4 ms·

But it's de facto the same in most shops. If you pick up some goods and walk out of the shop leaving some cash on the counter... what recourse do they have? OK

But it's de facto the same in most shops. If you pick up some goods and walk out of the shop leaving some cash on the counter... what recourse do they have? OK, the shop might not be happy about it, but you owe them the value of goods, and you've paid them in legal tender to the correct amount.

DanBC 9y ago
In England that's theft. This is clear and unambiguous. See for example thean who took cash from his company safe, and replaced the same value a week later, but who was convicted of theft because the notes were different. See R v Velyumi here: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php
- jstanley 9y ago
  Replacing it a week later is quite different to leaving the cash before you've left the shop. Taking cash from a safe is also quite different to taking goods that are explicitly for sale. Especially if you gave them the right amount of money.
- stordoff 9y ago
  Dishonestly would be a key factor there. If you believe you have the legal right to do that, or you believe that the owner of the goods would have consented, then you have not acted dishonestly, and there is no theft. If you do so to as you believe that the owner would not accept cash, you have acted dishonestly and thus there is a theft.[1] Note that Velumyl was an appeal on the grounds that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive, thus the money being different was relevant as he permanently deprived the owner of that specific property. Had the defendant contented there was no dishonestly -- that he intended to return equivalent funds and believed that the company would consent -- the decision may well have been different. [1] Theft Act 1968 s.2(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
logfromblammo 9y ago
If the shop allows you to run up a tab, you can pay it off with legal tender. If the shop does not extend credit to you, you may not take the goods unless you have something the owner is willing to accept in trade. If the owner demands only gold or silver, you cannot legally pay with a bank note. If you leave bank notes of sufficient value and run out, they are very unlikely to attempt to prosecute you, but they could, both for the theft and the nuisance of leaving your property lying around in their store. And the case would probably be resolved on appeal somewhere, with one judge arguing that the state has an inherent interest in having its primary currency universally accepted by all businesses in its jurisdiction, and another arguing that the state is overreaching when it tells shopkeepers what they must accept as payment.

DanBC 9y ago

In England that's theft. This is clear and unambiguous. See for example thean who took cash from his company safe, and replaced the same value a week later, but who was convicted of theft because the notes were different. See R v Velyumi here: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/theft-cases.php

jstanley 9y ago
Replacing it a week later is quite different to leaving the cash before you've left the shop. Taking cash from a safe is also quite different to taking goods that are explicitly for sale. Especially if you gave them the right amount of money.
stordoff 9y ago
Dishonestly would be a key factor there. If you believe you have the legal right to do that, or you believe that the owner of the goods would have consented, then you have not acted dishonestly, and there is no theft. If you do so to as you believe that the owner would not accept cash, you have acted dishonestly and thus there is a theft.[1] Note that Velumyl was an appeal on the grounds that the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive, thus the money being different was relevant as he permanently deprived the owner of that specific property. Had the defendant contented there was no dishonestly -- that he intended to return equivalent funds and believed that the company would consent -- the decision may well have been different. [1] Theft Act 1968 s.2(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/2
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

logfromblammo 9y ago

If the shop allows you to run up a tab, you can pay it off with legal tender. If the shop does not extend credit to you, you may not take the goods unless you have something the owner is willing to accept in trade. If the owner demands only gold or silver, you cannot legally pay with a bank note. If you leave bank notes of sufficient value and run out, they are very unlikely to attempt to prosecute you, but they could, both for the theft and the nuisance of leaving your property lying around in their store. And the case would probably be resolved on appeal somewhere, with one judge arguing that the state has an inherent interest in having its primary currency universally accepted by all businesses in its jurisdiction, and another arguing that the state is overreaching when it tells shopkeepers what they must accept as payment.