Is it theft if goods are invoiced by supplier?

Vomityspice

The seller (to you) never conformed their part of the contract of sale (i.e pay the original seller) so the legal title never passed to you. Do you have the t&c's on the b2b transaction? I suspect it will clarify that the title to goods only pass on payment. Even if it is not, as a b2b transaction it would be implied into the contract.

You will have to return the horse and sue the person/company you bought the horse from. As they never paid the original seller, cash flow / liquidity may well be an issue. I'm assuming you didn't pay with a credit card?

I can't see you your daughter can be prosecuted unless she knew that the transaction was fraudulent? More likely the seller (to you) is to be prosecuted for either theft / fraud.

Dick_Van_Dyke

capinpugwash wrote: »

Thanks D V D

My Daughter did not know about the agreement between 1 and 2.

I am having trouble seeing how the horse can be stolen if it was willingly supplied to Trader 2 by Trader 1 but then trader 2 neither returned the horse (which had been invoiced) or paid for it.

As always there are different ways of looking at things and I am gathering opinions to both support and contest my reasoning.

I think trader 1 is trying to get the horse back from my Daughter as she sees her as an easier target, and has reported the horse as stolen to achieve this.

Trader 2 appears to be a bit of a slippery customer which is why the deal seems to have gone wrong all round.

Unfortunately when someone buys a stolen item they can often lose out. The plus point is without evidence of her knowing it was stolen there wont be a criminal prosecution.

I still suspect that it will be classed as a stolen item though and returned to trader 1 leaving your daughter to go after trader 2 for the money lost.

I wonder if she is as well biting the bullet and putting in a claim now and hoping she gets the money back. I mean if he is selling horses for a living bailiffs should be able to find enough property to satisfy a court judgement.

pinkshoes

I don't see how the horse can possibly be reported as stolen when it was quite clearly supplied along with the passport, and there's paperwork to show this, therefore it's not a criminial matter.

The civil matter is between trader 1 and trader 2.

Sounds like trader 1 panicked at the thought of not getting the money, and reported it as stolen as a last resort, rather than using common sense and going through the small claims court.

I would report Trader 1 as reporting a false theft!

molerat

I believe that no criminal act has taken place. Dealer 2 has not paid dealer 1, a civil matter.

Most goods are supplied to traders on an invoice system and sold on without good title, read any invoice for goods, title does not pass until the invoice is paid. If this was pushed to the limit we would all have the plod knocking on our doors, hand over that packet of biscuits !!

As for the police saying they will prosecute and the CPS actually carrying it through, two completely different things. The problem is that many police officers simply do not know the law. Dealer 1 may have friends in the force so is getting special favours.

capinpugwash

I have spoken to Hampshire Police (the local force) who believe this is a civil and not criminal matter.

They hinted that perhaps the Policeman I spoke with (from another force) is acting on behalf of Trader 1 as a friend and abusing his position This is a big no no and suggested I consider a formal complaint.

The plot thickens!!

Dick_Van_Dyke

capinpugwash wrote: »

I have spoken to Hampshire Police (the local force) who believe this is a civil and not criminal matter.

They hinted that perhaps the Policeman I spoke with (from another force) is acting on behalf of Trader 1 as a friend and abusing his position This is a big no no and suggested I consider a formal complaint.

The plot thickens!!

Hampshire police are wrong and probably simply dont want to get involved.

Look up the legal definition of theft.
It all depends on what Trader 2 (and you) intended to achieve by your actions.

If Trader 2 entered into the agreement with no intention of paying it and then sold it on to profit there is theft.

If Trader 2 simply cannot pay and intends to pay then it is civil

DVardysShadow

capinpugwash wrote: »

I have spoken to Hampshire Police (the local force) who believe this is a civil and not criminal matter.

They hinted that perhaps the Policeman I spoke with (from another force) is acting on behalf of Trader 1 as a friend and abusing his position This is a big no no and suggested I consider a formal complaint.

The plot thickens!!

Indeed. It sounds a likely expalnation.

!!!!!!_Van_Dyke wrote: »

Hampshire police are wrong and probably simply dont want to get involved.

Look up the legal definition of theft.
It all depends on what Trader 2 (and you) intended to achieve by your actions.

If Trader 2 entered into the agreement with no intention of paying it and then sold it on to profit there is theft.

If Trader 2 simply cannot pay and intends to pay then it is civil

Theft? Or obtaining goods by deception?

Dick_Van_Dyke

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Indeed. It sounds a likely expalnation.


Theft? Or obtaining goods by deception?

There could be an argument for both although you are probably right that it may be that is a more likely charge. A theft charge is probably still possible though if someone wished to pursue it. The deciding factor is who owned the horse and whether ownership actually passed to trader 2.

pinkshoes

!!!!!!_Van_Dyke wrote: »

If Trader 2 entered into the agreement with no intention of paying it and then sold it on to profit there is theft.

This would be deception and not theft, as Trader 1 willingly handed the horse over to Trader 2, with the agreement that they'd get paid when Trader 2 sold it.

It would only be theft if trader 2 had broken into the paddock, loaded the horse into a trailer, stolen the passport, and then sold it.

Dick_Van_Dyke

pinkshoes wrote: »

This would be deception and not theft, as Trader 1 willingly handed the horse over to Trader 2, with the agreement that they'd get paid when Trader 2 sold it.

It would only be theft if trader 2 had broken into the paddock, loaded the horse into a trailer, stolen the passport, and then sold it.

I would dispute that in strict legal terms

Yes its a better example of theft but the theft act would allow the above description to be considered theft as trader 2 would have dishonestly appropiately anothers property.

Although you and Dvardy are correct in that the police would be more likely to use a deception charge in this case.