Is this technically theft?

estebanrey · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:13

So we have a vending machine at work that sells crisps and chocolate bars which are priced at 70p each.

However, somehow one of the slots has been set to 10p and of course every time the vending machine lady comes and fills it up, whomever notices first, waits for her to leave then whacks a quid in and gets 10 chocolate bars.

Now in a shop I know if something is priced incorrectly they can refuse to complete the sale at the till but given this is a machine does it mean, legally speaking, an offer was made and accepted by both parties and therefore a legitimate transaction as far as the law is concerned (even though the person doing it knows they are exploiting a mistake made by a former technician)?

What amazes me if this has been the case for about 4 months now and it has been filled and emptied numerous times in that period and the vending company haven't seemed to have noticed the loss?

adolf hamster · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:18

Afaik once the sale is completed there's no comeback, even for a human seller (ie they cant go 'oh hold on sir, that was actually meant to be xxx')

I'd guess the same must apply to vending machines, after all the worst they could prove is you paid full price for what you thought was a bargain

Chuk_Chuk · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:19

Nope not theft, just exploiting a mistake made by the vending machine company.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:20

You could never prove the dishonesty part for it to be theft.

Jono8 · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:22

Not theft. Having been a frequent user of hotukdeals, you know a mis-price when you see one but i don't think i am dishonest or a theif for trying to buy something at the price advertised, mistake or not.

dowie · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:27

since the vending machine owner is only ever losing £6 a time and probably has a few dozen machines he probably hasn't noticed...though yeah if filled weekly then he/she is losing 300 a year - tis a ***** move by the person doing it instead of just telling the woman who fills it about the error - why not tell her yourself and scupper the *****'s plans?

PhillyDee · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:36

We had one that, stick a quid in, it vended 3, then gave you the quid back. Intermittent fault with the sensor bar that detects a successful vend!

Tom0 · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:41

I used to work in a place where people used to rip the doors off those canteen type vending machines to get food without paying, I don't see your thing as theft.

Perspective.

Malevolence · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:50

No it isn't. Theft is what the **** who kept on nicking my bacon & chayse oatcakes from the kitchen was doing.

George Hincapie · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:52

Burnsy2023 said:
You could never prove the dishonesty part for it to be theft.

There is an element of dishonesty and actually you could easily prove that. Yet you couldn't prove 'dishonest appropriation', so there is no offence.

Tefal · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:53

hopw do you know they arnt just being secretly funded by a local insulin producer

Von Smallhausen · 6 Oct 2015 at 19:56

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonesty appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

I doubt the CPS would run with it.

It's certainly not fraud either as you cannot legally deceive or defraud a machine.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:01

George Hincapie said:
There is an element of dishonesty and actually you could easily prove that. Yet you couldn't prove 'dishonest appropriation', so there is no offence.

That's not quite how it works. You have five points to prove in theft:

Dishonestly
Appropriates
Property
Belonging to another
With the intention to permanently deprive

You must prove all of these to prove the offence. How would you prove dishonestly to the required standard?

Tefal · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:06

machine is regularly refilled, cash collected and accounted for.

they must know unless they never actually check their numbers?

Rofflay · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:08

I miss the days when we had the fizzy drinks one for 50p a can, And there was two sprite for some reason you could mash both and if you hit both lights perfectly you got two leds on and two tins of sprite. Some people became highly sought after for thier skills at this.

Reminds me of Red Dwarf, He stole a chocy nut bar!!! Alert Alert!

George Hincapie · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:08

Burnsy2023 said:
That's not quite how it works. You have five points to prove in theft:

Dishonestly

Appropriates

Property

Belonging to another

With the intention to permanently deprive

You must prove all of these to prove the offence. How would you prove dishonestly to the required standard?

Easily. By the actions of the individual. Their conduct indicates dishonesty. You said you couldn't prove the dishonesty element and actually it's simple to prove. What you can't prove is that they dishonestly appropriated the chocolate, because they didn't. They paid for it and are simply taking advantage of the error of someone else. The fact that they haven't brought it to the attention of said individual and have made repeat purchases over an apparently prolonged period of time also alludes to their dishonesty.

estebanrey · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:13

Tefal said:
machine is regularly refilled, cash collected and accounted for.

they must know unless they never actually check their numbers?

The machine wants 10p, it gets 10p. So I'm guessing all they are checking is that the amount of money the machine says it should have tallies with what they actually have which it would.

SonniLombardi · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:16

I don't eat 10 chocolate bars a year let alone buying 10 at once I wouldn't even bother! or care that it was theft or other people taking advantage of it. Not something I would remember later on and think about.

Burnsy2023 · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:18

George Hincapie said:
Easily. By the actions of the individual. Their conduct indicates dishonesty. You said you couldn't prove the dishonesty element and actually it's simple to prove. What you can't prove is that they dishonestly appropriated the chocolate, because they didn't. They paid for it and are simply taking advantage of the error of someone else. The fact that they haven't brought it to the attention of said individual and have made repeat purchases over an apparently prolonged period of time also alludes to their dishonesty.

You're making a distinction which is pointless essentially each point to prove is independant from each other and needs to be proved individually. Their conduct in itself is not enough to prove dishonestly. They could give all sorts of defences in interview where they believed what they did was lawful. If they simply said that they paid money for it and therefore they lawfull bought it, that would likely be enough to discontinue any action.

George Hincapie · 6 Oct 2015 at 20:19

Burnsy2023 said:
You're making a distinction which is pointless. Their conduct in itself is not enough to prove dishonestly. They could give all sorts of defences in interview where they believed what they did was lawful. If they simply said that they paid money for it and therefore they lawfull bought it, that would likely be enough to discontinue any action.

We had these conversations all the time when I did the CID course. Frustrating but fun