Tesco Cicil Recoveryover £1.65 magazine SWAP not steal

[Mossycat]

my advice hun is simple.

 

throw the letter in the bin.

 

lets look at the facts...

 

£1.65 magazine

£40.00 costs (they claim)

 

it will cost £65.00 to issue the claim in the county court.

 

verdict? not economically viable to do so.

 

breathe easy, they will not proceed on your case!

its simply not worth their time, they are bullies, they thrive on threats,

their threats are empty, all of them in these kind of cases!! they even moan about CAG on their website lol. yes they do!! go look under ther tabbed sections with questions and answers CAG gets a mention when we tell people to ignore their letters lol.

 

They will add the cost of issuing to the cost of the claim, if they win then the OP pays. based on what was said by the OP I doubt they would be able to defend if proceedings were issued.

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

The mental element of the offence (intent) is: "Intention of permanently depriving the other of it [their property]"

 

This has been fulfilled here.

 

The other mental element would be dishonestly. Question for the Jury that one - but from my reading, and from what i have seen in court, stories like "i wanted to save time so didnt bother queing" dont hold up.

 

 

The problem with your interpretation is that for it to be correct no payment would have to have been made & it was

[JonCris]

They will add the cost of issuing to the cost of the claim, if they win then the OP pays. based on what was said by the OP I doubt they would be able to defend if proceedings were issued.

 

Mossy

 

Wanna bet;)

[Mossycat]

The problem with your interpretation is that for it to be correct no payment would have to have been made & it was

 

How was payment made?

 

The OP purchased a different item, returned it to the store and without authority swapped it.

 

They did not pay for the item they ended up with, nor did they have permission to effect the swap, the store could argue that they wouldn't have allowed the swap because the OP could have read the first magazine before returning it and then was trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage by swapping it for a different issue.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what defence you think the OP has

 

Mossy

[bigsteve0000]

they could argue that but at the end of the day can they prove her intent was dishonest.

[Mossycat]

they could argue that but at the end of the day can they prove her intent was dishonest.

 

OK I'm at a loss trying to understand this one.

 

The OP buys an item and leaves the store, sometime later they return to effectively exchange the item they bought for a different one, but because there is a queue they leave their old item there and walk off with a new one (a different item to that originally bought). Since they did not have permission to do that then I don't see how you can argue that.

 

Suppose I go to my local supermarket and buy a magazine, I sit in the cafe and read it and then on my way out I put it back and pick up chocolate bars to the value of the magazine, and if stopped I say oh the magazine was an old one I'd already bought it last week so I exchanged it for mars bars, do you think that is acceptable?

 

That is effectively what the OP has done in this case, had it been an exchange for exactly the same magazine (because of damage or pages missing) then I think the OP might have an argument, but they were not exchanging it for exactly the same, they wanted a different item.

 

Mossy

 

PS I'm not trying to argue I just want to get my head around why it is OK to do what the OP did (my area is insurance not RLP)

[bigsteve0000]

At the time of buying the new magazine should have been on the shelf, the previouse weeks was their instead. she realised her mistake and went back the same day. now this has happened to me a couple of times its easy done if your in a hurry. she took the mag back with the reciept showing it was bought that day, if she had gone to the till they would have exchanged it tescos are very good like that. but been a daft b###er she did it the way she did. she had no intension to steal she was just correcting a mistake. this should have been obviouse to the staff as she had the reciept to back up her. if she had bought it the previouse week then their would be an argument for intent, but they were selling out of date stock which is bound to cause confusion.

[Mossycat]

At the time of buying the new magazine should have been on the shelf, the previouse weeks was their instead. she realised her mistake and went back the same day. now this has happened to me a couple of times its easy done if your in a hurry. she took the mag back with the reciept showing it was bought that day, if she had gone to the till they would have exchanged it tescos are very good like that. but been a daft b###er she did it the way she did. she had no intension to steal she was just correcting a mistake. this should have been obviouse to the staff as she had the reciept to back up her. if she had bought it the previouse week then their would be an argument for intent, but they were selling out of date stock which is bound to cause confusion.

 

Sorry but you are making assumptions about what Tesco might have done and might have allowed the OP to do. There is no onus or liability on Tesco to allow the swap, and whilst they may well have agreed to it, equally, they might not have, and just because the OP left the old magazine behind does not mean that they have paid for the new one.

 

The OP chose not to queue and not to seek permission, those actions and those actions alone have resulted in Tesco incurring work that they would otherwise not have had to do.

 

Mossy

[bigsteve0000]

like I said tescos are very good like that. plus they had old issues on the shelves when they should have had the new issue, not exactly wrong but not good. the point is not what tescos may or may not have done but what she believed was resonable for them to do, this gose to her state of mined and intent.

[bigsteve0000]

any extra work incured by tescos would have been avoided if they didnt have old issues on the shelf.

[Mossycat]

like I said tescos are very good like that. plus they had old issues on the shelves when they should have had the new issue, not exactly wrong but not good. the point is not what tescos may or may not have done but what she believed was resonable for them to do, this gose to her state of mined and intent.

 

Is that the law? ie not what they may or may not have done but what a member of the public believed was reasonable for them to do? Ok, so the last time I complained about something in M&S they gave me a £25 gift card, the next time I complain about something I'll just pick up £25 in goods and if caught I'll hide behind the defence that it doesn't matter whether you would or wouldn't have given me £25 in vouchers I believe it was reasonable for you to do that.

