Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Best time to hit the 'Reduced To Clear' section?

They could have sought a prosecution for theft, but as they were committing an offence by placing on the market food unfit for human consumption, they would probably prefer not to make a fuss.
 
Pretty obvious it would be theft, but I've often wondered if the store/cops would have a different attitude if you walked out of the shop with a bag full of heavily discounted items with no full price goods.

Would it be said in court you had stolen fifty quids worth of food or five pounds worth?
 
Pretty obvious it would be theft, but I've often wondered if the store/cops would have a different attitude if you walked out of the shop with a bag full of heavily discounted items with no full price goods.

Would it be said in court you had stolen fifty quids worth of food or five pounds worth?
Five pounds, but perhaps it would be even more dimly viewed that nicking full priced stuff, given that you'd be depriving other people of cheap food.
 
I agree with Spymaster and BigTom that if one takes goods from a shop or a shop's bins without paying for them then, within the law as it is written, this would be theft; however, (I am playing with a legal philosophical, possibly, paradox here) the food was on display (still on offer) and priced. The poster offered to pay that price. The cashier noticed that the item was now completely out of date and thus refused the sale.
We know that a person can only be punished within the confines of a law (nulla poene sine lege); it would be the defence's onus to proof that the above act cannot be punished.
So, does a law exist which specifically forbids the poster from taking the food without paying for it after what I described above?
 
I agree with Spymaster and BigTom that if one takes goods from a shop or a shop's bins without paying for them then, within the law as it is written, this would be theft; however, (I am playing with a legal philosophical, possibly, paradox here) the food was on display (still on offer) and priced. The poster offered to pay that price. The cashier noticed that the item was now completely out of date and thus refused the sale.
We know that a person can only be punished within the confines of a law (nulla poene sine lege); it would be the defence's onus to proof that the above act cannot be punished.
So, does a law exist which specifically forbids the poster from taking the food without paying for it after what I described above?

I'd have to look up the laws but shops are allowed to refuse sale for any non-discriminatory reason, the item in question is still owned by them until they sell it to someone else and in this case there has been no transaction/sale so it is still legally their possession and therefore theft. Even once they throw it away, they still own it by law, until the refuse collection happens at which point the refuse collectors take ownership.
 
I'd have to look up the laws but shops are allowed to refuse sale for any non-discriminatory reason, the item in question is still owned by them until they sell it to someone else and in this case there has been no transaction/sale so it is still legally their possession and therefore theft. Even once they throw it away, they still own it by law, until the refuse collection happens at which point the refuse collectors take ownership.

Hm; interesting. Ok, I can see how the same law could/would still apply then.
... just hoping to find a way out ... ;)
 
a real brucie bonus today- not a huge one to some minds but to a man who likes his cheddars it was ace. Cathedral cheese for 50p, only its not a whole block. Its five individually wraped cheddar variants. The one I just et made my eyes water. And they say cheddar is bland!
 
I havent had a decent haul in ages. Sainsburys are the worst at reductions i find, a paltry 30% if your lucky- they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I dont mind when Lidl only offer 30% as its cheap as fuck to begin with, but sainsburys, nah mate, outright thieves!
 
Back
Top Bottom