I have always wondered about this. About 10 years ago when I was in college (In Connecticut) I went to the supermarke to buy beer at 9 PM. In CT, it is illegal to buy or sell beer after 8 pm. Go figure. As my friends were graduating, I really wanted to get the beer to celebrate. So I grabbed the beer, tossed down enough $$ to cover the beerm the tax, and deposit, and I ran out. A security guard gave chase, caught me about three blocks away, and the police arrested me. I was charges with shoplifting. I don’t really know what allegations were made against me - it is possible the cahsier girl just pocketed the money and said I ran out without paying. I don’t know because I just copped out to a first offended program that led to a dismissal of all charges 6 months later.
I am now a lawyer, but I my legal studies, I never came across a similar case that would answer this question.
My own belief if that it is stealing if the item is not for sale, but it is not stealing if the item is for sale. So the guy in your example did not steal the gu, since the gum was for sale, but I stole the beer because the store probebly would have refused to seel the beer to me had I asked to buy it.
That is exactly correct. Until the cashier agrees to the transaction, the sale is not yet legit.
What if the cash had turned out to be counterfeit, for example? Even if the buyer were unaware of this matter, the transaction would still be invalid. That is why the cashier must EXPLICITLY agree to the sale before it can be considered legitimate.
I don’t think it’s stealing. It might be jerkish, but it’s not stealing.
If their inventory system was very tight the cashier could always scan another gum and newspaper and ring that through the till when things were less quiet.
Think what the garage could gain from proactive customer service (not to mention the 25c extra profit!)
I notice that people are generally very kind about stacking orders if there happens to be some emergency. Give the person in front of you or the front of the line more then the items cost and leave the store when your item gets ‘rung’ up. Simple.
It would be really easy for a hard-nosed manager to say that the cashier and customer were in cahoots—if the money is in plain view and hasn’t been properly registered, it could easily be pocketed while the customer has walked out with free merchandise. The guy was not only rude to other customers, he conceivably put the cashier at risk of her bosses displeasure.
Monty, the merchant made the offer (by placing the item in plain view with a clearly marked price) and the customer accepted by presenting legal tender. The merchant is in no position to accept or decline at that point.
Come on. How is the cashier supposed to know precisely what the customer took? And should we REALLY expect the cashier to remember these things when things quiet down – if they do quiet down?
It’s not only jerkish, it’s incredibly discourteous to the store and the other customers — and YES, it is stealing, since the merchant never agreed to the transaction in question.
If I had allowed someone to get away with that back when I was working at Kmart, I would have gotten in trouble.
So there’s a line. Well, everyone else is waiting patiently. There is nothing so special about this guy that means he’s entitled to skip over the line.
The merchant must have an opportunity to verify that the payment IS legal tender – that it isn’t obviously counterfeit, for example. The merchant must also be given a chance to verify that sufficient payment was given, and to note precisely which items were taken. Those are the store rules, and if the customer doesn’t abide by them, then that’s his problem.
Placing the merchandise in plain view, with a marked price, does NOT constitute acceptance of the transaction. It merely presents an opportunity for a transaction, which must await completion by both parties involved.
How about if I walk into a store, grab a TV worth $500, leave a cheque for $1000 under a stack of DVDs and walk out.
In KellyM’s world, I would not be stealing. The merchant offered the goods for sale, I left adequate payment.
How about if I show up at a car dealership, leave a wheelbarrow of 5c coins worth $20000 at the salesman’s feet, then leave with a car worth $19550 before he can stop me.
Can I prepay? How about I give the cashier $50 when I walk into the store, and leave with items that I’ve ensured are worth no more than $50?
Of course the seller must consent to the purchase. Come on, people, if they didn’t, then any of the situations I outline above would be legal. The law is precise. These situations might be ridiculous, but I don’t see how they differ significantly enough from the situation in the OP to be seen differently in the eys of the law.
If I were a juror and you broke into a store at night, took a bunch of stuff which was for sale and left leaving money sufficient for purchase, I would vote to convict you of breaking and entering but I would never vote to convict you of stealing.
The items were regularly for sale and you paid the price. What you violated was the store’s rules of operation.
It’s a different case if you broke into my home, took stuff and left money. My items were not for sale. I would consider you guilty of stealing in this case.
[Q]Of course the seller must consent to the purchase. Come on, people, if they didn’t, then any of the situations I outline above would be legal. The law is precise. [/Q]
While I plan to be one some day, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think that it’s “stealing” because a “crime” has to have a certain state of mind. There has to be either ‘intent’ to steal or some other malicious intent. There has to be meas rea (guilty mind) of the actor in order to be charged with a crime.
