Bought a dslr camera but given wrong 1 =0)

kwikbreaks

BackOnTrack wrote: »

Also it just seems to much of a coincidence that both him and the shop assistant both posted about it on here.

.. and both signed up to do so.

I also call BS but suspect it's some prat of a psychology student rather than a troll.

RussJK

I remember my brother bought an expensive sound card about 10 years ago, and how when he got homerealised the shop forgot to actually charge him for it. I was disgusted at how little interest he showed in going back and paying for it... Still hasn't all these years later. Technically he's in the right - the shop owner bagged up the item and wished him a good day, but morally it's wrong.

halibut2209

Technically he's not in the right. He knows he has goods without paying and is refusing to do anything about it. Therefore he is dishonestly and permanently depriving someone of their property, hence theft.

RussJK

halibut2209 wrote: »

Technically he's not in the right. He knows he has goods without paying and is refusing to do anything about it. Therefore he is dishonestly and permanently depriving someone of their property, hence theft.

Property that someone handed to him without asking for payment so not theft, but it definitely goes against how I thought we were raised.

fthl

Russ - I think it was - look at s1 of the theft act. He knew the shop should have charged him but didn't.

neverdespairgirl

RussJK wrote: »

Property that someone handed to him without asking for payment so not theft, but it definitely goes against how I thought we were raised.

Doesn't matter if it's handed to him or not, it's his intentions that count, whether dishonest or otherwise

To be theft, there has to be a (1) dishonest (2) appropriation of (3) property belonging to another with (4) the intention to deprive the other of it permanently.

sp1987

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it's handed to him or not, it's his intentions that count, whether dishonest or otherwise

To be theft, there has to be a (1) dishonest (2) appropriation of (3) property belonging to another with (4) the intention to deprive the other of it permanently.

Why is it we always end up in the same threads? Lol. I know I usually run into you on the housing board but I came in to look at a thread about cameras and you've spotted it too :rotfl:

RussJK

fthl wrote: »

Russ - I think it was - look at s1 of the theft act. He knew the shop should have charged him but didn't.

Maybe; people need to quote Australian law for any of it to matter though.

mttylad

Why? the OP has not been back to comment nor has said they are in AU?

RussJK

mttylad wrote: »

Why? the OP has not been back to comment nor has said they are in AU?

Because the side issue with my brother occurred years ago in Australia, so it's not overly relevant what a British court today would think of it.

I've had a look through some of the relevant laws and I really doubt it'd be treated as a criminal case even in Britain, but rather civil law and only after the shop pursued it.