Currys supplied wrong camera

[spoffle]

You are now twisting the scenario to fit your agenda.

Presumably, the person described in the OP approached the counter and asked for the item that had been reserved online, they were charged and given an item. Acording to the law, they have just paid for the item that they were given. Whether they realised it was the incorrect item or not is wholely irrelevant, as they have been presented with an item and been told that it is £XXX to purchase it, which they did do.

I say presumably, but this is how online reservations typically work.

 

[wickfut]

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.

But he never. He ordered and paid for a item X and the store made a mistake and handed him item Y, realised the mistake and has asked for it back. The OP has come in to something innocently that doesn't belong to him and is now refusing to return it to its rightful owner.

What item is on the receipt. If the item on the receipt is the item he has but the price is wrong then that's ok, the store made an error and the item now belongs to him.
If the receipt shows the cheaper camera and he walked out with the expensive camera then the store is in its right to get the camera back and refusing to do so is theft.

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

Try reading your own link.

 

[Allnamestaken]

Should say that it was given away as a gift and the person who it was gifted to promptly sold it to buy other hardware..

 

[spoffle]

But he never. He ordered and paid for a item X and the store made a mistake and handed him item Y, realised the mistake and has asked for it back. The OP has come in to something innocently that doesn't belong to him and is now refusing to return it to its rightful owner.

What item is on the receipt. If the item on the receipt is the item he has but the price is wrong then that's ok, the store made an error and the item now belongs to him.
If the receipt shows the cheaper camera and he walked out with the expensive camera then the store is in its right to get the camera back and refusing to do so is theft.

That's irrelevant, you are making up your own definitions of words now.

The person mentioned in the OP is the rightful owner as a transaction took place.

Legally, the store does NOT have any recourse, it is NOT theft, it would be a civil matter IF the store tried to take it to court, which they won't.

Try reading your own link.

You simply don't understand the context, or you do and you're twisting it to suit your point.

Either way though, it has to be appropriated due to dishonest means. Do you know what appropriation means?

 

[Phantom Shadow]

But he never. He ordered and paid for a item X and the store made a mistake and handed him item Y, realised the mistake and has asked for it back. The OP has come in to something innocently that doesn't belong to him and is now refusing to return it to its rightful owner.

What item is on the receipt. If the item on the receipt is the item he has but the price is wrong then that's ok, the store made an error and the item now belongs to him.
If the receipt shows the cheaper camera and he walked out with the expensive camera then the store is in its right to get the camera back and refusing to do so is theft.

Hmm, I think it depends on when the camera was presented and we don't know this.

If he went in and said he had reserved an item, someone got said item and took him to the checkout to pay with the camera there when paying, then the contract is for the more expensive camera sat in front of him when paying, regardless of what is on the receipt.

However, if he went to checkout and paid for the cheaper camera which was reserved while someone fetched the camera, then the contract would be for what was reserved. If the store then gave him a more expensive camera after payment had been completed I can see that they would be entitled to have the camera returned and to supply the correct one. Though I'm not up to scratch on contract law. Would the contract be deemed to be completed upon payment, or upon transfer of goods in this case? It could still be that the contract concludes upon transfer of goods, so he is still fine to keep the camera.

 

[wickfut]

That's irrelevant, you are making up your own definitions of words now.

The person mentioned in the OP is the rightful owner as a transaction took place.

Legally, the store does NOT have any recourse, it is NOT theft, it would be a civil matter IF the store tried to take it to court, which they won't.



You simply don't understand the context, or you do and you're twisting it to suit your point.

Either way though, it has to be appropriated due to dishonest means. Do you know what appropriation means?

ha ha

People are allowed to walk out of stores with different items to what is paid for on their receipt. It isn't theft when that happens, shops don't care and he's allowed to keep it. Silly old me. I got it all wrong.

