Posted on 09/03/2007 3:19:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Today was an eventful day. I drove to Cleveland, reunited with my father’s side of the family and got arrested. More on that arrested part to come.
For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh to visit my father, his wife and my little brother and sister. Shortly after arriving we packed the whole family into my father’s Buick and headed off to the grocery store to buy some ingredients to make monkeybread. (It’s my little sister’s birthday today and that was her cute/bizare birthday request.)
Next to the grocery store was a Circuit City. (The Brooklyn, Ohio Circuit City to be exact.) Having forgotten that it was my sister’s birthday I decided to run in and buy her a last minute gift. I settled on Disney’s “Cars” game for the Nintendo Wii. I also needed to purchase a Power Squid surge protector which I paid for separately with my business credit card. As I headed towards the exit doors I passed a gentleman whose name I would later learn is Santura. As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”
As I walked through the double doors I heard Santura yelling for his manager behind me. My father and the family had the Buick pulled up waiting for me outside the doors to Circuit City. I opened the door and got into the back seat while Santura and his manager, whose name I have since learned is Joe Atha, came running up to the vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsite.michaelrighi.com ...
I would think the Uniform Commercial Code probably suggests otherwise. 30 years ago, most people studying Business Law favored Blackstone’s perspectives. I’ve noticed that even lawyers in the last 20 years don’t agree upon the basics of Business Law when considering property rights.
The law would focus upon the transaction and if it had been completed in determining ownership of property being removed from the store.
Once completed, the property was now legitimately owned by a new owner.
The issue of being stopped in a public place, being forced to show proof of that ownership, is entirely separate from the purchase of the merchandise. Most stores, though, prefer to not encroach upon the privacy of their good customers, real or perceived (the customer is always right perspective). (Ever notice how the same stores inspecting your receipt prior to exit, tend to also be the same stores which accept merchandise returns even eithout a receipt? Not too consistent..)
If one attempts to argue for the store, claiming the transaction was stipulatively established, notifying the customer such a purchase wouldn’t be complete until exiting the premises, then the store exposes itself to charges of perhaps unlawful detainment, kidnapping or entrapment because the store designed the routes available for shoppers to exit their establishment.
If the store failed to respect the basics of a transaction by allowing honest shoppers a method of leaving the store unimpeded and respecting their personal privacy, then the store may be liable for even more civil infringements upon not only purchasers, but the public in general. (I believe Fry’s used to have 2 queues to route the public through,...one after the check-out line without search and a second one for those exiting the store without purchase, with search. This would appear more legitimate, although Fry’s also wouldn’t accept a private check, but would accept a credit card ..go figure.)
The argument that the customer is entering private property, therefore must abide by the local rules, also ignores the publicly acceptance of the UCC, not to mention a number of codes which the establishment was zoned under to attract public business (Circuit City isn’t a private club, it’s open to the public.)
IMHO, the emergence of receipt checkers has probably been a common sensical response by store managers to provide some sort of defense from cultural permissiveness in shoplifting. It fails to manage the store floor plan with the cultural elements understood to comprise the purchase transaction.
When the floor plan of the store is established by franchising agreements, then an even deeper pocket is condoning the behavior. A local store manager might implement the policy to control losses, even though he really doesn’t fully benefit from the complete store profits, so he’s only a cog in the machine.
Most managers with wherewithal, place more value on their client base which brings them business. Those stores which become more public, not reliant upon goodwill of a client base, are probably more prone to this type of infringement on good customers. Costco is a good example, where it also has a membership requirement.
IMHO, I find it interesting that the same large franchises, also happen to offer the least resistance to product returns without receipt, which also happens to encourage theft in the community while the store becomes the ‘fence’.
I wonder how the ‘meeting of the minds’ is conducted in ‘self-help’ automated check out counters.
Costco had a similar policy at the exit,..they actually showed me where they had double charged me on a case of Cokes and I went back to get another. Under the cover of Quality Control, they doubled as disincentive for shoplifting. It also helped keep the checkers honest.
I kind of agree with you. The only time it irks me - regardless of the store - is if it is slow and the guy that is suppose to check for reciepts sees me come up to the cash register, watches me the entire time, and then still asks for a receipt. Hey - didn’t you just witness the transaction?