 

I think not!

 

Any reasonable person would agree that what the OP did was not reasonable, having made a mistake the OP should have explained what had happened and asked for an exchange. That is the reasonable thing to do.

 

any extra work incured by tescos would have been avoided if they didnt have old issues on the shelf.

 

Firstly, there was nothing wrong with Tesco offering old issues for sale, any extra work would have been avoided if...

 

1) The OP was more careful in the selection/buying process

 

2) The OP had queued up to explain at customer services

 

3) The OP had explained to the manager (they had ample opportunity to do so but chose to say nothing)

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

they could argue that but at the end of the day can they prove her intent was dishonest.

 

If the store argued that the OP bought a magazine, removed it from the store, had read it and then swapped it for another magazine, thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage by not purchasing the new magazine I think they could reasonably show dishonesty.

 

I'm not saying that is the case, but at the end of the day they could quite easily show the OP's intent was dishonest.

 

Mossy

[hightail]

she was just correcting a mistake

 

She decided to correct her mistake by taking a magazine she hadn't paid for.

[Mossycat]

She decided to correct her mistake by taking a magazine she hadn't paid for.

 

Exactly!

 

I'm was beginning to think nobody else could see that

 

Mossy

[hightail]

You are not alone Mossy

[JonCris]

OK I'm at a loss trying to understand this one.

 

The OP buys an item and leaves the store, sometime later they return to effectively exchange the item they bought for a different one, but because there is a queue they leave their old item there and walk off with a new one (a different item to that originally bought). Since they did not have permission to do that then I don't see how you can argue that.

 

Suppose I go to my local supermarket and buy a magazine, I sit in the cafe and read it and then on my way out I put it back and pick up chocolate bars to the value of the magazine, and if stopped I say oh the magazine was an old one I'd already bought it last week so I exchanged it for mars bars, do you think that is acceptable?

 

That is effectively what the OP has done in this case, had it been an exchange for exactly the same magazine (because of damage or pages missing) then I think the OP might have an argument, but they were not exchanging it for exactly the same, they wanted a different item.

 

Mossy

 

PS I'm not trying to argue I just want to get my head around why it is OK to do what the OP did (my area is insurance not RLP)

 

The magazine in question should not have been on sale that day as it had been superseded by a later issue

[hightail]

The magazine in question should not have been on sale that day as it had been superseded by a later issue

 

How does that make what the customer did OK?

[bigsteve0000]

How does that make what the customer did OK?

 

Their mistake resulted in her mistake in buying the wrong issue, she could have done it the right way but had to return at a busy time of day and took a short cut the she really shouldn’t have taken. they would have changed it they always do. They do this on a regular basis stocking shelves with last weeks/month’s issues on the day the new issues out, this is done in the knowledge that by the time people realise its too inconvenient for them to return. Those that do return always get an exchange.

 

Mossey my statement "what she believed was reasonable for them to do, this gose to her state of mined and intent" is directed at her intent, just because she may believe its reasonable dosnt make it reasonable. but her intent is the relavent point, did she intend to deprive/steal/pinch/thieve/nick/purloin ect ect. or was she just daft and naive.

[hightail]

What you say is contradictory. If they would have exchanged it there was no need to take it. She had every chance to effect a proper transaction and chose not to. Impatience isn't a defence.

[bigsteve0000]

like I said just daft and naive. this argument started over intent. was it her intent to steal ?????

[Zamzara]

I already dealt with this on the first page:

 

Theft Act 1968

 

2. (1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

©(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

It doesn't matter whether they actually would have consented. The law says it cannot be treated as dishonest.

[Zamzara]

In any case if that Tesco's terms and conditions for returns is pretty standard, it is likely that the OP actually had a right to make the exchange as a term of the sale.

[JonCris]

Their mistake resulted in her mistake in buying the wrong issue, she could have done it the right way but had to return at a busy time of day and took a short cut the she really shouldn’t have taken. they would have changed it they always do. They do this on a regular basis stocking shelves with last weeks/month’s issues on the day the new issues out, this is done in the knowledge that by the time people realise its too inconvenient for them to return. Those that do return always get an exchange.

 

Mossey my statement "what she believed was reasonable for them to do, this gose to her state of mined and intent" is directed at her intent, just because she may believe its reasonable dosnt make it reasonable. but her intent is the relavent point, did she intend to deprive/steal/pinch/thieve/nick/purloin ect ect. or was she just daft and naive.

 

Wrong if unsold on the day of publication the magazine in question should have been removed from the display.

 

Anyway as your experts feel free to argue amongst yourselves

[bigsteve0000]

Wrong if unsold on the day of publication the magazine in question should have been removed from the display.

 

they should have been removed but as I said, They stock the shelves with last weeks/month’s issues on the day the new issues out, this is done in the knowledge that by the time people realise they got the old issue its too inconvenient for them to return. its wrong but its done, profits profit.

[JonCris]

they should have been removed but as I said, They stock the shelves with last weeks/month’s issues on the day the new issues out, this is done in the knowledge that by the time people realise they got the old issue its too inconvenient for them to return. its wrong but its done, profits profit.

 

Strange because when checked each publication day & after having their attention drawn to their mistake they haven't done it since