 

[spoffle]

ha ha

People are allowed to walk out of stores with different items to what is paid for on their receipt. It isn't theft when that happens, shops don't care and he's allowed to keep it. Silly old me. I got it all wrong.

You are using words you don't understand the meaning of, and twisting scenarios to argue your point.

In this situation, these sort of items are kept behind counters, where you cannot get a hold of the item without a member of staff having sold it to you.

Do you understand what appropriation means?

 

[Phantom Shadow]

ha ha

People are allowed to walk out of stores with different items to what is paid for on their receipt. It isn't theft when that happens, shops don't care and he's allowed to keep it. Silly old me. I got it all wrong.

What if the item rang up as the wrong item when scanned but still had the correct price. Is this theft? Your receipt says you bought something else.

Receipts aren't always correct and aren't a copy of the contract as agreed.

 

[Energize]

Try reading your own link.

The one that says if it's not dishonest it's not theft?

I can only assume you can't read, ergo there's not much point trying to communicate with you.

However, if he went to checkout and paid for the cheaper camera which was reserved while someone fetched the camera, then the contract would be for what was reserved. If the store then gave him a more expensive camera after payment had been completed I can see that they would be entitled to have the camera returned and to supply the correct one. Though I'm not up to scratch on contract law. Would the contract be deemed to be completed upon payment, or upon transfer of goods in this case? It could still be that the contract concludes upon transfer of goods, so he is still fine to keep the camera.

There's no question that the camera still belongs to the store and they would win a civil case against the woman, because the contract was for a different product. It's just not theft because dishonesty isn't involved, she genuinely believes she has the legal right to the camera which is all that is required by law.

 

[wickfut]

There's no question that the camera still belongs to the store and they would win a civil case against the woman, because the contract was for a different product. It's just not theft because dishonesty isn't involved, she genuinely believes she has the legal right to the camera which is all that is required by law.

So knowingly leaving the store with an item you haven't bought isn't dishonest? The OP knows full well the item isn't the one that was paid for.

To call it how it really is, this thread should be retitled to "I pulled a quick one from a shop and I want to get away with it. What are my chances?"
The whole thing is dishonest and you know it.

Not that I give a monkeys anyway, I'm off to bed. Toodle pip

 

[spoffle]

You're talking out of your arse now, and once again you have shown you haven't read the thread or OP properly.

The OP did not buy the camera.

 

[wickfut]

You're talking out of your arse now, and once again you have shown you haven't read the thread or OP properly.

The OP did not buy the camera.

Morally we all know what she should do. But its about time she had some good fortune

Yeah, I'm talking out of my arse. The OP knows what they should do but just decided to see if they could get away with it first because she's had some bad luck recently.

"well your honour, I decided to keep the camera even though I knew it was wrong because the dog bit me last week"

get real.

 

[JBuk]

Silly old me. I got it all wrong.

Yes!, yes you did, repeatedly

Just accept that you are wrong about everything, ever!

 

[Efour]

But he never. He ordered and paid for a item X and the store made a mistake and handed him item Y, realised the mistake and has asked for it back. The OP has come in to something innocently that doesn't belong to him and is now refusing to return it to its rightful owner.

This.

When you put it like it is It makes OP sound like a very morally dubious person.

Probably doesn't make you a thief in the eyes of the law but it certainly makes you a morally bankrupt, very dishonest person. For Christs sake they sent a letter acknowledging the mistake.

If i sold you an item on MM an accidentally left a £50 in the box then asked for it back how many would deny it was there... Im guessing 99% of people in the thread.

But, but its a faceless corporation and im the little man winning a victory over them, its my consumer rights !! But, but if they had given me a 100 model and i had bought and paid for a 1000 I would have been banging on the shutters at 8:59am demanding the managers first born as compensation.

Hipocrites

ultimately the other person has to decide how much of a low life they are willing to become just so have a "shinier! shine object in their nest of deceit.

