Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Accidental non payment
I bought some garden furniture from a shop the other week, paying a deposit and returning to collect the items a few days later.
When I returned, I gave my copy of the invoice, showing the deposit paid and the amount outstanding, to a member of staff, saying 'I bought this at the weekend and have come to collect it'. I went outside to drop the back seats in my car, and two staff members brought it out. They then spent 10 minutes helping me load the car up, and once it was loaded up, they said goodbye and disappared back in the store. Only after I got home did I realise I hadn't paid the balance.
Am I legally obligated to return and pay the balance, or can I keep quiet and face no legal consequences? If they get in touch (they have my phone number) do they have any right to make me pay anything, or is it just their fault and there'snothing they can do? They would have a hard time proving I didn't pay, as I was outside with a member of staff for at least 10 minutes.
Thanks in advance
When I returned, I gave my copy of the invoice, showing the deposit paid and the amount outstanding, to a member of staff, saying 'I bought this at the weekend and have come to collect it'. I went outside to drop the back seats in my car, and two staff members brought it out. They then spent 10 minutes helping me load the car up, and once it was loaded up, they said goodbye and disappared back in the store. Only after I got home did I realise I hadn't paid the balance.
Am I legally obligated to return and pay the balance, or can I keep quiet and face no legal consequences? If they get in touch (they have my phone number) do they have any right to make me pay anything, or is it just their fault and there'snothing they can do? They would have a hard time proving I didn't pay, as I was outside with a member of staff for at least 10 minutes.
Thanks in advance
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pablo0538. 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.
Yes! you are certainly legally obligated to pay for the goods. Otherwise you are basically knowingly taking goods without paying; ie. THEFT.
If you go back and plead terrible embarrassment, you will probably get away with it. If you leave it and risk them finding out and coming back to you, it could be much more serious.
The other fact being, if you happened to have a problem with the items, how would you dare go back to the shop? And you wont have a full receipt either.
If you go back and plead terrible embarrassment, you will probably get away with it. If you leave it and risk them finding out and coming back to you, it could be much more serious.
The other fact being, if you happened to have a problem with the items, how would you dare go back to the shop? And you wont have a full receipt either.
Civil Law ...
You agreed to buy the goods, for a specified price. You have not yet fulfilled your part of the contract, and you owe the money.
Criminal Law ...
You did NOT commit a theft, because, at the time you took the goods, you did not intend to steal them. You had no "mens rea".
So ...
You owe the money, and the shop could sue you for the balance ... but you are not a criminal.
You agreed to buy the goods, for a specified price. You have not yet fulfilled your part of the contract, and you owe the money.
Criminal Law ...
You did NOT commit a theft, because, at the time you took the goods, you did not intend to steal them. You had no "mens rea".
So ...
You owe the money, and the shop could sue you for the balance ... but you are not a criminal.
Thanks for the answers.
However, I don't believe this is theft. After I had given them the invoice I had for the goods, which clearly showed an amount outstanding, they loaded the goods into my car and said goodbye. Is this not arguably an implicit acceptance of them accepting a reduced amount as payment? Contract law experts? In my mind it is certainly not 'theft'.
Furthermore, I believe the onus isn't on me to prove I paid - its on them to prove I didn't. For example, if requested at some subsequent point, how would anyone be able to *prove* a cash payment - as an individual I'm not legally obliged to keep any receipt or records of having made a payment.
Also, I don't think I fully explained the significance (at least to me), of spending 10 minutes outside the shop with an employee. They could not *prove* that during this time I hadn't settled the balance by cash with the employee conderned. This is not to say I would outright lie if asked, thus placing the employee under suspicion of theft, but that the shop would have to (or should) consider such things if and when it was weighing up whether it could successfully pursue me for the balance.
Finally, their IT and accounting systems may well show that the payment hadn't been entered onto the system, giving an outstanding balance. However, this doesn't *prove* that I didn't make any payment; accounting errors do happen. An outstanding balance on the accounting system may *suggest* payment has not been received, but does not *prove* it. At least not to a degree sufficient for a small claims court to find against me. From my knowledge of accounting systems, there are a number of other potential reasons for the balance to be shown incorrectly.
However, I don't believe this is theft. After I had given them the invoice I had for the goods, which clearly showed an amount outstanding, they loaded the goods into my car and said goodbye. Is this not arguably an implicit acceptance of them accepting a reduced amount as payment? Contract law experts? In my mind it is certainly not 'theft'.
