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 ...
lol, he was arrested for being an A-hole, not for not producing a drivers license. If he had just shown his receipt he wouldn’t have been arrested at all.
So if a shop lifter can run fast enough to get out the front door he can just stand there and make faces at store employees taunting them? lol
“Accusing a paying customer of shoplifting is just lousy customer service ...”
I agree. People who are outraged at being asked to show a receipt to prove you aren’t a shop lifter should not shop at stores that post bag checkers at their doors. If you see bag checkers and still shop there though, you have only yourself to blame for your outrage.
The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract). It is novel and innovative...maybe its in the penumbra of the UCC
There is WAY to much incorrect legal advice going on here.
>>>>A posted sign at the entrance. By passing that sign and entering onto CC property, you agree to those conditions.
>>Pretty sure that’s false, and anyway, I’ve never seen a sign at any of the places that have asked to see my receipt.
No it is not false.
>>>>(You cannot make a contract to do something illegal)
>>Like an illegal search of my possessions?
To be illegal, it must violate a LAW. That is not the case here.
You have no ‘right’ to shop lift no matter how polite you are, and no ‘right’ to shop anywhere unless you agree to observe the rules of that particular business. He had no ‘right’ to refuse to show his receipt. The constitution wasn’t set up to protect shop lifters.
if he would have just shown his receipt no one would have bothered him any more. this whole incident just proves that when you act like an A-hole you are treated like an A-hole.
>>Regardless of what the conditions are? You’re saying anything goes, as long as it’s on the sign?
Please see my comments earlier re Black Letter Law
Conditions that some might consider onerous can easily be made contractual conditions of entry:
“Any item broken during handling must be paid for by customers.”
“Do not open sealed boxes. If you open a sealed box, it is considered a sale.”
“All packages, purses and briefcases subject to search”
“No children under 12 admitted”
“One drink per show minimum”
“$10.00 cover charge”
“All sales final - No returns - No exchanges”
“3% surcharge on all credit card sales” (Is legal but may violate Interbank rules)
“$25 charge for all dishonored checks”
All are easily enforceable if they were posted and easily seen by entrants upon entering store.
Did a reasonable blind person know that there might be signs regulating and conditioning his/her entry to the store and did she/he enquire about such signs or conditions?
How do you know? Do you work at that store?
“Also, it’s not like stores are advertising the fact that they check receipts, so how can you know to avoid them until you get to the point where they ask you for it?”
Look at the exit when you walk in. If there is someone standing there checking receipts and bags of exiting customers, turn around and walk out. Thats what shop lifters do when deciding which stores to steal from.
Under that line of reasoning, you can readily refuse receipt verification provided the bag you're walking out with was actually stolen from someone else. =]
Um this is standard with electronic retailers. They catch a lot of potential shoplifters this way. I used to work part time at one and one guy tried to walk out the door with a 32 inch plasma tv with nothing but a service agreement receipt for another product. The employee asked to see the receipt so the potential lifter put down the tv handed him the paper and then bolted. the tv was going for 1,500 at the time.
I do not need an enumerated or explicit right not to be searched by private parties or refuse one if requested. He was well within his rights to refuse to show his receipt or resist being detained since it did not properly fall under shopkeepers privilege. The store would then be well within his rights to tell him to never come back.
>>>>The problem with his contract theory is it breaksdown if I do not buy something (enter into a contract).
The contract did not involve the sale. The contract in questioned involved the potential purchaser’s conditioned prividge of entering into private property.
(Thank you, Your Honor!)
So I guess you won’t mind if they call police and file a no trespassing order on you to prevent you from shopping there in the future? If you enter a business, you must agree to their terms. By refusing to co operate you make yourself unwelcome for further transactions.
I don't think so. I have deliberately stayed away from some of the more nuanced points of law, only mentioning that they exist with tens of thousands of cases decided on each element of a contract. I have completely ignored the detainment aspect as it is separate. The store retains the right to set terms and conditions.
To fully implement the policy and be safe there should be clear and unambiguous design and policy notification. I would think a desk at the exit for immediate refunds would be advisable. The exiting customer refusing a bag check should be met with "Sir, we refuse to sell, you have not complied with our policy, here is your money back" and not an immediate arrest.
As a merchant is loathe to do so, they forfeit rights that they need not have forfeited. As you point out, their practices will affect any outcome.
Mass merchandising and the contentious legal environment have changed the retail environment. I have repeatedly pointed out here that Home Depot, with one million dollars in shrinkage per store is wise to not let employees stop shoplifters even though the law clearly gives them the right. It is far easier to reduce theft by concentrating on employees where you do not go directly into the legal system. It is simple cost/benefit. If the public cannot clearly decide moral issues it is easier to build in 2% at the register and say "a pox on you all". I am pointing out that when push comes to shove, people may not have "rights" that they presume to have.
For the sake of public perception and to avoid legal costs large retailers are not pushing back against assholes like the one in the article. The law will probably follow but it is not there yet.
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.