They’ll probably notice it before getting to the checkout, so they’ll take it out and put it onto the nearest shelf. Where it will sit until a store clerk picks it up, and takes it back to the proper place. If it’s a perishable, frozen, or refrigerated item, it’s probably spoiled by then.
So the store is out the cost of this item if it spoils. Even if it doesn’t, they have added expenses in picking up these items and returning them to the right locations.
And if the customer doesn’t notice your ‘additions’ until the checkout lane, unless they’re really shy, they will probably tell the clerk they don’t want that, so the clerk puts it aside. It won’t get spoiled, but the store still has the expense of returning it to the proper shelf.
Either way, you are creating increased expense for the store. And then you wonder why grocery prices are going up!
What’s wrong with just giving that blocking cart a good shove?
You ought to be able to send it quite a ways down an aisle with one shove. Then you can get into the blocked aisle, and the inconsiderant person who left it there has to walk a ways to get their cart.
Hmm. Having just taken (and hopefully passed!) the bar, I think I can come up a plausible argument for larceny and/or conversion. Neither need to be from the lawful owner of the property, just someone with superior possessory interest. You can steal something from a thief, for example, or from someone who has stopped making car payments making his car subject to repossession. You might be able to make out a case that despite not yet being the legal owner, the original bread-taker had a possessory interest in the bread. It’s a stretch, and if this had come up on the bar, I would have put no crime/ no tort, but a good lawyer might be able to make it.
So, what’s the legality of saying “HEY! What the fuck are you doing! Put that back or I’m calling Security!” and glowering menacingly? That’s what I’d do, probably.
My mortgage company got several calls from previous borrowers. They thought we were suing them. We weren’t. Instead the title company that closed their loan was suing them; in Michigan title companies typically close real estate transactions and provide escrow services. Most of the cases were over small amounts of money for closings that happened three years ago.
When I investigated, I discovered that the title company was suing these people in small claims court, using their company attorney. Attorneys aren’t allowed to represent parties in small claims court in Michigan. The claims all alleged that the borrower had been short at closing, and the title company had covered the difference.
When I called her, she was very defensive, and would not cooperate with me or provide me with information about the claims. What I managed to pry out of her demonstrated that the title company was short because it misplaced funds: In one case, they had paid an appraiser twice, for instance. She denied that they had paid the appraiser twice (the appraiser, btw, is a company related to the title company). I made one phone call, and a few days later had a refund check from the appraiser for the duplicate payment.
Because of this, we decided that the title company was not competent. We decided not to use them, and not to allow any of our brokers to use them either. We beleived it in our borrowers’ best interest not to use an escrow that misplaces funds and screws up closings, and we did not want to deal with a title company that doesn’t respond to client inquiries.
They threatened to sue us for tortious interference, among other things. The “they” in this case was the president of the company, who is a lawyer. We managed to work the case out without any more lawsuits, but just barely.
I have some more, but I’ll have to think to remember them.
No theft, but if there’s a complaint and the cops show up, they might try “disturbing the peace”. That’s a catch-all.
Also, in at least one state I’m familiar with, this behavior might fall under “Issuing Fighting Words”, where you can be charged with a misdemeanor for doing something to someone that might cause them to fight you… Even if that particular person would not have fought you for the words or actions you spoke against them.
[Eddie Izzard]
You can fill your entire cart up with shopping, take it up to the front of the store, and then leave it and run! And that’s legal! You haven’t bought anything, you’ve just moved it…
[/Eddie Izzard]
North Carolina.
There’s case law of a man getting convicted for “Asking a cop why he doesn’t just run over him with his car”, even though it’s plainly obvious that the cop PROBABLY won’t choose to engage in a fight with the suspect out of anger. If you ask me, the guy was lucky he didn’t get an “assault on a police officer” charge for that due to the implied threat.
I take this law to heart in my day to day actions, even though I’m not in North Carolina at this time. No good reason to make people mad if you can avoid it. My bigger motivation is that I simply have no idea if the guy in line in front of me at the supermarket is a psychotic jerk with low self-esteem, no impulse control and a large-caliber handgun in his possession.
Wow, Good law and good advice. I’m a hot-tempered and need to watch myself. I would be and have been at least once, the idiot that would give a cart in my way a hard push without thinking about consequences ahead of time.
Thank you for sharing those cites. They were most informative.
I get the impression that a state legislature can still restrict “issuing fighting words” so long as the state legislature doesn’t specifically restrict “issuing fighting words against people due to race, religion or other factors”.
Am I right?
Sorry for the hijack.
The only reason i made the joke is that i’m an Aussie too, and this, as you probably know, was the standard line that our teachers gave us about the early convicts, even though it wasn’t really true.
No, nothing so nefarious as that.
The question just occurred to me because someone did, in fact, get the last loaf of bread just before me in our local store last week. I never really contemplated swiping it, but i did wonder what my liability would be if i did.
I’m with Opus – I think there is a possible coversion claim here. Shopper A doesn’t need to be the owner of the bread to have it stolen from him. Possession of an item means you’ve got claim to the item over any person but the owner. So if the store told A to give it back, or even give it to B, then there’s no claim, but when B takes something A possesses without A’s consent, it’s a theft unless B owns the object. But B doesn’t own the bread, not yet anyway.
