucher purchased and their refusal to accept it.

    Contract law came up only as part of the act of entering into purchasing a line of credit basically.
    The thread went skewered in this area via some (not their fault) just not too clear in the complicated details of it all.


  • #657
    arse..biscuits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0116/hmv-vouchers.html

    Recievership

    Stores closed

    People like the thieving granddad have caused this

    If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

    Would you?


  • #658
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

    Would you?


    If i was trying to keep afloat, hoping that someone would come along and buy the business, even if it meant rationalising it and shrinking it, yeah, i would.

    because if someone did buy the business then the closing up bit wouldn't necessarily happen.

    And if the stores didn't close then the thief would have been able to pay with the vouchers.

    And more to the point, there would not be 300 people looking for jobs today, wondering how they are going to pay their bills.


  • #659
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

    Would you?

    Sadly true.

    At a guess, someone in HMV might have known what was coming and also knowing they were sooner or later going to be chased for big money by the bigger debtors they owed, were trying to pull in as much revenue as they could before the doors were quickly closed.

    An unfortunate way of doing business but probably not the first time and won't be the last.
    The losers more so will always be the public with smaller notes of credit - when it comes to lining up behind the bigger businesses owed money.


  • #660
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Boombastic wrote: »
    I never said store managers. I'm on about the people with the power who authorised it.
    I'm not sure people realise what it is like inside a big company when administrators or examiners/receivers are called in. It's not a tidy process where everyone knows exactly what to do. Instructions are given by administrators to the IT guys to shut it down. They might have considered whether they should be shutting it down for Ireland at the same time or it might not even have entered their head. If they weren't able to disable it in the UK only and not in Ireland - there's not much Ireland can do if they are depending on a UK system they are not in control of.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    If you owned a shop and you knew it was going under, would you hold on till Christmas, sell loads of vouchers and then refuse to accept them, then close up shop?

    Would you?
    If I thought my business was going under, I'd be doing everything I could to try and save it, including selling as much as I possibly could.

    What would you expect them to do? If they told staff to stop selling vouchers before Xmas, then it would have been game over (no pun intended) and there would have been no chance of saving the business. Chances are the management spent the last month trying to come to an agreement with their creditors. "We've stopping selling stuff" probably wouldn't have been a great bargaining chip with the bank.

    Is it crap for those who bought vouchers? Yep. But just bad timing really. They may have been hoping for strong Xmas sales to get them back on track.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement