Currys supplied wrong camera

spoffle · 21 Mar 2014 at 00:46

So you are genuinely trying to suggest that this is a case of theft?

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:16

spoffle said:
So you are genuinely trying to suggest that this is a case of theft?

Yes.

If you knowingly received the wrong item and you refuse to return it, then that is theft. Shops and stores are covered for things like this with distance selling laws. It isn't a one way street.
It's usually in the small print terms and conditions at the point of sale on the website. You accept these terms when you click the "I wanna buy" button.

Energize · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:21

CHokKA said:
Shops prosecute for way less, no matter whether they made the initial mistake or not.

You can't be prosecuted for this shop mistake, no crime has been committed.

Theft requires dishonest appropriation, which hasn't occurred here. It's a civil matter.

spoffle · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:21

wickfut said:
Yes.

If you knowingly received the wrong item and you refuse to return it, then that is theft. Shops and stores are covered for things like this with distance selling laws. It isn't a one way street.
It's usually in the small print terms and conditions at the point of sale on the website. You accept these terms when you click the "I wanna buy" button.

It's not theft, theft doesn't work like that.

However, we're talking about something reserved online, then bought in store with cash.

It's simply not theft, I find it disturbing how many people try and appropriate the term "theft" to things that just aren't theft.

Theft is a criminal offense, what has happened here is neither theft, nor a criminal offense.

There are laws to cover consumers from shops giving them lesser items than they paid for, but if a shop mis-prices something to the consumers' benefit, then once the transaction is completely, there is no recourse for it.

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:27

Unjust enrichment law

Framework of claim[edit]

A core example (whatever the theoretical analysis) is a mistaken payment. Imagine I purchase a book off you for £10, but I mistakenly give you a £20 note. If you took the money knowing that it was £10 too much, then you will be liable for the £10 in conversion (since money passes in currency only when paid 'fairly and honestly upon a valuable and bona fide consideration'[1]). But what if that's not the case? Unjust enrichment, and the duty to reverse unjust enrichment, operates regardless of awareness. You are strictly liable to reverse it.

Energize · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:28

wickfut said:
Unjust enrichment law

Not a criminal offence... and certainly not theft.

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:36

The camera doesn't belong to the OP. The camera belongs to the shop. The contract between the OP and the shop is for a different item. The shop under distance selling laws has made a mistake and has requested the camera to be returned and the correct camera to be sent out.
If the OP has an item that doesn't belong to him and refuses to return it to its rightful owner then it's called......

Energize · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:38

It's not called theft. Try reading the actual law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/contents

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:40

Energize said:
It's not called theft. Try reading the actual law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/contents

ok I will

Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

What bit do I have wrong?

spoffle · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:45

wickfut said:
ok I will

What bit do I have wrong?

The part you have wrong is that you're taking it out of context.

That definition is to be used in its entirety to explain the situation.

That does not explain the entirety of this situation, money changed hands, a business transaction took place, and the wrong goods were sold unknowingly to either party at the time it took place.

You cannot retrospectively apply theft to a business transaction that has been completed. To dishonestly appropriate something, you have to appropriate it in a dishonest manner.

For example, the dishonesty is how the appropriation takes place, which has nothing to do with this situation at all. You are trying to attribute dishonesty, after the fact (which, it isn't) to claim it's theft.

It's simply bad luck on the part of the retailer, and realistically it makes little sense why they are trying to get it back, as it is now used and they couldn't sell it as new, ergo the item would be worth less than the brand new 1000D they should have sold.

Phantom Shadow · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:47

wickfut said:
The camera doesn't belong to the OP. The camera belongs to the shop. The contract between the OP and the shop is for a different item. The shop under distance selling laws has made a mistake and has requested the camera to be returned and the correct camera to be sent out.
If the OP has an item that doesn't belong to him and refuses to return it to its rightful owner then it's called......

Distance selling laws? Purchase was made in store, in person. Reserved online but contract was completed in store.

Surely one could argue that if you are in a store buying an item, you are offering to buy the item you have in your hands when you get to the checkout. The cashier gives you a price which you pay and complete the contract.

Energize · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:47

wickfut said:
What bit do I have wrong?

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;

spoffle · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:51

Which in this context, is the part where money has changed hands.

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:52

spoffle said:
The part you have wrong is that you're taking it out of context.

That definition is to be used in its entirety to explain the situation.

That does not explain the entirety of this situation, money changed hands, a business transaction took place, and the wrong goods were sold unknowingly to either party at the time it took place.

You cannot retrospectively apply theft to a business transaction that has been completed.

The money changed hands within distance selling laws. The shop is entitled to a return of goods with the unjust enrichment laws. Refusal to return the goods comes under theft, as pointed out in the first line of the definition.

Let's also look at the term "appropriates" under theft.

“Appropriates”.

(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2)Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 01:57

Phantom Shadow said:
Distance selling laws? Purchase was made in store, in person. Reserved online but contract was completed in store.

Surely one could argue that if you are in a store buying an item, you are offering to buy the item you have in your hands when you get to the checkout. The cashier gives you a price which you pay and complete the contract.

The OP paid for item X online and knowingly walked out of the store with a different item. Try paying for a box of cornflakes from Asda and walking out with a Plasma TV. See what they try and nick you for.

Phantom Shadow · 21 Mar 2014 at 02:00

mattyg said:
Difference is about £120.

She reserved it online. Boyfriend collected and paid cash.

From the OP, was paid for in store. Also didn't knowingly walk out the store with the wrong item, the error wasn't noticed until later.

spoffle · 21 Mar 2014 at 02:02

wickfut said:
The money changed hands within distance selling laws. The shop is entitled to a return of goods with the unjust enrichment laws. Refusal to return the goods comes under theft, as pointed out in the first line of the definition.

Let's also look at the term "appropriates" under theft.

wickfut said:
The OP paid for item X online and knowingly walked out of the store with a different item. Try paying for a box of cornflakes from Asda and walking out with a Plasma TV. See what they try and nick you for.

You would be well advised to read the thread properly before making ridiculous examples like this.

Distance selling regulations are not relevant, the item was purchased (money changed hands physically) in store. The item was simply reserved online.

wickfut · 21 Mar 2014 at 02:04

spoffle said:
You would be well advised to read the thread properly before making ridiculous examples like this.

Distance selling regulations are not relevant, the item was purchased (money changed hands physically) in store. The item was simply reserved online.

OK I missread the payment part, I thought it was paid for online and collected in store.

To clarify, did the OP walk out of the store with an item he didn't pay for?

Phantom Shadow · 21 Mar 2014 at 02:07

wickfut said:
OK I missread the payment part, I thought it was paid for online and collected in store.

To clarify, did the OP walk out of the store with an item he didn't pay for?

No he didn't. He walked into the shop. Someone working for the shop with authority to sell items to the public gave him a box and asked for £xxx. He handed this over in cash and walked out with the camera he paid for, just not the camera she reserved.

Doesn't matter what's in the box. They offered it to you, you paid them, contract completed.

Energize · 21 Mar 2014 at 02:08

wickfut said:
OK I missread the payment part, I thought it was paid for online and collected in store.

To clarify, did the OP walk out of the store with an item he didn't pay for?

Not dishonestly no. That's why it's not theft.