what's classed as stealing in supermarkets.

[mrspirite]

can someone please settle an argument....if you pick up a sandwich while doing your shopping in a supermarket,and then eat it while walking round,but take the empty package to the checkout to pay for said sandwich,is this classed as stealing,and is it a prosicuteable offence..i say it is stealing.p.s. the same sandwich in the instore cafe,costs more to eat in.

[boxtops]

Yes it is, you have no right to eat the thing or open a can of drink until you've paid for it.

[HowardKennitby]

What you describe is not strictly 'grazing' but supermarkets do have problems in this area

https://www.google.co...cial&client=firefox-a

[AlwaysConfused]

I am pretty sure you have to be leaving the building before anyone can stop you or class it as stealing.

[AlwaysConfused]

It does annoy me, however, that we teach children not to steal, to be patient etc but allow them to eat an ice lolly before it's paid for, just to shut them up. What message does that give out? What if you lose your purse before getting to the checkouts? What if your card decides to fail or you forget your PIN?

[boxtops]

...or if you are unscrupulous (some are) and stuff the empty wrapper in a shelf before you get to the till?

[VHG]

I think the supermarkets just treat this as a "loss" they cant do anything about.

The wastage of food at supermarkets must be huge (out of date food thrown away, fresh food dumped on a shelf after a customer decides they dont want it, fresh fruit going off, bottles and jars dropped and broken etc).

So a few things being eaten as a customer goes round is hardly going to cost them much.

And how many billions do Tesco and other supermarkets make in profit each year?

[boxtops]

I agree with what you say, VHG, but that's not the point - shoplifters get prosecuted, IMO there is no difference. You can't just take stuff off the shelves and eat it.

[ummmm]

But it's not shoplifting if you pay for it.

[Smowball]

I wouldn't class it as stealing if you pay for it at the till, but I do sort of understand that you shouldn't really eat or drink anything before it's paid for.

[dotty.]

stores have a shrink budget for theft and a waste budget for out of date product and a faulty product target, they are factored into the predicted annual results.
eating a sandwich whilst shopping and paying for it at checkout is not theft, theft is only when the person has left the premises with no intention to pay or having no means to pay.

[boxtops]

scroll down here to the detailed answer from "the C" - this is what I agree with it, it's wrong, it's misappropriation http://uk.answers.yah...20111007045716AAfmchZ

[Tilly2]

I was looking at some pillow cases in Sainsbury's the other week and stuffed behind them was an empty pack of sirloin steak. I don't suppose they ate that walking round the shop. Bet they put it in a plastic bag and put it in their pocket. I did tell the security man and showed him where it was. he said 'That's a new one on me.'

[venator]

In contract law, there has to be an offer by the vendor and acceptance by the purchaser.

Putting goods on the shelf constitutes the offer.

Putting goods on the checkout is the acceptance.

If someone consumes the goods before that, he/she has stolen them.

Taking the empty packaging to the checkout might revive the contract - not sure what the legal position is, though. If the supermarket wished to prosecute, so as to discourage grazing, I think they would be within their rights.

Have there been any cases, I wonder? <]:-)

[zebo]

I recall reading a tirade from a Yummy Mummy who objected to being told to stop her little darling eating grapes as she shopped. How dare they! Can't they afford a few grapes? Etc Etc.

[boxtops]

bad example to the child, too, zebo, especially since grapes are often priced by weight at the till

[dotty.]

boxtops unless a customer has left the store without paying for an item it is not deemed as theft, we have a park security system and the security officers will not speak to someone in a store and ask them if they have anything on their possession that they need to pay for before they leave, but they can only actually detain anyone and bring them back in store if they have left withoiut paying for something, the defence from the 'customer' being that they always intended paying for it, even though it was shooved up their shirt, loss prevention is more pro-active than collaring someone as they've left with stolen items and then having to do all the paperwortk and call police, deal with courts etc.

[dotty.]

plus, the majority of 'eating stock before paying for it' is done by small children that grab stuff without their parent noticing.

[venator]

Hi Boxtops, that's spot on, Didn't see it, as I was typing slowly!

It comes down to the old mens rea thin, dunnit?

[NOX]

Total nonsense, it's not theft in any shape or form as to 'permanently deprive' someone of something which is on sale to you as a customer you would have to a. eat it and b. then not pay for it. Since your scenario involves paying for it at the till the act of theft has not been committed.
If ' the C's' perspective was right in boxtop's link then we would all be guilty of theft everytime we filled our cars up with fuel, as we have taken possession of it as if it were ours which is plainly untrue.
If you pay for something you haven't stolen it.

[venator]

g