What, if anything, can you be charged with if you don’t feel like waiting in line to purchase something at a gas station or department store, so you just take the required money and place it in front of the cashier and walk out with your product?
Sure, it’s not polite. But, is this any form of legal misconduct?
Don’t know if it’s legal, but IMHO if the cashier doesn’t see you and pick up the money, somebody else could just pocket the cash. I’ve seen people do this at newsstands, though, for small items. I suppose it’s also possible that the cashier could, if so inclined, just pocket the money and never ring it up in the register. Also this would be a good way to get nabbed for shoplifting in a department store, since you don’t have a receipt.
IIRC, on a strict legal analysis when you approach the cashier carrying your loaf of bread and your money, you are offering to buy the bread for the advertised price. Until the cashier accepts your offer, there’s no contract. Hence, if you leave the cash and walk out without communicating with anybody, you haven’t bought the bread.
You haven’t necessarily committed a crime; it depends on the elements of “theft” or “larceny” or whatever the appropriate crime would be in your jurisdiction.
If the store sued you for the price of the bread, they wouldn’t win; they already have the cash you left, and they wouldn’t be allowed to recover the value of the goods twice.
On the other hand, if you made a habit of this and the store found it a pain, they could (hypothetically) get an order restraining you from doing it again. Or if it caused them loss because it screwed up their stock control and cashflow systems royally, they could recover damages for that. And, as others have pointed out, if there were a . . . ah, misunderstanding, and you were prosecuted for shoplifting there might be practical difficulties in the way of proving that you had, in fact, left the money.
A roomate of mine in college took a summer job for a company and traveled across the company doing the following:
They worked in pairs…one person would go in first, and get in line to purchase something.
The second would run in, grab something else, and throw a 5 or 10$ bill on the counter, say"im in a hurry, keep it" and run out.
The first person would watch the worker to see if they kept the money or the change or what.
They then would file a report, which would make its way back to the owner.
I wouldn’t think its a big enough problem to warrant such “stings”, but they stayed busy, and the company was always looking for more workers.
Lengthy discussion of thishere.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the merchant doing the offering, and I the accepting by throwing the money out of my possession into the currency section of their store? Sure, I am not meeting their normal terms of acceptance, but whoever told me I had to meet these specific purchasing procedures in order to accept their offer? The sticker said “$1.99”, that’s it… it didn’t say “$1.99 while meeting our purchasing requirements.” If that is supposed to be implied, what statute says this?.. surely it must be in a statute somewhere or else it’s not public info and I am not required to be privy on their implied acceptance terms.
Again, please correct me if I am off the wall on this.
No, its the customer that is doing the offering. By displaying the goods on the wall, the store has only expressed its willingness to do business. It is up to the customer to make an offer on the item.
You can’t just expect me to believe you, AHarris! At least say you are educated in this area, or provide a cite… especially about something that is not logical. (The sticker prices are offering prices, or at least this is the default, most reasonable way of guessing, right?)
Not trying to be difficult, but you do owe it to the members, once you post, to provide reason to believe, or else your post does not mean anything and takes up space.
Cite?
Where, in this day and age, can you haggle over the price of something? A car dealership, maybe, but that is hardly the kind of place where somebody is going to drop a pile of money and say “take it, I’m in a hurry”. I think that the store is actually doing the offering when they say the loaf of bread is $1.29. You pay the 1.29 or you don't and you don't have bread. If the customer was making the offer, they could say "I'll pay you .99 for that loaf of bread", but that doesn’t happen.
Folks, this has nothing to do with haggling or what you think is logical. It has to do with business law. I read the thread that Princhester linked to and thought it was pretty well settled there. For those who want a cite in this thread:
(8.2 C)“Manifestation of Intent to Contract. To have legal effect, an offer must manifest an intent to enter into a contract. It is important to distinguish language constituting an offer from that merely soliciting or inviting offers.”
(8.2 C 6)“A statement on a price tag in a store is ordinarily considered a quotation and not an offer. The store is the offeree and may accept or reject the customer’s offer.”
To clarify that a bit, although we customarily speak of a shop offering items for sale, that’s not what is meant legally by the term “offer.”
The statement below seems to be from British law, but it’s the same principle. Note that legally, it is the customer who makes the offer, and the shop that accepts or rejects it:
From http://www.lawteacher.net/Contract/Agreement/Agreement%20Cases.htm
…“in the case of an ordinary shop, although goods are displayed and it is intended that customers should go and choose what they want, the contract is not completed until, the customer having indicated the articles which he needs, the shopkeeper, or someone on his behalf, accepts that offer. Then the contract is completed.”
Actually, you can negotiate anything. We don’t do it, b/c we like the convenience, and it’s not like the sales associates are ready to deal. However, some dept. stores will deal. Dateline and some other news show (maybe 20/20?) showed some examples, and it worked. I did it at Pottery Barn, Crate & Barrel and Sak’s (iirc). At all the places, I paid with cash, late in the day, and I had to go through a manager. At PB and C&B, I made up some story how I was going to a wedding shower of some kind and I didn’t have enough cash on me and I asked if there was something they could do to help me out. I told them i was a loyal customer and all that. At Sak’s (now that I think about it, it might’ve been Macy’s), I just took a bunch of clothes and asked them if they could give me a discount. They said yes, and they also wanted me to fill out a credit application. At the first two places, I saved 20% at each. At Sak’s/Macy’s, I think I saved 10%. My sister got a 30% discount at Williams & Sonoma, last year in March (though I still think she paid way too much for a frying pan.)
Look at it this way:
It’s been settled here before that a store has a right to specify the form of payment they will accept (i.e. no bills over $20, no purchases with pennies, etc.). If you try to buy your groceries with 2500 pennies, the store can perfectly reasonably refuse this form of payment. You are offering 2500 pennies and the store refuses your offer. If you offer a 20 and a 5er, the store would likely accept. Thus, the store has the right to deny your offer.
If you just take your goods and leave your payment, the store never had the option to accept or refuse it.
I agree, although this is not what one would guess if they didn’t know any better. And it’s been shown here that that is indeed what the statutes say, and of course that is all that matters. My main concern is whether it is a criminal offense (shoplifting), or a civil offense against the merchant?
It’s potentially both, although the fact that you left enough money on the counter to cover the cost of the item might be a defense to the criminal charge of shoplifting or any other crime defined as “taking merchandise without paying for it.”
IANAL etc.
For goodness’ sake, Hauss, go read the thread I linked to. IAAL, I explained it all there, I’m not going to do so again.
Sorry, I saw Australian Law and immediately skipped over it since it didn’t apply to me. I did skim that entire thread though, thanks for the link.
Hauss, your tone was not entirely necessary in GQ. Please extend courtesy to our new members, especially when their intent is to make a valid contribution to the discussion. Thanks.
-xash
General Questions Moderator