HMV sit in

[Ceist Beag]

That's the thing, HMV or the receivers have nothing to lose in pursuing him.

Nothing to lose Leo? They have already lost a lot of face with this fiasco - do you really think they will chase someone through the courts for €40 because they refused to honour the voucher? That would be a PR disaster even HMV couldn't stomach I would imagine!

 

[Leo]

Nothing to lose Leo? They have already lost a lot of face with this fiasco - do you really think they will chase someone through the courts for €40 because they refused to honour the voucher? That would be a PR disaster even HMV couldn't stomach I would imagine!

They're no longer trading, they never will again! So they're not going to be too concerned about more bad publicity.

That said, they're very, very unlikely to take on the expense of such a case.

 

[oldnick]

Leo - before you call someone a thief perhaps you should, as you state, "get fully up to speed on the ins and outs" of the situation.

If I was that person -whose name appeared in the press - and read your post I think I'd seek legal advice.

 

[jhegarty]

Not so, it's actually pretty straightforward. A shop is under no legal obligation to sell you any item, at the indicated price or otherwise. The indicated price is considered an 'invitation to treat'.

This man offered vouchers and cash in exchange for the goods, that offer was rejected, and the shop is legally entitled to do so. The man proceeded to leave with the goods after the shop had refused to sell them to him.

Proof of mens rea is still required. You have only proved the actus reus.

 

[Knuttell]

Staff tried to persuade him to return the items but he refused and stated that he will post the voucher and a cheque for the remaining €6.80 into the shop. I applaud that man.

As did I,glad to see there are some still left in this Country with a bit of backbone and gumption.

 

[cork]

What I used find annoying about the HMV website is that paying in euros was never an option.

That said, hopefully they will return in some guise.

 

[Leo]

Proof of mens rea is still required. You have only proved the actus reus.

The shop refused the transaction, this person still took the goods, hard to argue there was no intent there.

 

[Firefly]

The shop refused the transaction, this person still took the goods, hard to argue there was no intent there.

I'd say there's been an often lot of stock gone walkie-walkie since then

 

[TarfHead]

That man is guilty of theft.

+1

Well, maybe not so much for the use of the term 'guilty', but what was done is theft.

 

[oldnick]

If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?

The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.

Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.

 

[RonanC]

If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?

The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.

Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.

I was thinking around this line myself. If I buy a voucher from a shop, I pay for a product upfront before taking delivery of it. It is up to me then to decide when and on what I want to use it on, obviously depending on any restrictions the voucher may have. The shop has recieved full payment and will allow an "exchange" of the voucher in return for a product or service. So, how in the eyes of the law is this theft, if I leave the voucher on the counter or with a staff member and tell them I am taking a product from the shelf to the value of the same voucher.

 

[Knuttell]

but what HMV done is theft.

That really needed fixing.

 

[MrMan]

If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?

The payment being the voucher which clearly states that the it can be exchanged for goods equal to amount stated.

Surely taking money from someone for a voucher and then refusing to honour the voucher fits the description of "theft" more aptly.

He took more than the voucher was worth.

 

[TarfHead]

That really needed fixing.

If you're conscientious about 'fixing', then it should have been 'fixed' to "what HMV did"

 

[Knuttell]

If you're conscientious about 'fixing', then it should have been 'fixed' to "what HMV did"

Nah,carrying on like some sort of sad grammar nazi would have been rude,just fixed what annoyed me most about your post

(nazi is deliberately in lower case btw)

 

[TarfHead]

Nah,carrying on like some sort of sad grammar nazi would have been rude,just fixed what annoyed me most about your post

(nazi is deliberately in lower case btw)

Yeah, because putting it in lower-case makes it less offensive ?

Brilliant !

 

[Firefly]

There's a pub in Cork called Sober Lane and they're exchanging HMV vouchers for a pizza....http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/hmv-honour-my-voucher-581505.html fantastic publicity move on their part

 

[Leo]

If someone leaves payment for goods, whether or not the shop refused to serve him , how on earth is this theft ?

The guy here took the goods and left the shop saying he would post the vouchers and money later.