Printable View
TO ALL YOU CURRENT AND FUTURE THIEVES OUT THERE:
Another thread reminded me of something....in most states anymore you steal at the FULL sticker price! NOT the sale price! NOT what the retailer paid for the item wholesale. BUT THE FULL PRICE AS ORIGINALLY MARKED!!!
So if you're thinking you're boostin' at the sale price, think again! You BUY it at the sale price dimbulb.....you STEAL it at the full retail price!
That is all.
Thank you soups I tried to convey that same message on very thread yo mention. Just so you boosters know sale price is for "paying" (thats the keyword) customers
I do not agree that would be correct. Is that written law in California? Now if it is written law I would stand corrected. If the item was clearly posted for sale on the shelf then that price is what the value is. Thats is what my attorney said that he would argue.
He can argue that but DA can argue that sale price is for "paying" customers NOT thiefs. I dont see where DA wont accept plea deal as you have been told but store and DA have right to list iten at its full retail. In fact if you search other threads you find the posting that says so. Regardless there is no reason a plea deal wont be accepted.
It's arguable in CA. Here it is the "fair market value" of the property stolen and NOT the inherent value of the item. Since the item had been marked down, it can be presumed that it was worth only the face value of the sale price. It cannot generally be argued that the item was WORTH more because it would be a draw and an inducement for a person to purchase additional items.Quote:
Quoting fishalot
So, while some states may allow for a full retail value before any discounts or sale pricing, CA uses the "fair market value" test. And this test is almost always the asking price.
- Carl
I am in CA and sat in a courtroom that this very arguement took place. Store argued two points One was they owned property at its retail value. Second and deciding point was that teh "Sale price" was for paying customers. Defendant was charged with crime 490.5 with merchandise full retail value. Defendant consented to a plea bargain on his next court apperarence.
Hence the reason I said the issue was arguable.Quote:
Quoting panther10758
However, was the price an issue with regards to restitution? Or was it an issue with regards to petty vs. grand theft? The matters can be argued differently as the issues are different and follow different legal statutes.
And, two courts might hold different interpretations of "fair market value."
- Carl
The arguement was between petty theft and felony charges. Now to be fair I wasnt present for whole arguement. Judge saw inf avor of store and felony charges stuck. Defendant on next court apperarence entered a plea bargain arraingment that dropped charges to petty theft.
A plea bargain can certainly go that way. Plus, different courts might see it differently. It might also have been an issue of whether the item was on sale the day of the theft, or later. I once saw it argued that the day after an items was stolen they were discounted to Clearance prices so the item obviously was not worth as much as the listed price the day of the theft.
There are a number of ways the argument could go.
Oh, and the judge didn't decide for the store, they decided for the prosecutor who obviously argued the non-sale price for some reason.
Once again, the test is how the court determines "fair market value."
- Carl
Fair enough like I said I wasnt there for entire arguement