Falsely Accused of Theft

[Deleted User]

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

How will the OP do that?

Well there's a Johnsons Cleaners in our local Asda...

unholyangel

bunnie1234 wrote: »

The law is quite clear on the fact that once payment is made by the customer and accepted by the retailer a binding contract is made. Payment cannot be made without acceptance, ie. payment via card or cash at the till, which is when it forms a contract. Theft could occur if for instance the customer put another label on a product and paid less than they should have. But this was not the case in my situation.

Google it if you don't believe me. Payment is not a required element of a legally binding contract. Consideration is but consideration is just agreeing to give consideration rather than actually transferring it.

hollydays

I can't seem to find this quote of yours to quote ?! but you are not interpreting the law correctly here
"The law is quite clear on the fact that once payment is made by the customer and accepted by the retailer a binding contract is made. Payment cannot be made without acceptance, ie. payment via card or cash at the till, which is when it forms a contract. Theft could occur if for instance the customer put another label on a product and paid less than they should have. But this was not the case in my situation."

A price swap is deception , not theft.:o
I'm afraid you are not helping yourself with guesswork.
There are some very knowledgeable people on here, try to take their advice.

Pollycat

hollydays wrote: »

I can't seem to find this quote of yours to quote ?! but you are not interpreting the law correctly here
"The law is quite clear on the fact that once payment is made by the customer and accepted by the retailer a binding contract is made. Payment cannot be made without acceptance, ie. payment via card or cash at the till, which is when it forms a contract. Theft could occur if for instance the customer put another label on a product and paid less than they should have. But this was not the case in my situation."

A price swap is deception , not theft.:o
I'm afraid you are not helping yourself with guesswork.
There are some very knowledgeable people on here, try to take their advice.

hollydays - it's in reply #70.

If you click on the little arrow in the body of the quote by the OP (next to the OP's name) it takes you to the actual post that has been quoted.

I'm not sure where the OP got that from but it sounds like (at least to me) it has been copied from somewhere.

DCFC79

bunnie1234 wrote: »

I didn't say it happened two days ago! It happened two and a half weeks ago and I wrote to Head Office two days later and asked them to reply within 14 days, as advised by a consumer organisation.

I am in my fifties although I am not sure what this has to do with anything.

My bad, when I said 2 days I should have said "for example was it 2 days".

bris

We are regular shoppers who get all our groceries in that store and sometimes mark down items.


It looks to me like you were targeted for always looking for bargains.


I don't understand why a reduced sticker was put on an item without Displaying a price? I have never seen a blank reduced price sticker before.


Any way they probably targeted you for this practice and decided you were customers they didn't want. There are two sides to every story and we don't know theirs. You may have been observed over weeks and then enough was enough.


if they are going to reduce something why leave the sticker blank? that's weird but I suppose some shops do it this way, maybe if you tell us the store we can get a better understanding of how this system works. P.s I haven't read through the 5 pages to see if the store has been mentioned.


P.s offer and acceptance alone doesn't form a contract so payment isn't always the end of it. Mistakes for instance can also void this acceptance as most on here already know. So a scenario would be that a customer pays for a bottle of Champagne at the checkout.Tthe till operator who is 16 and just started has no idea a bottle of Bollinger Champagne costs a fiver so it that the deal done? No of course not.


As unhollyangel pointed out this is where "Consideration" comes in, another fundamental part of forming a contract. The Supermarket never considered selling this bottle for a fiver so it was a clear mistake, this voids the contract and the customer gets put back in the same position they were in.

a.turner

bris wrote: »

We are regular shoppers who get all our groceries in that store and sometimes mark down items.


It looks to me like you were targeted for always looking for bargains.


I don't understand why a reduced sticker was put on an item without Displaying a price? I have never seen a blank reduced price sticker before.


Any way they probably targeted you for this practice and decided you were customers they didn't want. There are two sides to every story and we don't know theirs. You may have been observed over weeks and then enough was enough.


if they are going to reduce something why leave the sticker blank? that's weird but I suppose some shops do it this way, maybe if you tell us the store we can get a better understanding of how this system works. P.s I haven't read through the 5 pages to see if the store has been mentioned.


P.s offer and acceptance alone doesn't form a contract so payment isn't always the end of it. Mistakes for instance can also void this acceptance as most on here already know. So a scenario would be that a customer pays for a bottle of Champagne at the checkout.Tthe till operator who is 16 and just started has no idea a bottle of Bollinger Champagne costs a fiver so it that the deal done? No of course not.


As unhollyangel pointed out this is where "Consideration" comes in, another fundamental part of forming a contract. The Supermarket never considered selling this bottle for a fiver so it was a clear mistake, this voids the contract and the customer gets put back in the same position they were in.

At 16 year old wouldn't be allowed to sell it.

Pollycat

a.turner wrote: »

At 16 year old wouldn't be allowed to sell it.

I think it was just an example...

sheramber

a.turner wrote: »

At 16 year old wouldn't be allowed to sell it.

They can do as long as they are supervised by an adult.

In our supermarket that means calling out to a supervisor and showing them the bottle. The supervisor nods and sale is rung up.

https://forum.gardenersworld.com/discussion/1011654/daffodil-flowers-being-eaten

bunnie1234

hollydays wrote: »

I can't seem to find this quote of yours to quote ?! but you are not interpreting the law correctly here
"The law is quite clear on the fact that once payment is made by the customer and accepted by the retailer a binding contract is made. Payment cannot be made without acceptance, ie. payment via card or cash at the till, which is when it forms a contract. Theft could occur if for instance the customer put another label on a product and paid less than they should have. But this was not the case in my situation."

A price swap is deception , not theft.:o
I'm afraid you are not helping yourself with guesswork.
There are some very knowledgeable people on here, try to take their advice.

The quote was from the Consumer Act 2015.
I was commenting on the information in this Act.

Just for the record, I did not swap any labels. The supermarket staff member whose name I won't mention, marked down both pies. After falsely being accused of theft I could not keep them and returned them for a refund.