I dont care btw im just playing devils advocate, you filthy immoral persons

 

[spoffle]

This.

When you put it like it is It makes OP sound like a very morally dubious person.

Probably doesn't make you a thief in the eyes of the law but it certainly makes you a morally bankrupt, very dishonest person. For Christs sake they sent a letter acknowledging the mistake.

If i sold you an item on MM an accidentally left a £50 in the box then asked for it back how many would deny it was there... Im guessing 99% of people in the thread.

But, but its a faceless corporation and im the little man winning a victory over them, its my consumer rights !! But, but if they had given me a 100 model and i had bought and paid for a 1000 I would have been banging on the shutters at 8:59am demanding the managers first born as compensation.

Hipocrites

ultimately the other person has to decide how much of a low life they are willing to become just so have a "shinier! shine object in their nest of deceit.

I dont care btw im just playing devils advocate, you filthy immoral persons

The situation isn't actually comparable, it's more akin to you selling a graphics card with double the RAM than you thought it had, thus letting it go for a lesser price, only to find a receipt later that shows it was the higher specced on, then to contact the buyer and demand the card back because you realise you sold them a better card for less than they should have paid.

Realistically, morals don't come in to it, it's a transaction that's taken place, you've supplied an item, the buyer's supplied the money.

Do you think Currys would have done the same if it was the other way around? A 1000D sold in place of a 100D and the seller hadn't noticed? I strongly doubt it.

 

[marc2003]

i'm too lazy to read the whole thread so it might have been mentioned already but i'm quite surprised this better camera made it out the door. whenever i've reserved stuff for pickup, it's always the item that gets scanned at the till, not the paperwork. :/

as for morals, i've done far worse so i won't comment.

 

[Efour]

Do you think Currys would have done the same if it was the other way around? A 1000D sold in place of a 100D and the seller hadn't noticed? I strongly doubt it.

For the sake of argument, i dunno , but as it has been noticed by one of the sides involved surely 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Ill stick to the "little man thinks they have gone one up against faceless company, now look for ways to keep their win," story.

 

[AndyCroft1982]

So knowingly leaving the store with an item you haven't bought isn't dishonest? The OP knows full well the item isn't the one that was paid for.

To call it how it really is, this thread should be retitled to "I pulled a quick one from a shop and I want to get away with it. What are my chances?"
The whole thing is dishonest and you know it.

Not that I give a monkeys anyway, I'm off to bed. Toodle pip

Have you even bothered to read the thread??? The op said all he went in for was to pick up and pay for a camera that someone else ordered online. He paid the money then left. He had no idea the camera was the wrong one until 2 weeks later when the owner recieved a letter saying it was the wrong camera. Dont start spouting rubbish pretending you know what your talking about without even reading the full thread. Th op hasnt broken the law at all, the shop has made a mistake and hoping the owner brings the camera back out of the goodness of their heart. There is nothing the shop can legally do.. They handed the camera over to the op and he paid for it ? Its irrelevant if its the wrong camera, they handed it over and he then paid bang contract is signed and delivered, now if they ran after him at the time then it would be different, however, he was allowed to leave with the camera, they also didnt inform the owner until 2 weeks later (which i believe there is a 14 day return no quibble policy which had now past)

 

[AndyCroft1982]

For the sake of argument, i dunno , but as it has been noticed by one of the sides involved surely 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Ill stick to the "little man thinks they have gone one up against faceless company, now look for ways to keep their win," story.

I once went into a currys in london, i picked up a dslr camera and started looking through the sight, as i was after a camera. One of their staff came up to me, snatched the camera out of my hand and said "stop taking pictures of me?"

language! currys and keep the camera, its their mistake

 

[Efour]

I once went into a currys in london, i picked up a dslr camera and started looking through the sight, as i was after a camera. One of their staff came up to me, snatched the camera out of my hand and said "stop taking pictures of me?"

Fk currys and keep the camera, its their mistake

o
















k