Can I be charged?

[ppearth]

Hi all

 

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but if it has I can't find it.

 

I was just wondering... I'm 52 years old - if a supermarket refuses to sell me a bottle of wine for some stupid reason like you read about in the press these days, what would happen if I laid the money down and walked out? Is there anything they can charge me with?

 

thanks in advance

 

Al

[postggj]

at the end of the day a supermarket is a private company and they can serve who they want

 

would you realy want to leave a shop with no receipt

[the_shadow]

Hi ppearth,

 

Welcome to CAG, not the usual type of question we see around here I must admit

 

As Postggj has said, shops/supermarkets all have signs near the tills that state they reserve the right to refuse service and as such if they say they wont sell to you then I'm afraid there is nothing you can do to make them.

 

As to will they chase you and report you to the police if you put the correct money down on the counter and leg it... it depends on who is behind the counter or whether they have a security guard I would think..

 

Not a risk worth taking imo, especially when theyre are plenty of other retailers out there.

 

S.

[papasmurf1cx]

Hi....... The answer technically is yes the could charge you. Would they..... well maybe if you kept on doing it and they had a reason to refuse you in the first place.

 

Section 1 Theft Act 1968 deal with theft and one of the parts the lawyers would debate is the part in the definition that deals with who the property belongs to. It is all to do with who has LEGAL ownership in this instance. The supermarket has never relinquished its ownership of the property despite you giving them the money. They don't want you to have it so you have taken there property away. To prove theft though you need all the elements that make up the definition which can be found here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1

 

Note section 2 - 6 which defines the definition.

 

So yes to the possibility of a charge but No to the reality of it ever reaching a court. But beware if you make a habit of it.............. go elsewhere.

[ppearth]

Hi;

 

thanks for you replies, the answer is there in your link I guess papasmurf;

 

"...A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property..."

 

all though it does say may, and it doesn't go into when it may not.

 

Thanks again, interesting site, I'd like to browse but I'm getting the threads as a narrow band of text down the middle of the page

 

Can someone please suggest how to change that?

 

cheers!

[cerberusalert]

Towards the top right of the page you'll see a box saying "Consumer Forums Menu" click the >> and it'll close that box then the page will spread open normally.

[ppearth]

aaaahhhh, thanks!

 

Al

[mightymouse_69]

 

"...A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property..."

 

all though it does say may, and it doesn't go into when it may not.

 

In essence, the section is saying that while payment may not negative dishonesty, the jury would be entitled to find that the conduct was not dishonest depending on the circumstances. This, in essence, is the same as any other act that could amount to theft, where by the jury would have to decide whether the conduct was dishonest - using a test established in a case called Ghosh.

[papasmurf1cx]

In essence, the section is saying that while payment may not negative dishonesty, the jury would be entitled to find that the conduct was not dishonest depending on the circumstances. This, in essence, is the same as any other act that could amount to theft, where by the jury would have to decide whether the conduct was dishonest - using a test established in a case called Ghosh.

 

Which is why past and future actions could determine if a conviction come about. Risky strategy when all you have to do is not buy in that store.

[2Grumpy]

I would ask them if they had a real valid reason for not serving you so that you could post that all over consumer web sites rather than having to say they declined to serve you for no reason ...

 

Asda refused to sell my daughter an alcoholic drink (she's over 25) - they said she looked under 18. they then refused to sell the said drink to my son-in-law because they thought he was buying for an under 18!!! She also got refused in a pub when I was buying. Fortunately they believed me about her age (obviously look more trustworthy than her husband)

[mightymouse_69]

I have refused to sell before.

 

The person looked too young and had no ID. A while later, they returned with ID showing that he was in fact 22. I stand by what I done though - inspections are carried out and, at the time I needed my job! The risk of dismissal and possible fines etc outweighed the disadvantage of having a rather unhappy customer.

[cerberusalert]

Think yourself lucky, I have a nephew who up until he was in his forties had great difficulty getting served alcohol. In his late teens early twenties it was so bad he even wrote to the Chief Constable asking if he could have a letter verifying his identity & age. He was told to carry his passport, but who wants to carry that with them whilst they're out.... besides he'd already tried it along with his army i.d card & some pubs/clubs still wouldn't accept them.

[chesham]

Ah, I love questions like these, takes me back to my studying!!

 

In answer to the OP question, it's a scenario that would be tested by the CPS (if ever arrested) and more than likely not reach court. On the outset, it's theft and that would be the arrestable offence. However, the wording of the act shows that you may not have committed a crime -

 

"dishonestly" - the intention of aquiring the property by dishonest means cannot be proven, as the counter accusation would be that money was given at the time, therefore there was no dishonesty involved. The defences to this are quite clear cut (and use common sense) so it could be said that leaving the money on the side was acceptable to show that there was no dishonest intentions.

 

However, as mentioned above, land or property owned by anyone or anything only gives people an assumed invitation to enter - i.e. a shop. It is assumed that they have invited members of the public in (as they are open and trading) - however, they have the right to terminate that permission so long as the subject is notified of this either at the time or after (i.e. a shoplifter getting barred) and therefore this gives them the legal right to refuse service. By walking up to a counter, and being refused service, and then by doing as you suggest and slapping down the money and walking out, the fact that you were refused and went against the wishes of said business COULD be held as dishonest, because you are now trespassing on land, therefore committing a [civil] offence, and infering that you are attempting to appropriate property by violation. Therefore, if the police were called, they could arrest you for theft, however an exchange of the items and the money would be effective enough to remediate the crime and be dealt with there and then.

 

If you are refused, and it's a stupid silly reason, then ask to speak to the manager BUT respect their decision (unless it's illegal) and shop somewhere else - why cause trouble where trouble is not needed?

Edited October 5, 2010 by chesham
spelling :)

[pcmaster2001]

i suppose we would just need to get into the habit it always carrying ID

[perplexity]

I was just wondering... I'm 52 years old - if a supermarket refuses to sell me a bottle of wine for some stupid reason like you read about in the press these days, what would happen if I laid the money down and walked out? Is there anything they can charge me with?

 

 

If all you did was leave the money, what would the charge be?

 

I refrain from assuming that you left with the bottle because your posting stops shorts of admitting as much as a fact. A good deal more than that would be needed to secure a criminal conviction.

 

[sir_gilmour]

Hi

Welcome to The Consumer Action Group.

 

 

I am just letting you know that as you haven't had any replies to your post yet, it might be better if you post your message again in an appropriate sub-forum. You will get lots of help there.

 

Also take some time to read around the forum and get used to the layout. It is a big forum and takes a lot of getting used to.

 

 

Once you start to find your way, you will soon realise that it is fairly easy to get round and to get the help you need.

 

It can be bit confusing at first.