Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
eating in shops
9 Answers
is it illegal to eat pic and mix in a shop without paying for it if you vomit it all out before you leave ?!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by darrensmith. 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.it is probably illegal, as it would be if a member of staff ate the pic n mix instead of selling it, based on the premise that the items are no longer available for sale and you would have deprived the shop owner of their goods. It would also be gross in the extreme and the act of a small child being out of control probably. Blame the parents i say.
If you mistakenly exit a store with goods and you haven't paid it may not legally be classed as theft provided you return the goods in a saleable condition (I believe JC Penny vs. Madeley amongst others provides the precedent).
The question then becomes: are the partially masticated, vomit-covered, regugitated pick and mix still in a saleable condition? If they are (and certain judges may consider them eminently so) then, ergo, it would not be illegal.
The question then becomes: are the partially masticated, vomit-covered, regugitated pick and mix still in a saleable condition? If they are (and certain judges may consider them eminently so) then, ergo, it would not be illegal.
It is theft, providing you fulfil the requirement of the deprivation. Theft isn't so rigid as to only be the removal of an item. It is also described as 'taking the virtue an goodness out of an item'. So for example, stealing a bus ticket...even if you later return it to the person in question, it's theft if it has been used and the goodness had gone. Also, think theatre tickets etc. (There was a case of London Underground tickets being classed as stolen in this way) Theft is so wide that even if you 'borrow' some money from an employer and don't tell them but do intend to repay it, this too is theft...you must return the exact SAME note itself (R v Velumyl '89)