Comet gift vouchers/cards

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

Don't encourage him to lie.

I said no such thing.

I said that it's not as cut and dried as a lot of (non legally qualified) people here seem to think.

So you are legally qualified to back up your statement which said you are perfectly within the law to leave a form of payment on the counter and walk out with the goods?

Because that is what you are saying.

A newspaper and such like is all about good will but you bet your bottom dollar that if you went to get a bottle of scotch and whether or not you left the payment on the counter the shopkeeper would do you for theft.

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

No it isnt. You cannot walk out of a shop without completing a transaction or else it is theft.

That is pretty much black and white.

Sorry, but you are just making up a term ('completing a transaction') which has no real legal meaning.

For it to have a legal meaning it would need to have a very clear legal definition.

I'm afraid that the law is nowhere near as cut and dried as you seem to think. (Many people such as yourself are equally convinced that certain things are 'obvious' but get an unpleasant surprise when they need to consult a solicitor in an attempt to uphold their 'obvious' claims.)

Unless you are saying that if you were paying with cash you could just walk out the shop thinking the transaction was complete because you put the cash on the counter?

The transaction would, de facto, be complete.

You seem to be living in some sort of dream world where human transactions are always completed according to some fixed algorithm as if they were being conducted between two computers.

Gordon_Hose

Go and try it then. See what happens.

LittleMax

Azari wrote: »

Don't encourage him to lie.

I said no such thing.

I said that it's not as cut and dried as a lot of (non legally qualified) people here seem to think.

It is cut and dried, Comet would say that you had no contract with them as they did not accept your offer of vouchers. It is covered by very well tested case law ...

LittleMax wrote: »

Jeff is correct. There is no contract until your offer has been accepted by the store. You can't just throw a voucher, or even cash at them and remove the item.

This is all about an invitation to treat as per the infamous case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953). A shop displaying goods does not have to sell the goods to someone who is willing to pay for them. So when you offer to exchange a voucher for the good they can refuse. Therefore you have no contract and if you remove the goods from the store it is theft.

Azari wrote: »

Sorry, but you are just making up a term ('completing a transaction') which has no real legal meaning.

For it to have a legal meaning it would need to have a very clear legal definition.

I'm afraid that the law is nowhere near as cut and dried as you seem to think. (Many people such as yourself are equally convinced that certain things are 'obvious' but get an unpleasant surprise when they need to consult a solicitor in an attempt to uphold their 'obvious' claims.)

The transaction would, de facto, be complete.

You seem to be living in some sort of dream world where human transactions are always completed according to some fixed algorithm as if they were being conducted between two computers.

Yes, there would need to be a very clear legal definition ... a contract. Which you conveniently seem to be forgetting. There is no automatic contract when you throw a voucher at them!

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So you are legally qualified to back up your statement which said you are perfectly within the law to leave a form of payment on the counter and walk out with the goods?

Because that is what you are saying.

No it isn't.

If you don't have the comprehension skills to understand the important difference between what I actually said and what you are falsely claiming I said there is no point trying to continue the discussion.

A newspaper and such like is all about good will but you bet your bottom dollar that if you went to get a bottle of scotch and whether or not you left the payment on the counter the shopkeeper would do you for theft.

Again, you are simply stating your opinion here and that is exactly what it is: your opinion.

And it seems a pretty stupid opinion in the case of the scotch.

Why would the shopkeeper care if you had left the correct amount of money. He might be annoyed at your presumption but do you really think he'd call the police and tell them that someone just left his shop with a bottle os scotch for which they had left the correct payment?

How do you think the police would react to that?

How do you think the CPS would react?

How do you think a jury would react?

The problem here is that you have taken it into your head that there is a legal concept, with regard to theft, of a 'complete transaction' - and there is no such concept - it is a fiction. So you continuing to argue something based on that fiction can only come to naught.

olias

Ooh, this is fun - glad I started the thread.

To those who say that it would be theft, where is the dishonesty? Dishonesty needs to be proved in order to complete the offence of theft.

If I had paid Comet £50 for a voucher, the terms and conditions of which were that it could be exchanged for goods up to the value of £50, and I did just that, then where is the dishonesty?

It may have said in those terms and conditions, 'unless we go bust in which case you're on your own matey...' But then again, it probably didn't

Olias

Gordon_Hose

olias wrote: »

Ooh, this is fun - glad I started the thread.

To those who say that it would be theft, where is the dishonesty? Dishonesty needs to be proved in order to complete the offence of theft.

If I had paid Comet £50 for a voucher, the terms and conditions of which were that it could be exchanged for goods up to the value of £50, and I did just that, then where is the dishonesty?

It may have said in those terms and conditions, 'unless we go bust in which case you're on your own matey...' But then again, it probably didn't

Olias

Let us know how you get on then!

Azari

LittleMax wrote: »

It is cut and dried, Comet would say that you had no contract with them as they did not accept your offer of vouchers. It is covered by very well tested case law ...

Yes, there would need to be a very clear legal definition ... a contract. Which you conveniently seem to be forgetting. There is no automatic contract when you throw a voucher at them!

You're making exactly the same mistake that JBH and a lot of other people here are making.

You are conflating a civil matter with a criminal one.

There is no doubt that Comet would be able to reclaim the TV in a civil case.

What is not cut and dried is whether anyone would be able to secure a conviction in a criminal case if the defendant could convince a jury that he did not have mens rea. Or, prior to that, whether the CPS believe there would be a reasonable chance of conviction given that they would need to prove mens rea.

LittleMax

Azari wrote: »

No it isn't.
The problem here is that you have taken it into your head that there is a legal concept, with regard to theft, of a 'complete transaction' - and there is no such concept - it is a fiction. So you continuing to argue something based on that fiction can only come to naught.

There is a legal concept ... please go and google "invitation to treat" "boots cash chemist"

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

No it isn't.

If you don't have the comprehension skills to understand the important difference between what I actually said and what you are falsely claiming I said there is no point trying to continue the discussion.

The problem here is that you have taken it into your head that there is a legal concept, with regard to theft, of a 'complete transaction' - and there is no such concept - it is a fiction. So you continuing to argue something based on that fiction can only come to naught.

Ill edit it down because you are now boring me.

Have you formed a contract by placing any form of payment on a counter?

As you go on about it so much are you legally qualified to give the statement you made or is it indeed 'your opinion'? Just like mine is mine.