Some places here have rules (on a notice) about serving which I guess are to stop people doing that - didn't know the reason why though.
GD judgement: is this moral/immoral, legal/illegal
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
Some places here have rules (on a notice) about serving which I guess are to stop people doing that - didn't know the reason why though.
It's not theft because it doesn't meet the dishonest appropriation requirement.
Stuffing items into your bag and walking out the shop is dishonest appropriation and therefore theft, accidentally forgetting to pay for something and walking out is not theft.
In this case he actually got served and was not asked for any payment, so there was no agreement to pay anything.
It's a civil matter.
So immoral yes, illegal no.
Last edited:
So driving off from a petrol station without paying isn't illegal because no one asked you to pay?
No because that is dishonest appropriation. Can you not see the difference between being served by someone who says thank you and goodbye without asking for payment as per a contract of sale, and filling up a car with petrol when there is no one serving you and then driving off?
That doesn't relate to dishonest appropriation.
Last edited:
It isn't because he didn't dishonestly make off. It was accidental.
If you are charged incorrectly or not at all, is it illegal to not correct them?
e.g. I have been undercharged a couple of times by online stores and never contacted them to say they mispriced the item. Isn't it the same as when someone makes a mistake in pricing something and thousands of people jump on it on hotukdeals? Like the NAS drive that was supposed to be £250 and it was £2.5 instead.
e.g. I have been undercharged a couple of times by online stores and never contacted them to say they mispriced the item. Isn't it the same as when someone makes a mistake in pricing something and thousands of people jump on it on hotukdeals? Like the NAS drive that was supposed to be £250 and it was £2.5 instead.
We don't know what was in the mind of the OP's friend as he walked away without paying.
Realising that he should have paid then arguably it was dishonest of him not to do so.
The test for dishonesty is both subjective and objective.
If there was a prosecution then the 'Ghosh test' would apply:
1. Was the act one that an ordinary decent person (normally considered to be the ubiquitous ‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’) would consider to be dishonest (the objective test)? If so :
2. Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?
If that's true, then I weep for the human race. How can a person live with themselves knowing they took advantage of someone's inattention?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,603
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Theft is base one 2 things
Appropriation - the fact that you are holding it. All goods are appropriated, even the stuff that you buy in supermarkets so theft comes down to Honesty.
If you dishonestly appropriated property then it is theft.
(note : it is an interesting noting that you can, in theory of academics, commit theft by stealing your own coat, if you go to a house party, put down your coat and at the end of the night you see another one that you thought was better, left with it but because it was dark when you picked it up, you end up with your own coat all along...but legally speaking, at the time when you thought you had a better coat, someone else's, it was theft...)
Appropriation - the fact that you are holding it. All goods are appropriated, even the stuff that you buy in supermarkets so theft comes down to Honesty.
If you dishonestly appropriated property then it is theft.
(note : it is an interesting noting that you can, in theory of academics, commit theft by stealing your own coat, if you go to a house party, put down your coat and at the end of the night you see another one that you thought was better, left with it but because it was dark when you picked it up, you end up with your own coat all along...but legally speaking, at the time when you thought you had a better coat, someone else's, it was theft...)
Last edited:
What if there are no goods involved?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,603
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The appropriating part is pretty much meaningless and the test of theft comes down to honesty.
Section 5 (4) relates to deprivation of property, there is no question of that.
As for not knowing what was in his mind, it's innocent until proven guilty.
He was not dishonest at the time of making off according to the op's statement, it was after the fact.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
haha on the subject of morals, how about charging £5.00 for a luke warm, crap quality meat burger?
Anyone know exactly how much they charge for these rat burgers these days? havent been to a festival for a few years.
Anyone know exactly how much they charge for these rat burgers these days? havent been to a festival for a few years.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,603
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Best cure for a hang over?
You obviously haven't read what I've referred you to.
I've read the theft act which is the point you are trying to argue on.
That does not relate to dishonest appropriation.
Last edited:
and diarrhea for 3 days as experienced by me at last years Leeds festival. and it was more like £7 for a double cheese burger.
In the circumstances a judge/jury could answer yes to both those questions, then again they may answer no to the first or second.
Walking away without paying, when he realised he should, could be seen as a dishonest act.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,603
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter