News1 min ago
what would you have done?
19 Answers
Today I purchased two child nightdresses and one birthday card from Woolworths. Incredibly the assistant charged me for just one of the nighties and the card. I did not immediately realise because they often have promotions with money off or two for one items. However before leaving the shop I checked the receipt and found the mistake. I went back to the till where a queue had built up in the meantime, so the price I paid for this stupid person's mistake was that I was late for something else. Anyway I paid for the second nightie and left. Do you think most people would do this or would they just leave?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hgrove. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My boyfriend and I took a trip to Ikea in Brent Cross to buy some stuff for his flat in Reading. He bought absolutely loads, and when we got home we found out that the assistant hadn't charged for about �100 worth of stuff!
The thought of going back never even entered our heads! It's the person on the till's mistake, not the customer's.
Anyway, I'm sure Ikea make so much money they'd never notice the loss!
The question in your heading asks "What would you have done?" My answer to this question is that I would have gone back and paid the extra money. (I have to correct shop assistants, in their favour, at least once every month or two).
The question you end with, however, is slightly different. (i.e. "Do you think most people would do this . . ."). My answer to that one is simply 'No'.
Leandrews says 'It's the person on the till's mistake, not the customers". While this is, obviously, factually correct, the law doesn't see it that way. Leandrews' boyfriend committed an imprisonable offence, under Section 5(4) of the Theft Act 1968, when he failed to offer payment for the 'free' goods.
Chris
The question you end with, however, is slightly different. (i.e. "Do you think most people would do this . . ."). My answer to that one is simply 'No'.
Leandrews says 'It's the person on the till's mistake, not the customers". While this is, obviously, factually correct, the law doesn't see it that way. Leandrews' boyfriend committed an imprisonable offence, under Section 5(4) of the Theft Act 1968, when he failed to offer payment for the 'free' goods.
Chris
For Gef's information:
When Woolworth's placed the nighties on display, alng with a price label, they were inviting customers to enter into a contract. An implied condition of this contract is that title to the goods only passes to the customer upon receipt of the appropriate payment. This places the customer under an 'obligation' in the form which is referred to within the Theft Act:
"Where a person gets property by another�s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds".
Chris
When Woolworth's placed the nighties on display, alng with a price label, they were inviting customers to enter into a contract. An implied condition of this contract is that title to the goods only passes to the customer upon receipt of the appropriate payment. This places the customer under an 'obligation' in the form which is referred to within the Theft Act:
"Where a person gets property by another�s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds".
Chris
Buenchio - but surely the offer to sell is simply that an offer. If you place a lot of goods on the counter, and they charge you a reduced price, they are now offering the basket of goods for a 'new' offer price. Once you have paid that new agreeed price, you have completed the contract.
In woolworths, I would not have taken it back. To an independent shop (and by that I mean a small independent), I would correct the mistake.
Just a quick thought. If the shop assistant put through the nightdresses three times and you didn't notice until outside the shop, do you think Woolworths would have refunded you for one of them?
In woolworths, I would not have taken it back. To an independent shop (and by that I mean a small independent), I would correct the mistake.
Just a quick thought. If the shop assistant put through the nightdresses three times and you didn't notice until outside the shop, do you think Woolworths would have refunded you for one of them?
I would like to add to Buenchico's answer that a contract is based on agreement and the silly assistant had not agreed - the charge was purely based on a mistake on his part. However I also agree with Oneeyedvic, if they had charged me for three nighties, and I had spotted the mistake outside of the shop, I severely doubt they would have believed me and refunded me. They would probably have accused me of giving the third nighty to my friend or something. How many shops display the sign "Please check your change because mistakes cannot be rectified"! It should work both ways. I have pointed out that I have been undercharged a no. of times, mostly in Woolworths I have to say, and on occasion I have had to argue with the assistant to take my money where they could not understand the mistake! And it is something I shall continue to do, for my own sake, not the shop's as I don't believe the retailers are honest. However if I were in the same situation as leandrews I am not sure I would be able to go back because of the time and difficulty - I usually have to rely on lifts from friends to make it to Ikea so it would actually be very difficult for me to get back there. I wonder: Should honesty be absolute or is it ok to be honest within the costraints of everyday life?
Here�s one to trump them.
A friend of mine went to collect a pre ordered wooden garden table and 6 chairs from a DIY shop. He had the collection receipt but hadn�t paid a penny. He showed the collection docs to the bloke in the garden centre bit and the bloke loaded the stuff on a trolley, took it out to his car, helped him load it in and said �Cheers then� and walked away!
What would you do then!!
A friend of mine went to collect a pre ordered wooden garden table and 6 chairs from a DIY shop. He had the collection receipt but hadn�t paid a penny. He showed the collection docs to the bloke in the garden centre bit and the bloke loaded the stuff on a trolley, took it out to his car, helped him load it in and said �Cheers then� and walked away!
What would you do then!!
i wouldnt have gone back, and i suspect most people may not have done. My conscience would not be troubled atr all. I wonder if i have a price though? Would my conscience get the better of me at 200 ponds? 500 pounds? 1000 pounds?
not sure!