It doesn’t matter what the casher “thinks.” I can’t figure out why everyone is so focused on what the casher thinks in this situation. It’s not the casher who will go to jail or be charged with “stealing.”
I bet this situation is covered under Contract Law (offer and acceptance) not Criminal Law. Any lawyers out there to help us out.
Not so. You can also be guilty of a crime due to gross negligence. Malicious intent is not necessary.
If you take something from a store, and simply plunk the cash down without the merchant’s approval, then your actions are negligent. That is, you failed to follow the common sensical rules of the store, which are well known and fairly intuitive.
Now, the courts might cut you some slack due to your lack of criminal intent, but this does not mean that the law was not violated.
IAAAL (I am an Australian lawyer). In Australia at least (and I think it likely that the US is the same) it is well established law that putting things on sale with a displayed price is not an offer it is an “invitation to treat”. At least in Australia, KellyM would be dead wrong.
An invitation to treat is an invitation to customers to offer to purchase at the price shown. The offer is made by the customer approaching the counter etc. The offer is accepted by the cashier. The intent of the cashier is important in the civil/contractual context because until the cashier accepts the customer’s offer, there is no contract. In the OP, the cashier did not do so, so no contract was formed.
Did the OP “customer” steal? Yes there has to be intent but at least in Australia, for it to be theft, the intent does not have to be intent to steal as Tigers2B1 suggest (which would be circular, anyway). The intent must be to permanently deprive the owner of the property of that property. Given that we have established that no contract was formed, the shop remains the owner of the property. Given that the customer undoubtedly intended to permanently keep the newspaper and gum, he had the requisite intent.
Therefore, at least in my jurisdiction, the guy stole.
Wait a minute, ya mean it would be OK to borrow the papre and the gum?!? Could he bring back the paper the next day? Could he return the gum after he chewed it? How long is “permanent”? (Since 99 years is still a lease.)
Princhester, thanks for helping out here. If I could ask one more question so I can get this clear in my mind. You said “[t]he intent must be to permanently deprive the owner of the property of that property.” This standard for ‘intent’ seems to leave out any bad intentions or gross negligence that I assumed went with these crimes. For example - if I’m missing my bike and I go and get my neighbors in the mistaken belief that it is mine - would that be enough to be charged with stealing? (Assume it is an “honest mistake” since my neighbor has the same kind of bike I do.) This might be similar to the mistake that the customer made when he assumed that his ‘offer’ had been accepted or even the common sense idea that he had ‘accepted’ the ‘offer’ of the store. Either way, he got it wrong but it was an honest wrong.
No offense, but you’re making an unwarranted assumption. He said that the action was wrong because the intent “must be to permanently deprive the owner of the property of that property.”
However, this does NOT mean that non-permanent deprivation is automatically okay.
In other words “A implies B” does NOT mean that “NOT A implies NOT B.” That’s the logical fallacy known as “negating the antecedent.”
Speaking from experience I know of no DA or ADA who would issue a petty theft charge on this guy. He could, however, be hooked for Disorderly Conduct (at least in Wisconsin). I’m wondering what the attitude of the guy would be if he were talked to by the police. I see people doing this exact same thing all the time with newspapers (just papers, nothing else though). The cashiers usually just nod and ring up the paper later when their line dies down. I wonder if that guy actually heard her yelling out to him. If he did, he should have came back.
I cannot understand how anyone can think it is OK to do this but I guess it is a sign of how selfish and self-centered some people are. A store offers merchandise for sale under their own conditions, one of them being that they check you out, i.e. check what you are taking and present you with a bill. If you do not like these terms then you can take your business elsewhere but you cannot impose your terms on the store. The price on the shelf is NOT a contractual offer and they can say it is a mistake or outdated. The only valid contractual agreement is made when you are checked out, you are presented wiith a bill and you agree to pay it.
I recently saw a sale of wine which was just unbelievable and I put half a dozen bottles in my cart. When I was checked out I found out it was too good to be true and it was a mistake. The actual price was much higher and I declined to buy the bottles. But the store is under no obligation to sell them at the lower price.
They set their rules and if you do not like them the answer is to shop elsewhere. If I were in a jury I’d vote to convict the guy of whatever he was accused of for breaking the sacred rule of “don’t be a jerk”.