Jane Norman: won't let me use my gift voucher without paying the same amount on top.

adouglasmhor

unholyangel wrote: »

No, it hasnt. They agreed you can later spend x with the store but they never agreed you can exchange x for y (and we dont even know if it was the OP who made this agreement or someone else). If i pay for a meal for a friend and all that is agreed is that they will pay me back later, it does not then mean that i can go and help myself to their belongings whenever i see fit. As the act states, it can still be dishonest even if you do offer payment of some kind. Taking goods you have already been informed cannot be purchased with the voucher would amount to dishonesty.

And you're right, the argument made wasnt understood by me as i understand logic/common sense and not bullcrap

Go try your stunts for goods of any real value in any shop that has a zero tolerance policy and see how far you get out the door.

Do i think the shop are right to attach additional conditions after the voucher has been purchased? Nope. But nor am i foolish enough to get myself in trouble over £20.

OK had you read the thread would realise I have done it before from my earlier posts. I even left my address and the police were not interested. Dishonesty is not a crime BTW.

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

OK had you read the thread would realise I have done it before from my earlier posts. I even left my address and the police were not interested. Dishonesty is not a crime BTW.

I have read the thread. As you were told by someone else, just because the shop decided not to bother, doesnt mean you had a legal right to take the item. You would likely find the person at the counter knew they were losing their job so didnt care enough. I've also been caught checking my phone while driving - by the police - and i wasnt stopped or given a fine.....does that mean that isnt illegal either? No, it just means i was lucky.

As i said, try doing it for anything of real value in a store with a zero tolerance policy and you would get a very different result.

As for dishonesty not being a crime......you are the one who was making a point that it is dishonesty that makes appropriation of property theft, i am merely showing that there is dishonesty involved and any procurator fiscal wouldnt have too much trouble proving this. Like i said, is it worth it for the sake of £20? Hell no.

adouglasmhor

unholyangel wrote: »

I have read the thread. As you were told by someone else, just because the shop decided not to bother, doesnt mean you had a legal right to take the item.Someone said that yes, I was told F all by anyone, people on forums don't give me orders you cheeky beggar You would likely find the person at the counter knew they were losing their job so didnt care enough. I've also been caught checking my phone while driving - by the police - and i wasnt stopped or given a fine.....does that mean that isnt illegal either? No, it just means i was lucky.

As i said, try doing it for anything of real value in a store with a zero tolerance policy and you would get a very different result.

As for dishonesty not being a crime......you are the one who was making a point that it is dishonesty that makes appropriation of property theft, i am merely showing that there is dishonesty involved and any procurator fiscal wouldnt have too much trouble proving this. Like i said, is it worth it for the sake of £20? Hell no.

It's moral fortitude that makes it important whether it's 10p or 10 grand, I see no dishonesty in my actions, I merely said dishonesty is not a crime.

As I also said, it's a civil matter no crime involved, I left my details to pass on to the liquidators/administrators, having done that the chances of any procurator fiscal having a case are around the same of the chances of you knowing what you are spouting about.

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It's moral fortitude that makes it important whether it's 10p or 10 grand, I see no dishonesty in my actions, I merely said dishonesty is not a crime.

As I also said, it's a civil matter no crime involved, I left my details to pass on to the liquidators/administrators, having done that the chances of any procurator fiscal having a case are around the same of the chances of you knowing what you are spouting about.

Well i seem to know more than you seeing as i know the proper definition and usage of the word "told/tell" :rotfl:

Tell is NOT necessarily an order. Words do have more than one meaning you know.

Really, you struggle with one of the simplest words in the english language no wonder you fail to comprehend legalities.

Furthermore, nor am i a hypocrite. You sit there calling me a cheeky beggar when you are the one who was condescending and rude/insulting towards me? Gee it must be great in that special little world of yours. You WERE rude to me, you only ASSUME i was being rude by using the word "told" (which apparently you don't understand the meaning of).

I have a feeling you're older than me so it comes with some astonishment that i feel the need to tell you to grow up already.

unholyangel

No actually, you didnt. Look up the definition of it and then tell me (ie inform, communicate to) which one actually applies instead of the one you wrongly assumed.

Again hypocrite, you STOLE goods from a shop. I can recognise where i went wrong and i havent done so again. You do not recognise where you were wrong. I never claimed to be perfect but i recognise my mistakes. Just because you dont understand that what you did is wrong, doesnt make it right.

Anyway, on your basis probably 95% of MSE members shouldnt be posting on here.....including yourself.

You have no knowledge of that instance i mentioned other than the very basics. Again you are assuming you know that which you do not - and doing so wrongly.......again.

unholyangel

Why is it people get nasty and childish when they have no valid, logical basis for their claims?

Cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen.


adouglasmhor......see my signature. I'm taking the moral high ground here and saying enough childishness is enough. Agree to disagree and move on.

adouglasmhor

I did not steal as the company had already received payment to the value of the goods I took and I informed them i was doing it and how I could be contacted so I suggest you stop making unfounded allegations based on your personal interpretation of the law. When a court of law decides to prove I stole or a similar case is prosecuted then you can make that comment, until then I suggest you haud yer' wheesht.

look4abargain

I registered as an unsecured creditor with the administration company. Anyone else do this and if so have you heard anything back yet?

sjbrun

It usually takes 6 to 12 months to hear anything back, and then you will probably receive pennies to the pound and no where near the full amount - I've been through the process as a supplier to a business where they owed me over 10k however that was several years ago now, and I got less than 500 back.

antrobus

DCodd wrote: »

But that only applies if there is a court order in place,...

But Jane Norman is in administration, hence a court order is in place.

DCodd wrote: »

... and gift cards are a grey area as having a gift card does not make you a creditor. Most gift cardss have a "monetary" value of less than 1p, so the promisory note should be regarded as a contract or possibly a sale but not a credit.

I appreciate that you believe that gift cards are a "grey area", but that doesn't stop them from being evidence of debt owed by one party to another.

DCodd wrote: »

Administrators, in very many cases, effectively work for the secured creditors only and are brought in by them to retrieve their monies,

No, the administrator's objective is is to keep the company operating as a going concern to achieve the best possible returns for creditors. You're confusing an administrator with an 'administrative receiver'.

DCodd wrote: »

..legal action is only restricted for creditors not customers i.e. SOGA / SOGAS is still in force.

The mere fact of administration does not invalidate any legislation, so of course the Sale of Goods Act is still in force. But if you wish to enforce rights under SOGA then you can only do so through legal action. What other ways would there be.

(Yes I know. But better late than never.)