Mfi delivered me the wrong dishwasher by mistake once, then delivered the right one without picking up the wrong one, despite me pointing it out to the delivery guys. They had no pick up note. I waited a year before selling the surplus one
Legal bit first, then the moral bit -
Theft Act 1968 s.1 states that "...A person will be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive..."
Criminal law is split into two requisits Actus reus (the act) and Mens rea (the mental element behind the act).
S.1 is therefore split up thus.
Dishonesty (mens rea)
Appropriates another's property (actus reus)
Intention for permanent depravation (mens rea)
You must prove all of the above for the crime to take place. As you had no initial knowledge that there had been no error, there was no dishonesty (no crime). You mad a reasonable attempt to make good but changed your mind. When you changed your mind, this is where you became dishonest, and that you would permenantly deprive the owner of the property (now a crime)
Very simple really, but I think that most people, including me (a law graduate) would enjoy their good fortune.
Hope it fitted.
Regards,
Steve
Theft Act 1968 s.1 states that "...A person will be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive..."
Criminal law is split into two requisits Actus reus (the act) and Mens rea (the mental element behind the act).
S.1 is therefore split up thus.
Dishonesty (mens rea)
Appropriates another's property (actus reus)
Intention for permanent depravation (mens rea)
You must prove all of the above for the crime to take place. As you had no initial knowledge that there had been no error, there was no dishonesty (no crime). You mad a reasonable attempt to make good but changed your mind. When you changed your mind, this is where you became dishonest, and that you would permenantly deprive the owner of the property (now a crime)
Very simple really, but I think that most people, including me (a law graduate) would enjoy their good fortune.
Hope it fitted.
Regards,
Steve
I used to own up and correct the assistant
Years ago i got charged twice for one item through mail order. I sent letter upon letter + Phone call after phone call to get my money back , to no avail !
I gave up , as it was going to cost me more to pursue than it was to just give up.
I take what others have said , but from that moment on , if i get undercharged , I keep schtum.
Oneeyedvic and Buenchico.
For clarification, I think what you are trying to differentiate between is an 'invitation to Treat' (invitation to make an offer) and an offer to purchase - Buenchico is correct in his distinction as I am afriad the law is definite on this.
In this case, Hgrove has seen an implied invitation to treat bu virtu of the fact that the goods are on display. The price on the goods is merely an indication as to what the owner of the property would be likely to accept an offer on.
Regards,
Steve
For clarification, I think what you are trying to differentiate between is an 'invitation to Treat' (invitation to make an offer) and an offer to purchase - Buenchico is correct in his distinction as I am afriad the law is definite on this.
In this case, Hgrove has seen an implied invitation to treat bu virtu of the fact that the goods are on display. The price on the goods is merely an indication as to what the owner of the property would be likely to accept an offer on.
Regards,
Steve
These days I'd point out the mistake. My conscience is bl**dy murder these days. Giving stuff to charity shops, setting up a direct debit to a charity, collecting money for another charity, running a ****ing marathon (feel free to donate and sponsor me), keeping a note of the web address for donating bone marrow so that I can sign up for that.
In the good old days when I was free of conscience I'd have done a bunk and been quite pleased with myself for getting something for nothing.
Still, if a train conductor doesn't reach me before I disembark then I'd happily take advantage of the free trip. Still got that bad streak! ;-) OK, so I travel by train rarely if ever now that I have a bike.
Oops, the bone marrow site is right over here!
have to say no i wouldnt. but then when i shop in matalan the price is always different from the one marked and i never say " oh please notice that my bill should be �20 more"!!!!
went to ikea a few years ago and when they used the brown bags. I did a pretty big shop and when i got home 80 miles away i found one back was not mine. when i rang ikea they said just keep it we will replace the goods if the other person comes back.
i refuse to feel guilty with millions of pounds that these big companies make each year.
A lot of people on this thread seem to think that they are "getting one over" the big boys seeing as they make a huge profit from us all. But the reality is that people can and do loose their jobs over this.
Lets say somebody gives you change for �20 when you only gave them a �5 then at the end of the day the shop will know that the till is �15 down. It can be easy to track down who would have been at fault and they could well get the sack. I used to work in retail and I know a few people this has happened to.
I'm not being judgemental and I wouldn't have a problem if people did come out on top due to a shop mistake, there are far worse crimes in the world and as long as it was a mistake which you dicovered later than you haven't acted dishonestly. Personally I go back and correct the mistake if it's possible.
Lets say somebody gives you change for �20 when you only gave them a �5 then at the end of the day the shop will know that the till is �15 down. It can be easy to track down who would have been at fault and they could well get the sack. I used to work in retail and I know a few people this has happened to.
I'm not being judgemental and I wouldn't have a problem if people did come out on top due to a shop mistake, there are far worse crimes in the world and as long as it was a mistake which you dicovered later than you haven't acted dishonestly. Personally I go back and correct the mistake if it's possible.
Buenchico - I happen to be leandrews' boyfriend. Hello there! I'm liking your imprisonment language. ;o)
It's silly to say, so quickly, that you should take things back: 1 - is it practical to do so?. 2 - �100. So what. 3 - shops cater for mistakes, and is reflected in their pricing. 4 - I saved the environment by not travelling 60 miles in the car. 5 - So there!
1 to 19 of 19
