JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

OlliesDad

The only rights against JJB would be under Bailment law, but one of the conditions of the law is that JJb would have had to voluntarily taken possesion of the ipod. As this condition is not met, there is no claim against JJB.

Physio88

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I think an 11 year old should be responsible enough to leave it at home while out shopping with someone else.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, however, it is just your opinion, the parent or child have done nothing wrong and it is not relevant to the OP's request for advice.

I think it may be in the best interest of the OP to leave it there in aid of getting to the key issue at hand which is the retrieval or reimbursement for the ipod involved in the OP's post. :j

Physio88

OlliesDad wrote: »

The only rights against JJB would be under Bailment law, but one of the conditions of the law is that JJb would have had to voluntarily taken possesion of the ipod. As this condition is not met, there is no claim against JJB.

Surely this depends on how the ipod got to behind the till?

Lirin

I found a Sony Ericcsson last year- never considered keeping it. Unlocked it, found a couple of recent numbers for home, and left a message giving my number so they could claim it.

An hour later, my phone rang, and I spoke to the girl who'd lost it- and waved at her down in the carpark I'd left before climbing up a mountain.

Scrambled down, gave it back, and we had a good laugh about it- I'd passed her on the mountain!

Thing is, no matter how careful anyone is, things can be misplaced, forgotton, drop out of pockets- it's a bit unfair to attack the OP for buying something nice for her son.

adouglasmhor

Physio88 wrote: »

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, however, it is just your opinion, the parent or child have done nothing wrong and it is not relevant to the OP's request for advice.

I think it may be in the best interest of the OP to leave it there in aid of getting to the key issue at hand which is the retrieval or reimbursement for the ipod involved in the OP's post. :j

OK - I don't think they did anything wrong either, the only wrongdoer is the thief.
Maybe my cynical nature taints my opinion, but with my opinion and a £1 I can buy a coffee. This is the praise vent and warnings forum though.
Thanks for the reasoned posting though.

I too hope that the police do their job and recover the iPod or at least prosecute the thief so OP can claim from them.

DKLS

Bit like the parenting thread on another page.

If this had happened to me as a child I would have got a whack for not looking after my kit and it would have served me right that it was lost forever. This should be a lesson in personal responsibility and how not everyone is honest.

OlliesDad

Physio88 wrote: »

Surely this depends on how the ipod got to behind the till?

Unless the son gave the Ipod to the member of staff and asked them to look after it, they did not intend to take possession of the item.

The claim is against the women who took the item. It is likely that they could trace the lady through the credit card details, but this is something the police would have to do (thankfully card providers do not give address details to a shop who asks for it).

Hopefully this is a learning experience for the son to look after it their possessions in future, i know i did when leaving my minidisc player on an aeroplane when i was 10.

Physio88

DKLS wrote: »

Bit like the parenting thread on another page.

If this had happened to me as a child I would have got a whack for not looking after my kit and it would have served me right that it was lost forever. This should be a lesson in personal responsibility and how not everyone is honest.

Who gives you a whack if you lose something now? haha:rotfl:

pmduk

aliasojo wrote: »

Carelessness is not restricted to the young, my OH can lose keys, wallet and phone all within the space of a week.

I lose my phone and keys several times a day! Usually not irretrievably fortunately. I left my debit card in a chip and pin machine 3 times in 2 days last week.

aveylee

What I would argue is that JJB by taking control of the goods misappropriated them from the owner.
The tort is one of strict liability. What you would have to proove was that JJB took the goods, and then gave them away.
Knowledge of who the true owner was is irrelevant, it is the physical delivering up of the goods to someone who is not the owner which would trigger liability (Kuwait Airways v. Iraqi Airways 2002).
Damages would cover the owners full interest in the property, i.e. if it was worth £150 then £150 would be the restitutional figure for compensation.
The only issue would be whether the company was 'appropriating' the goods by taking control of them, or whether they could argue that there was an implied right to secure the goods in a lost property section.
The counter argument would be however be that an act of misappropriation would occur when JJB physically pick up the goods and give them to the person falsely claiming the goods in any case.