GD judgement: is this moral/immoral, legal/illegal

Moses said:
No, I referred you to that AND the AG ref. Look at them in tandem, rather than blindly dismissing what I'm saying... :o
Click to expand...

The ag ref and section 5 (4) of the theft act are two entirely different things and you were referring to one point which is why I did not read the ref.

I've just realised that it's not theft though because ownership of the goods was transferred to the op's friend when the food was plated as per the sale of goods act.
 
Last edited:
I do tend to see it that, with this sort of transaction, if you are not asked for payment, or told an amount to be paid, then the contract is considered fulfilled at the point where the consumer and the retailer finish and go about their business.

The only real doubt I have about that is that I'm not sure that consideration has passed from the consumer to the retailer in exchange for the goods. Is there enough in the transaction to consider it a gift...?

In my mate's case, I would think that the 2nd occasion, where an amount due was quoted by the retailer but not followed up, there is an element of unfulfilled contract obligation by my pal.

In the first case, though, no remuneration was requested in exchange for the food.
 
No, it's not OK.

I don't know the technicalities of whether it's illegal ... but it's not morally OK in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
In the first case, though, no remuneration was requested in exchange for the food.
Click to expand...

There doesn't have to be.

If you fill up at a petrol station the signs inform you of the price/litre and the pump will tell you how much fuel you've used and how much you have to pay.

It's not a gift just because someone doesn't come running out and ask you for payment.
 
You know society is in trouble when it looks to legalities instead of common sense over paying for food you requested to be made and subsequently consumed.

I have had this situation plenty of times, though temptation is there I 100% say if you can pay for it, then do it. If you couldn't afford it that's a different story.
 
Surveyor said:
There doesn't have to be.

If you fill up at a petrol station the signs inform you of the price/litre and the pump will tell you how much fuel you've used and how much you have to pay.

It's not a gift just because someone doesn't come running out and ask you for payment.
Click to expand...

No, but the pump is telling you how much the transaction is. The agreement happens there, since it is quoting you the actual price of the transaction as the fuel flows - it is not an "invitation to treat".

The prices at the food retailers, displayed on boards, ARE an invitation to treat - they are not contractually binding. The actual price is agreed at point of sale.
 
cheesyboy said:
No, but the pump is telling you how much the transaction is. The agreement happens there, since it is quoting you the actual price of the transaction as the fuel flows - it is not an "invitation to treat".
Click to expand...

By that analogy it's the same thing as accepting a burger and chips when the price is displayed as £x.
 
Moses said:
You're allowed to admit you were wrong :).

Specifically where does it say that? Out of interest, rather than because I'm saying it's not true.
Click to expand...

I'm not conceding anything, it's just futile to discuss it further. :)


Under the sale of goods act:

Property passes when intended to pass.

(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.

(2)For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
Click to expand...
Some examples include,

Edwards v Ddin [1976]
Greenberg, R v (1972)

 
Last edited:
Energize said:
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.
Click to expand...

As people are convicted of making off without payment then judges and juries must be able to make the connection between the act and dishonesty.

If a guaranteed defence was "I didn't realise at the time" then no one, unless especially stupid, would be convicted.

The judge or jury can determine that:

1) an ordinary person would consider the act dishonest and

2) the accused must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest
 
Energize said:
I'm not conceding anything, it's just futile to discuss it further. :)


Under the sale of goods act:

Some examples include,

Edwards v Ddin [1976]
Greenberg, R v (1972)
Click to expand...

This it's not the case for restaurants or other business when goods or services are provided before payment is taken.

For anyone reading this thread from Google or searching in future, ignore all of Energizes posts.

I would be confident that this fits both making off without payment or is indeed theft.

As soon as someone realises they haven't paid and doesn't attempt to remedy the situation, the offence of theft is complete. They don't need to necessarily realise at the precise time of vending.
 
Moses said:
First case = payment was never discussed or offered. Clearly different to a food van with prices displayed, etc, etc. Furthermore, even in that case it wasn't theft but it was be making off without payment instead (under the Theft Act 1978).

Second = it shouldn't have been theft under the Theft Act 1968, but should have been obtaining property by deception under the Theft Act 1968.

Edit :: apologies for looking in a casebook, Nitefly :(.
Click to expand...

Yes not the offense of theft, a different crime.

Burnsy2023 said:
This it's not the case for restaurants or other business when goods or services are provided before payment is taken.

For anyone reading this thread from Google or searching in future, ignore all of Energizes posts.

I would be confident that this fits both making off without payment or is indeed theft.

As soon as someone realises they haven't paid and doesn't attempt to remedy the situation, the offence of theft is complete. They don't need to necessarily realise at the precise time of vending.
Click to expand...

Read above.

One of the reasons that the offence of making off without payment was created is because at a restaurant, food becomes the customers property before they pay for it and therefore it doesn't meet the criteria for the offence of theft. Just like petrol at a petrol station.
 
Last edited:
Surveyor said:
By that analogy it's the same thing as accepting a burger and chips when the price is displayed as £x.
Click to expand...

No it's not. The prices displayed for the food are an invitation to treat, The food doesn't belong to you until you accept the retailer's contract offer - i.e when they tell you the price and you accept it.

The prices displayed on a petrol forecourt are also an invitation to treat. However, the price to pay is show as you fill, which is the retailer making an offer of contract. Fuel is tricky because you can't give it back once in your car, so, in the eyes of the law, you have agreed to the contract and accepted the price as soon as the fuel leaves the nozzle (every penny of fuel you fill with increases your agreed liability to the retailer).
 
cheesyboy said:
No it's not. The prices displayed for the food are an invitation to treat, The food doesn't belong to you until you accept the retailer's contract offer - i.e when they tell you the price and you accept it.

The prices displayed on a petrol forecourt are also an invitation to treat. However, the price to pay is show as you fill, which is the retailer making an offer of contract. Fuel is tricky because you can't give it back once in your car, so, in the eyes of the law, you have agreed to the contract and accepted the price as soon as the fuel leaves the nozzle (every penny of fuel you fill with increases your agreed liability to the retailer).
Click to expand...

In a restaurant if you sit and eat a 3 course meal and then leave before the bill comes is that making off without payment?

Based on your reasoning you're free to just walk out until presented with the bill.
 
I've paid for loads of stuff I didn't "need" to in similar situations. Poor, good old fashioned honesty seems to have died a death in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom