• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Shoplifting, almost

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

P

Peeldred

Guest
What is the name of your state? Florida. I had a friend who was recently detained at a Publix supermarket for shoplifting. What happened was that she and another friend were splitting a deli sandwich. The way the store is set up, you go to the deli and get your sandwich and do not pay until you get to the checkout line. It is very common for people to eat their sandwiches as they shop, and this is what my friends did. When they had finished with the sandwich, one of them took the wrapper and the attached price-tag, threw them away, and proceded to leave the building. When she left she was detained by store employees. The other friend who had eaten the sandwich realised that the wrapper had been discarded and returned to the deli, prior to leaving the store, to get a copy of the price tag with which he could pay for the sandwich at the checkout line. The deli gave him a new tag, he took it to the checkout, and they took his money. Then he left the store to find us all waiting outside. When we all realized that we were missing one of our group, we went inside to see what had happened, and found out they were detaining her for shoplifting. They called the cops and took her away, all the while refusing to look at the receipt the other sandwich eater had been given after paying for the sandwich. Has any crime acyually been committed. If the store accepted payment for the sandwich, even if it was after they had already detained someone for shoplifting the item that was paid for, do they still have a case against my non-paying but paid-for friend who they had arrested? If she presents the receipt in court, is there any way for Publix to claim that any theft actually occured? Haven't they already 'settled' by accepting payment for the item? Sorry to make this so long.
 
Last edited:


P

Peeldred

Guest
Is the store at least required to return the money paid for the sandwich. If the acceptance of the money does not constitute a purchase, then doesn't that exchange become an accidental exchange based on a misunderstanding, in which case the store would be required to refund the non-payment? If someone mistakenly gives me 5000 dollars, thinking that I was someone they owed, i have no legal right to that money, right? Also, what is the legal status of the person who ate the sandwich and didn't leave the store before paying? If a crime has been committed that is the theft of a sandwich, why should the legal status of those who ate the sandwich be different? Why isn;t the half of the sandwich that was eaten by the girl simply a gift from the person who paid for the whole sandwich? Is she a theif for receiving a gift? Also, if what happened is justly considered a crime, what should a consumer do to protect oneself from being arrested for accepting someone's hospitality. Is it actually a crime for me to split a sandwich with someone and leave the store while that person goes and pays for it? This is a scenario that i am in a lot, as my friends and i often treat each other to meals, and I want to make sure I don;t get arrested for accidentaly leaving the store before the person who is paying covers the bill. At a restaurant where one person is covering the bill, is it illegal for another in the party to leave before the bill has actually been settled? This proposition seems absurd. Please clarify this for me if you can.
 

racer72

Senior Member
You are mighty confused and your anologies make no sense. Why do you think any money should be returned, compensation for the stolen sandwich was going to be required. She will also be looking at a potential civil penalty of up to $500. She was guilty of a crime the second the wrapper went into the trash, it is called intent.

At a restaurant where one person is covering the bill, is it illegal for another in the party to leave before the bill has actually been settled?

Yes it is. It is considered stealing for anyone that benefits from the purchase to leave an establishment before the bill is paid. In fact, it is a scheme that restaurants see too often. Part of a party leaves then those left claim the party that left will return to pay the bill in minute. They get up and leave and guess what? No one comes back to pay the bill.
 

stephenk

Senior Member
So your friend is thinking of a good lie to get out of being convicted? And all of you want to be part of the lie, right?
 
P

Peeldred

Guest
quite expensive indeed...

I am shocked to learn how many times I could have been arrested for leaving an eating establishment with an unpaid bill to be paid by a friend staying behind.

I am just curious, does it matter who ordered the sandwich?

also, i only thought that the store should refund the money not because money of some sort is not due them, but simply because in this case the money was paid by someone other than who was charged with the crime. Clearly the guy who paid didn;t steal the sandwich, so it seams that either the store 'accidentaly' recieved his money, meaning that it should rightfully be returned, or that he paid for a sandwich which he never recieved, in which case it would seem that they owe him a sandwich.

