To keep these clothes that weren't charged for?

[MinecraftWonder]

Yesterday I went shopping and picked up a new coat each for the dc (at Matalan if it's relevant)- total cost was £45.

I got to the till, went in my bag and didn't have my purse
So I apologised, said i'd nip home and the man on the till put them behind the counter for me.

Returned a couple of hours later and picked up some packs of pants by the till when I was queuing, which were a fiver. Handed them over and asked for the coats behind the till that had been put by for me (this was a woman). She put everything in a bag for me, I paid with my card and out I went.

Anyway, it's only tonight I've pulled them out of the bag along with the receipt - and I have a receipt for £5.05 (the pants and a 5p bag charge). The coats weren't charged for. I didn't even check the amount at the checkout, just stuck my card in and paid.

WWYD? I feel really guilty even though it wasn't my fault. I don't know if the second person who served me just made a mistake or thought maybe they were already paid for (but why would they be?!). They've not got security tags on so one of them must have taken them off.

So keep and look at it as good luck or be honest and go back and pay for them? Opinion is currently divided in my house!

Tamara - no, still not sure. If anything though, the childish part of me wants to keep them more now than earlier because of some of the ridiculous posts on here.

Y'know, so I can revel in my nasty little escapade and all that - won't be able to do that if I return them, will I?!

Very good point, Kurri

So you just put in your PIN and didn't listen to/look at the amount? Who DOES this?? If you had, then you knew very well it'd be over a ruddy fiver.

You know the right thing to do. You have stolen the costs. Go back or ring them and pay. FFS.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

I'll be kind and assume basic ignorance of the law instead of thinking you're being deliberately disingenuous for your own purposes to wind people up.

You have committed theft. The theft act has not been repealed, the definition of appropriation stands in this instance.

Either you are happy to commit the act or not.

I actually don't use the law as my guide in these kinds of circumstances to be frank. If you want to keep something that isn't rightfully yours, then you have to live with your conscience. You aren't winning or sticking it to the man or lucky.

You're choosing to be dishonest and quibbling when you have no defence.

The theft act has not been repealed

Nor did I say it had been. I assume you're being deliberately disingenuous to avoid admission that you posted the first google quotes you found about theft without checking their validity.

Nevermind, everyone can be a Solicitor when they have google eh?

the dishonest appropriation didn't occur at the time of the incident as she lacked mens rea - but it does occur now she is aware of the appropriate and choose to continue to keep the property. that's MR, right? like the phantom bank account credit and spending it but having to pay it back, is what I think I was thinking of earlier. If she;d never found the receipt, she'd still have no mens rea now and it wouldn't be theft.
its clearly a long time since i looked at this sorry

Arf @ google.

Try www.legislation.gov.uk/

i.e. clearly the appropriation... has occurred later than her exiting the store, the mens rea has also. so both elements of theft appeared when she saw the receipt, realised the act and has contemplated keeping the coats. theft in real time, as it were - but not at the time she left the shop.

Hmmm I once wasn't charged for a cd in asda, I realised when i got home and looked at the receipt- being a huge company I didn't go back
About a year ago a small independent jewellers resized my wedding and engagement ring. When I got out the shop I realised they had only charged my for the wedding ring (card payment and had not noticed) I went back in straight away and told them.
So with me depends on the shop, the cd was a tenner and the ring was £60. The price did not matter because it was a small shop I went back in and told them

The law is quite clear on what happens in this sort of situation.

There is no dishonesty present at the time the goods were appropriated if we believe Minecraft - so no offence of theft at that point.

It becomes theft when Minecraft realises the mistake and makes the decision not to make good that mistake - i.e. she dishonestly appropriates at that point, not before.

Even though it is a genuine mistake, the law clearly states that 'reasonable steps' should be taken to return the goods to the rightful owner once the mistake has been discovered, whether this is a transactional mistake as in this case or simply the finding of property in the street. In the case of a chain store that's not in your home town, I would say a phone call would suffice rather than a trip in person.

Leghoul - if I keep them now, I have the intention to permanently deprive - which is theft.

Appropriation doesn't come into it though. The appropriation part has come and gone without mens rea. You can't appropriate something already in your possession.

I'd be torn. However if I was going to pay I would expect them to take payment over the phone or reimburse me for my travel and parking costs if I had to make a special journey into town due to their error.

You appropriated the goods in the shop. I have linked to the definition for you. It is dishonest appropriation now because you've since realised you didn't pay for it.

You appropriated the goods. You took them. You claimed ownership of them. The law is clear that even if you did so "innocently" it is still appropriation where the theft act is concerned.

Your mind would be blown by the law on "theft by finding".

Theft is theft.

the act of appropriation is at the time, but as it applies to theft the appropriation can occur later, of property innocently acquired. I'd suggest while the obvious element of the actus occurred with you walking out of the shop, the actual appropriation is like a stop motion video as you realise you haven't paid and choose not to return. not only is the mens rea being formed, but the appropriation of property is continuing.
[clearly need to redo law school, probably talking tosh]

Your mind would be blown by the law on "theft by finding".

I doubt it somehow...keep going though, your blatant googling is amusing me no end.

3“Appropriates”
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

hmm ignore that. anyway - I'd say you're currently in the process of committing a crime, but it's interesting.

I'd suggest while the obvious element of the actus occurred with you walking out of the shop, the actual appropriation is like a stop motion video as you realise you haven't paid and choose not to return. not only is the mens rea being formed, but the appropriation of property is continuing

I disagree - I would argue that at the moment of leaving the shop the goods had been appropriated with no mens rea and hence no guilt and that in this case the appropriation of the goods was a single and finite act. Also that the act of theft is related only to the continuous and ongoing (hypothetical) intention to permanently deprive the shop of the goods, as that act is with obvious mens rea.

I'm going to bed. You're being silly. It's very easy to attack me instead of the facts.

A friend lends you a bracelet worth £45 for a night out. She seemingly forgets she has lent it to you. Do you
a) Give it back
b) Keep it.

Hopefully a).

I have corrected many till errors etc. The gratitude from the assistants far outweighs any financial gain. It also restores people's faith in humanity. Imagine how that would happen if you returned the coats. If possible to the same assistant.

I don't care if it is theft. I would just think result and forget all about it.

Yes but if you decide to keep the coats now, that's appropriation (continued.) as per s3(1)

It's possible to disagree (even with you ShowofHands) with someone without it being an 'attack' fgs.

Anyway, I agree Leghoul, I do find the theory interesting, even though I don't believe that the law is always necessarily something by which to set your moral compass...

Hmm. "Dishonesty" is also defined in the Theft Act - in the next section.

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;

At the time that the OP walked out of the shop, she believed that she had bought the coats, so it's not theft. And yes, I'm a solicitor.

The thing is, OP, will you enjoy them, or will you feel guilty? You didn't steal them: you're quite right, you didn't have the necessary mens rea, but I think the fact that you've posted this thread means you're not comfortable with it. If you're comfortable, keep them, if you feel guilty, contact Matalan. And yes, if you're hoping to be "let off", I think a phone call's your best bet.

But the appropriation of the coats, when I assumed the rights of owner, was at the moment of leaving the shop.

It was undoubtedly appropriation - but lacking the mens rea of theft was not dishonest appropriation.

You can't appropriate something twice.