Furthermore, I believe the onus isn't on me to prove I paid - its on them to prove I didn't. For example, if requested at some subsequent point, how would anyone be able to *prove* a cash payment - as an individual I'm not legally obliged to keep any receipt or records of having made a payment.
Also, I don't think I fully explained the significance (at least to me), of spending 10 minutes outside the shop with an employee. They could not *prove* that during this time I hadn't settled the balance by cash with the employee conderned. This is not to say I would outright lie if asked, thus placing the employee under suspicion of theft, but that the shop would have to (or should) consider such things if and when it was weighing up whether it could successfully pursue me for the balance.
Finally, their IT and accounting systems may well show that the payment hadn't been entered onto the system, giving an outstanding balance. However, this doesn't *prove* that I didn't make any payment; accounting errors do happen. An outstanding balance on the accounting system may *suggest* payment has not been received, but does not *prove* it. At least not to a degree sufficient for a small claims court to find against me. From my knowledge of accounting systems, there are a number of other potential reasons for the balance to be shown incorrectly.
Cor, you're a charmer, aren't you ?
Not interested in whether what you have done is morally correct, only if you can face any 'legal' consequences.
What is the difference between you and a shop-lifter............the type of person who causes the rest of us to have to pay inflated prices to cover the losses incurred ?
Your weasel words about who should be accountable for proving whom paid what show that you know your actions to be dishonest.
The fact that the goods were loaded into your car is an indication of nothing less than good customer service, and the subsequent mix-up with the balance of your payment is certainly not an indication that the company was prepared to accept your deposit as full and reduced payment of the goods. A preposterous argument to make you feel better and vindicate your position.
Not interested in whether what you have done is morally correct, only if you can face any 'legal' consequences.
What is the difference between you and a shop-lifter............the type of person who causes the rest of us to have to pay inflated prices to cover the losses incurred ?
Your weasel words about who should be accountable for proving whom paid what show that you know your actions to be dishonest.
The fact that the goods were loaded into your car is an indication of nothing less than good customer service, and the subsequent mix-up with the balance of your payment is certainly not an indication that the company was prepared to accept your deposit as full and reduced payment of the goods. A preposterous argument to make you feel better and vindicate your position.
Morals aside (and I do have some), the question was posted in the law section of a 'question and answer' website. Hence my focus on the legality of the situation, and willingness to find out what, if any, the possible legal consequences may be (criminal and civil).
But in specific answer to the further point about proving I hadn't paid, I am ander no legal obligation (sticking to the legality again) to keep receipts or other records. Businesses are, individuals are not. My not being able to produce a receipt therefore has no bearing on whether I paid or not.
But in specific answer to the further point about proving I hadn't paid, I am ander no legal obligation (sticking to the legality again) to keep receipts or other records. Businesses are, individuals are not. My not being able to produce a receipt therefore has no bearing on whether I paid or not.
Because one of the people loading the car was the person I'd given the invoice to in the first place, clearly showing an amount outstanding.
In case it wasn't apparent already, I'm in agreement with the poster above - it was a large store so stuff them.
Who can honestly say that in any situation they wouldn't avoid looking a gift horse in the mouth, and would just consider themselves fortunate to be the recipient of someone elses mistake?
Its quite amazing the percentage of people who are morally perfect in a theoretical and anonymous situation - I suggest that in reality the percentage would be somewhat lower!
I honestly believe that, even if it were to become apparent to the store that an error had been made on their part, there would be a reluctance for them to chase it through legal avenues, as they would surely realise the problems that exist on their part in actually being able to prove that I had not paid, rather than the outstanding balance on their accounting system being due to any one of the other potential reasons outlind above.
In case it wasn't apparent already, I'm in agreement with the poster above - it was a large store so stuff them.
Who can honestly say that in any situation they wouldn't avoid looking a gift horse in the mouth, and would just consider themselves fortunate to be the recipient of someone elses mistake?
Its quite amazing the percentage of people who are morally perfect in a theoretical and anonymous situation - I suggest that in reality the percentage would be somewhat lower!
I honestly believe that, even if it were to become apparent to the store that an error had been made on their part, there would be a reluctance for them to chase it through legal avenues, as they would surely realise the problems that exist on their part in actually being able to prove that I had not paid, rather than the outstanding balance on their accounting system being due to any one of the other potential reasons outlind above.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Jokes21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Film, Media & TV35 mins ago
ChatterBank36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.