I am not sticking on this point because i think the guy should get his 4 bucks back, but because it seems that their acceptance of his money establishes a contract of one of the following varieties:

1)The payment was understood to be for the sandwich, and the sandwich is understood to have been paid for, in which case it seems ridiculous that they could claim that a theft occured, though perhaps still an attempted theft, or

2)The payment was understood to be for the sandwich that was stolen, but as the sandwich was not stolen by and compensated for by the same person, the implication is that in-fact the sandwich has not been compensated for, and the store has accepted an erroneous payment from a non-customer, requiring a refund, or

3)No association has been made between the stolen sandwich and the payment that was made, in which case the payment actually signifies the purchase of a second sandwich, one that was never provided by the store.

I realize that as far as the ATTEMPT at shoplifting is concerned the girl is in a tough spot, as the disposal of the wrapper shows intent, but it seems like this guy who paid for the sandwich has had the contract established by his transaction fail to be fulfilled on behalf of the store, regardless of how one sees the situation.

It should be noted, in the shoplifter's defense, that no animals were harmed by, or due to, the production of the sandwich in question, so karmically she isn;t too bad off, though financially/legally things look quite gloomy.
 

stephenk

Senior Member
think of it this way. your friend steals a CD. your friend gets caught. you decide to pay for the CD. Does your friend now go free? No. Because the intent of your friend was to steal the CD and did steal the CD.

Now if you want your money back for paying for the CD, take the store to small claims court.
 
P

Peeldred

Guest
Of course, in this situation, if the guy went and got his money back from the store, seeing as he also consumed the sandwich (he split it with the girl who got arrested, and actually he is the one who ordered it) then it seems at that point he would become a thief as well. It seems they should only return half of the money, and then change the discription of the crime from the theft of a sandwich to the theft of half a sandwich. Could the guy who paid for the sandiwich take not the store, but rather the chick, to small claims court, since he has paid fully for a sandwich which she has eaten half of, without paying? If that is true, then doesn't that mean that the store would be left without options regarding this case as a civil matter (I think they said they wanted like $200 from her), and only be able to see through the criminal side, the petty theft of less than $3 of vegetables, bread, condiments, and the labor used to fashion them into a sandwich?

I have never ceased to be amazed at how many pointless synapse firings can be inspired by by such trivial acts when they take place in a country with a legal system.
 

stephenk

Senior Member
so your friend also conspired to eat and run, right? Only when the girl was confronted did your friend look for the slip to pay for the sandwich, right?

since you havent provided any information on what the girl told the store security people (she may have confessed to the theft), this has just been mental masturbation.
 
P

Peeldred

Guest
you are right. every time i get her to talk about what she told them she says "i don't want to talk about it"

pure mental masturbation with regard to the prospect of her getting off, but not in the total sense because i have now learned never to leave a restaurant and leave my friend behind to pay. This has really been about me eliminating my ignorance with regard to the laws that apply to these situations. She will get what she 'deserves'.
 
P

Peeldred

Guest
Actually, I have just one further question. Back to the restaurant scenario, If one of a party has to leave before the bill is paid, for whatever reason, can someone else in the party take official responsibility for that person's payment by notifying the waiter, thus freeing that person to leave without being arrested, or will that person be subject to arrest in all cases where he leaves before the bill is paid?
 
D

dyinginside

Guest
Oh my gawd! Pay for your !@#$ before you leave. Stop trying to find ways around it. Dont put yourself in an obvious situation and you wont have to worry about all these what ifs.

Why if your with friends would you leave them behind while"they pay for themselves,you or whoever anyway? Unless your in a hurry to get out cause you know that something wrong is being done. I mean come on!

Pay for your !@#$ or stay with whoever else is to make sure everything is covered plain and simple.
 
P

Peeldred

Guest
there are many reasons one would need to leave in a hurry, and if one is being treated by another to lunch, then paying before you go could be problematic.

Naturally, if paying for my '!@#$' was the plan all along, then there is no problem. But if another is paying, then there are problems.

Has no one ever taken you out to lunch to discuss business and for one reason or another you had to leave unexpectedly early? This is not such a far out scenario, and it brings up a question- can one of a party release another to go by notifying the establishment that he is taking on the responsibility to pay for the one leaving-that merits an answer, not simply a reaction.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top