Comet gift vouchers/cards

Azari

olias wrote: »

Yes, it has been widely publicised that gift cards are not being accepted, but does anyone actually know whether the administartors have any legal right to refuse them when they have already been paid for?

Yes.

That is not the question here.

As Thumb Remote says, the crux of the (civil) matter is that two quite separate legal entities are involved.

The 'accused' does not have the right to walk out with the TV on the basis of leaving a voucher. That is pretty much undisputed. (Although, strictly it is still just an opinion but there is case law to back it up.)

The only question is whether a prosecution for theft would succeed if the accused could convince a jury that he sincerely believed that he was paying for the TV.

JimmyTheWig

Azari wrote: »

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.

But he wouldn't know if you'd left the right amount of money. Chance are he'd be calling you back (if not chasing you down the street) before stopping to count it.

With a gift card it would be even less clear, even if gift cards were still being accepted.

System

Azari wrote: »

Where the difficulty in securing a conviction would come in is demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the accused believed that Comet were acting lawfully in refusing to accept the voucher.

If he could convince a jury that he believed that he his voucher was a legitimate payment and that Comet had no legitimate grounds for refusing it) it's hard to see how they could convict - even though his assumption was not correct in civil law.

You have a very naive view of the law. If what you stated was actually true then nobody would ever be found guilty for any crime!

Azari

aveylee wrote: »

Contracts require 5 things;
1) Offer (Will you accept this voucher for that TV?)
2) Acceptance (Yes I will / No I won't)
3) Consideration (On both sides. For one side it is the TV, on the other it is the voucher)
4) Intention, and 5) Capacity.
The problem in this example is that there has been no acceptance by the retailer so no contract is formed. Another problem is that it is arguable that a voucher that is no longer 'valid', is probably not consideration as it has no worth.
Without a contract taking the TV from the premises is theft under theTheft Act 1968 (e.g. dishonestly, appropriating, property, from another, with the intention, to permanently deprive them of it).
Dishonest - You know or a should have known that they hadn't accepted your offer of the voucher (e.g. the Mens Rea element).
Appropriating - (Taking the TV off the premises physically - e.g the actus reus of the offence).
Property - (The TV)
From another - (Someone else must own the property - although technically it is possible to steal your own property as you can steal property from the possessor not the just the owner)
Intending to do it permanently - (i.e. you weren't just making a point and intended to walk straight back in with the TV).

So in this context: No contract was formed as there was no acceptance (and possibly no consideration) and you would very likely have committed Theft.

I do not believe that simply showing that no contract has been formed is sufficient to guarantee a conviction for theft.

Whether or not a contract has been formed is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

For the accused to have a guilty mind it would be necessary to show that he knew that no contract had been formed.

If he genuinely believed that because he had paid Comet the money he could exchange the voucher for the TV an element of doubt creeps in.

I wonder if any of the posters who have managed to convince themselves that he would be guilty of theft can show any case law to support their contention.

aveylee

Azari wrote: »

Where the difficulty in securing a conviction would come in is demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the accused believed that Comet were acting lawfully in refusing to accept the voucher.

If he could convince a jury that he believed that he his voucher was a legitimate payment and that Comet had no legitimate grounds for refusing it) it's hard to see how they could convict - even though his assumption was not correct in civil law.

My belief is that it is not the issue of 'payment' that the jury need to consider when establishing the defendants guilt.
That is merely the consideration aspect of the contract.
The issue is one of whether the offer was accepted. in this hypothetical example the offer was never accepted (as silence does not mean acceptance Felthouse v. Bindley).

The Judge would likely direct the jury that silence is not acceptance and ignorance of the law is no defence. The jury would then need to consider whether beyond reasonable doubt the man was 'trying to pull a fast one' in claiming that he was unaware that the gift voucher was void and silence is not acceptance.

I would not be certain which way a jury would vote on those grounds.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You have a very naive view of the law.

On the contrary.

It is those who, without any legal training, make dogmatic statements about what does and does not constitute a crime are the ones with a naive view of the law.

If what you stated was actually true then nobody would ever be found guilty for any crime!

Utter nonsense.

In order to escape conviction he would need to show that he believed he had paid for the TV and that his belief was not unreasonable.

Azari

aveylee wrote: »

I would not be certain which way a jury would vote on those grounds.

Quite.

And that is the entire point of my argument. (Together with whether the CPS would actually prosecute the case in the first place.)

System

Azari wrote: »

Quite.

And that is the entire point of my argument. (Together with whether the CPS would actually prosecute the case in the first place.)

You can never be certain which way a jury would go. If you could then there would be no point in having a court case in the first place.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You can never be certain which way a jury would go. If you could then there would be no point in having a court case in the first place.

I'm glad that you have finally got the message.

System

Azari wrote: »

On the contrary.

It is those who, without any legal training, make dogmatic statements about what does and does not constitute a crime are the ones with a naive view of the law.

Utter nonsense.

In order to escape conviction he would need to show that he believed he had paid for the TV and that his belief was not unreasonable.

You really have very little idea what you are talking about! I do enjoy it when you get on one of your legal rants! If you ever get yourself on a Jury then I pity your colleagues! You will soon bully them into your way of thinking (which I imagine would be good news for the criminal)