MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

andy_hunk

A.Jones wrote: »

It is not stealing. It is agreeing to a price offered to you. Stealing would be if they had changed the price on it, amended the bar code to scan at a cheaper price, etc. Accepting a lower price offered by a retailer is not stealing.

Could be arguing this for a long while so I'm leaving this one as It's getting a little hostile for me :mad:

garden-cat

stogiebear wrote: »

My first instinct when anyone walks up to me in a shop wearing a tie is that I'm just about to be lied to. It's second nature to most of us who aren't sleepwalking through life.

So when I get the story about "trainee cashier..." blah blah blah I find it hard to feel the pain. If it was a Curry's then I'd not only take it, I'd spit in their faces on the way out! This crappy chain of imbeciles has the worst service reputation I know.

I'm pretty sure the shop who had just tried to sell me an 'extended warranty' on this very same laptop don't have the same gullible sense of obligation and morality that some of the posters here seem to have.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but these sales people are not your mates trying to do you a favor and find you a great deal. They are ruthless lying sneaks who would kill their families to make employee of the month.

No sorry; just because some sellers may be cheating or mean it doesn't follow I should be. The check out guy might be be fined or something too.

boxoffireworks

A.Jones wrote: »

It is not stealing. It is agreeing to a price offered to you. Stealing would be if they had changed the price on it, amended the bar code to scan at a cheaper price, etc. Accepting a lower price offered by a retailer is not stealing.

It is stealing. s1 Theft Act 1968

plonkee

It is stealing. s1 Theft Act 1968

But why?

I seem to have missed something, as it's reasonable to argue under civil law that it's a legitimate contract. A price was offered (e.g. payment by card) and accepted - transacted through the till.

So what is it in criminal law that would make this theft? I'm not trying to be awkward, I just really don't understand and must be missing some vital point. Perhaps you could explain for the non-legal people amongst us.

robpw2

a retailer has the right to refuse to sell you a product at a particular price however once you have accepted the price given and been given a reciept then this is a sales agreement between both of you .

I think that he should definatley return the laptop as he has attemted to defraud the retail knowing full well that he was being charged only 10% for the laptop and this would be some bargain.

its not stealing as they have sold it at this price . he has paid for it. it is cheating and cheating is not against the law. if they had sold him two bars of chocolate and only charged him for one then i dont think anyone would complain or even mention it. but as this is a considerble amoutn then its morally wrong.


I honestly belive that this gentleman concerned should have been honest and advised the store that they were wrong but now hes walked out the store then the store should cut its loses and move on

robpw2

why would anyone really miss the fact that the laptop went throught at 3.99 however new you would be you would be completly uttery thick to think 3.99 was a viable price

Myken

The key here is that he knows he's been undercharged, and that makes his behaviour dishonest. He would certainly fall foul of s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 :

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

It's dishonest, if he knows he has been undercharged and has doubts about what he should do. He appropriates one of the rights of the owner, that is the right to charge the correct price for it.

Before you ask, I teach criminal law.

boxoffireworks

robpw2 wrote: »

its not stealing as they have sold it at this price . he has paid for it. it is cheating and cheating is not against the law. if they had sold him two bars of chocolate and only charged him for one then i dont think anyone would complain or even mention it. but as this is a considerble amoutn then its morally wrong.

Cheating is also against the law; it's called fraud and is covered by the Fraud Act 2006.

It is theft because Alan dishonestly intended to deprive the owner of the laptop. He knew that the price was wrong but said nothing. s1 Theft Act 1968 says this is theft, which is a criminal offence.

Interestingly, it is also a criminal offence if the shop keeper gives you too much change and you know about it but say nothing. It is the fact of knowing that you have too much change or that the price is wrong which is the element of dishonesty and therefore theft.

This is not my view, I am quoting the law. I didn't say I agreed with it.

boxoffireworks

Myken wrote: »

The key here is that he knows he's been undercharged, and that makes his behaviour dishonest. He would certainly fall foul of s.1 of the Theft Act 1968 :

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

It's dishonest, if he knows he has been undercharged and has doubts about what he should do. He appropriates one of the rights of the owner, that is the right to charge the correct price for it.

Before you ask, I teach criminal law.

THANK YOU!!!!

A.Jones

There are many threads like this on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=11880345#post11880345

informing people of mis-prices scanning at the tills.

Tesco Internet Phone FF128.. 1pence.. I thought I was on to a winner here with an out of date sel of 17/06/08.. priced @ £29.xx - £19.xx.. but when I scanned it.. it came up at 1p :eek: .. I naturally took all 6 & bought them.. Girl on the till (No self scan) was gobsmacked, so I just gave her a story of stuff I've had for 1p & its Tescos way of getting rid of stuff... I then found another 1 mixed in with new stock in another store & bought that aswell.. This is old stock so make sure you pick up the FF128 with £5.00 free call time included.. Barcode... 5051140246693..

This is clearly the same - a much cheaper price than advertised coming up when scanned, and paying that price, deceiving the cashier - so that is theft. That means that, not only is this website advertising ways of stealing by deception, it is allowing posts informing you which goods you can do this on and where. So is Martin Lewis also breaking the law by publishing information that makes him an accomplice to theft?