From the customer’s perspective, the six elements of a contract were completed at the cash register transaction in the case cited.
If the customer wanted to really get nasty, he could document the parking lot markings and traffic design, then take the large corporation to court for violating the MUTCD which is now been approved by most state legislatures, the same as the UCC is also approved by most states.
The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.
I wonder if Circuit City could lose its Business licenses in that state over the issue.
Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS
2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.
Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.
Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.
Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.
Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS
2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.
Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.
Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.
Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.
Please, let’s not play lawyer. Where is it law that the MUTCD must be adhered to on private property? Where are the proposed plaintiff’s damages. Comment is BS
2. The merchant not only has to overcome the burden of proof regarding the transaction at the register, there is also the UCC to contend with, which if the merchant poses stipulative rules above and beyond the UCC, might be infringing upon the intent of state law authorizing the UCC.
Merchant was fine demanding to see receipt. Merchant was on shaky ground detaining/arresting (yes, it was an arrest. Shopper was told he could not leave and physical action was taken to prevent him from doing so) shopper once he had left the store.
Law gives store right to take reasonable steps to ensure shoplifting/theft has not occurred, but if they accuse publicly, they had better be right.
Shopper had great case going until he began to look like loonie for failing to show ID.
The difference between Costco and any retail store is that at a place like Costco or Sam’s, you sign in your membership contract that your bags can be searched. There is no such thing at a retail outlet that you can just walk into.
That was just my personal opinion, I haven't looked up law on it so I could be wrong. Obviously if the law says they can't then no policy they have saying they can is enforceable. I don't like unseen, heavily biased adherence contracts. In that case, walk away from the security guy with impunity.
The US Supremes have already decided that a man on private property, not driving, must still show ID to an officer of the law if requested to do so. Cheers, comrade!
But that hasn't stopped you from siding with potential criminals like usual.
I would bet the stores could even put up signs that say “We will be checking your receipt on the way out”, and you could still breeze by security if you so desired.
They told him the asking price, he paid, they accepted, they put his goods in a bag and gave them to him. AFAIK that completed the sale, so the check happens after the sale at a time when the goods are his property.
BTW, I don’t intend to pick on you (although I’m right and you’re wrong ;^).... ) , but I’m also the first one to admit there is a lot of the law which I’m not intuitive about as I wish I might be.
It’s interesting how the Constitution allows our laws to blend so well with emerging/divergent culture.
UCC only came about in the 1950s and is frequently accepted as authoritative, I suspect probably because most people in upper middle business studied it in Business Law courses in college.
I have also noticed about 10 years ago, many of the elements within contract law used by the UCC, are not as commonly accepted by more recent law school graduates.
One aspect of business I have not been closely involved in, is how the multinational 100,000+ SF shopping center franchise networks develop their plans and policies. From speaking with Architects, I know some are designed on a case by case basis, yet their similarity implies a lot of cut & paste from past design. Their floor plans imply somebody has reviewed policies such as receipt checking and I would fully expect each chain has a number of law firms employed from each state to review particular legal issues in commercial law and codes.
For example, we notice how the large shopping centers are overtaking nearly all other markets with a one shop complex. Those complexes are also modifying the common culture and how business is conducted.
For example, many items no longer have a price indicated on them, other than a barcode. Even services, such as Kinkos fails to post their price schedules making it very awkward to shop and compare prices.
Policies such as ‘the customer is always right’, seem to also promote others such as Orchard Supply Hardware’s acceptance of any and all return merchandise without receipt or packaging. Customer beware, no longer seems to be the standard for many of these establishments, yet I wonder how the actual cost on public goods has been effected by these policies, as they might give that one merchant more market share, but increases theft and burglary in the community.
In the computer age, stores don’t always advertise their pricing, so the consumer model is greatly altered.
Automated check out lines vice checkers, large stores vs Mom & Pop stores, Home Depot and Lowes vs local lumber mills and hardware stores.
(Maybe I’m just getting old...er, sigh)
I’ll repeat what I said a little bit ago: The difference with Sam’s and Costco is that you sign a membership contract. You do no such thing with a place like Circuit City or Wally’s World.
You are required to provide an identity. Giving your name, address, and date of birth to an officer counts as that, and does not require a driver’s license.
The police officer had already confirmed the guy had not stolen anything before demanding ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.