I get the impression from sbunny8’s description that it was a common, accepted practice in that particular store. In general, though, I think you’re right, and I would never do so unless I knew ahead of time that it was okay. But then, I’ve never felt the need to eat while I shopped.
I’m sure we must have had a thread about this some time or other.
Would you agree that sitting down at a table in a restaurant and ordering food does form a contract?
I would argue that, in your example, there is in fact an implied contract there, but said contract includes the idea that the store reserves the right to cancel the sale if the item has the wrong price tag on it. Of course, there are exceptions to this. I’ve seen stores where their policy is that they will honor the price tag, and when I worked at a store in New Jersey my boss told me that the law required us to honor the prices on the shelf. Years ago, Kroger had the stated policy that if the price on the shelf doesn’t match the scanned price at the register then you get that item for FREE. But I digress.
Just because a contract is cancelled doesn’t mean it never existed in the first place. Most written contracts contain clauses describing under what conditions it can be cancelled and what the consequences are.
I’ve seen people **add **items to unintended carts. I’m not sure if they were to lazy to return it to the shelves or not. Maybe it was a prank?
Anyway, I suspect ta few of those items got paid for without the customer noticing. Most people don’t pay much attention when the cashier is scanning their stuff.
I’ve done this.
Passing a neighbor, I put an item in his cart. A few days later, we were hanging out in his driveway and I said to him…I was shopping and I was looking for a can of goats milk but I could not find it. and HE said…this is your lucky day!
Also works well with a box of condoms.
How about if the thief grabbed it at the exact moment of money exchange? Your and the clerk’s hands are both touching the money at the same time when the thief grabs the milk, and this can be proven with the video-surveillance tape. Which is the victim then, you or the store?
Depends on who ends up with the money at the end. If the thief steals the item but the store has the money, you are the victim, and vice versa. It would be reasonable to hold the store liable for the theft and to force the store to refund your money, as the store failed to provide a theft-free environment for long enough for you to exit the store with your newly purchased possession.
Okay, so let’s say the store makes up for its non-theft-free environment and gives the customer another carton of milk out of the goodness of its heart. But then the cops catch the perp a block away. To whom do he cops return the milk? Is it still the customer’s? He paid for that one even though the store gave another to him gratis. Is he obligated to return either carton?
I think we need to have someone with real legal credentials provide a definitive answer to the basic question before we address unusual scenarios.
Yes, it is.
I believe under most Larceny and Theft statutes, the offense can legally be committed against someone who has a property interest other than ownership. E.g. you can be convicted of “theft” for stealing a rental car from a tourist, even though you didn’t interact with the actual, underlying owner of the car.
The question here is whether or not putting an item in your shopping cart gives you a legally recognized (not just a moral) property interest.
Does the issue of property interest vary? What if the item is something like a can of peas; there are a dozen more such cans on the shelf, versus something sold in very limited quantities on Black Friday, so there is no replacement available?
There’s something else there, if you read it carefully. It only applies if the alleged thief appropriates the property “dishonestly”.
So now we have to contend whether taking something else from someone else’s shopping trolley is “dishonest”.
Legality aside, there’s no disagreement that it’s at best seriously dickish, right? At least not from countries where they don’t pretend not to understand queuing either.
I would think of something is honestly taken, then the possessor knew about and agreed with giving up the item. If the taker did the taking secretly, I believe that is dishonest. I don’t see how that element changes the equation of the OP.
Secrecy isn’t the same thing as dishonesty. If I buy a Ferrari and then conveniently forget to mention it to my brother-in-law, have I been dishonest? Who said I have to tell him anything? He can come by and see me drive the car on Saturday nights if he feels like it.
I think so. But most people here also know that there are plenty of “dickish” things that are legal, and we are trying to figure out if this is one of them or if it is one of those things that are both dickish and illegal.
If you take your brother-in-laws car secretly, you have acted dishonestly. What you do with your own stuff, secretly or not secretly, is very obviously not of relevance for this law.
However, we haven’t established that items in someone’s shopping trolley that are not paid for are actually theirs in a legally recognizable way.
For there to be some sort of violation, there would have to be some breach of a right or claim, right? So what is the exact nature of that right or claim? If I go down to my local Sav-U-Lots, grab a trolley, and put a jar of Muller’s Blue Label Jam in it, have I acquired a substantive legal (not just moral) right or claim to it? If so, what kind of right is it? A substantive property right (other than full ownership)? An implied contractual right? A quasi-contractual right? A basic civil right (free speech, free religion, free press, no searches without a warrant, and keeping stuff in my trolley)? Due Process right? A claim of Unjust Enrichment? Liquidated Damages? An Equitable Charge?
In my opinion, and I’m open to correction by someone who knows for sure, I think that taking an object off the shelf and walking around the store with it establishes “possession.” Which I said quite clearly earlier in the thread.
The theft statute i cited doesn’t require some fancy kind of claim with complex caveats. It mainly talks about somebody unjustly taking something from someone else’s possession. It seems like a very straightforward question, with us awaiting the answer of whether putting something in one’s cart constitutes possession. I’m not sure why anyone should care about all the silly types of claims you listed (with great imagination and ingenuity) in your question. Unless you can tell everyone (a) what a quasi-contractual claim is and (b) what it has to do with the theft statute.