Can You Be Charged for Shoplifting for Exchanging an Item You Previously Purchased

[jk]

No it can't be. A breach of contract allows you to sue seeking a remedy. You choosing a remedy of your own making, when the claimed breach (which only a court can actually rule was a breach) is not a valid defense to commiting a criminal act.

Your efforts to justify your actions show even you don't accept your own argument regarding the breach and no, none of your justifications nullify your actions either.

[Stressedpleasehelp]

It could be the basis for an honest belief however and that IS a valid defense per the cite I included earlier which is what I was asking about. I was more trying to get advice from people in the legal field since they would have experience with cases similar to mine but thank you for the psych assessment about why I am justifying my actions, which despite what you think is actually because I don't like to be bullied period but particularly by large companies who believe they can do whatever they wish with no repercussions.

I have fought two cases pro se against national companies already and won so I am very familiar with breach of contract claims, large company's threats, etc. In all three cases (the other two there were no criminal elements involved which is why I am on here) I would have attempted to change my actions in retrospect because it is not worth the headache even when you do win. However, when people do not fight against these things privacy breaches occur, companies get sloppy and affect the stock market, and a whole host of other problems result. So yes while in retrospect I probably would have just made enough of a scene that someone actually wanted to assist me to get me to leave I still do not think I should be forced to jump through added hurdles because someone decides to unilaterally change contractual provisions.

After some further research I found out that the company has been changing the return policy in stores nationwide beginning at least six months ago without updating their written policy either online or in their stores which is not only deceptive but may also be grounds for a decent class action lawsuit, so perhaps I will have the breach of contract claim resolved after all.

[jk]

Ya, you go with all of that.

It looks the old; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

No court is going to accept the requirement of producing an ID as a breach of contract so egregious that it would excuse your theft of the merchandise.

Ya see, regardless what you want to argue, abandoning the merchandise you did was not relinquishing ownership to the store. Your receipt and the lack of acceptance by the store proves ownershipThey would be guilty of conversion of they unilaterally acted to seize it as compensation for what you took

Your mention of a class action suit proves you prefer the bullshit path. Apparently you have no idea what it takes to initiate and support a class action the suit or the cost just to explore the viability of such a suit.

Just to add;

the previous citation is not applicable. You have no valid claim you had a right to possess the unpurchased merchandise. In the citation there was a mistake in who the owner of the property was with the husband believing it belonged to his wife therefor giving him a right to possess it on behalf of his wife. There is no similar claim here. You had just retrieved the item from the shelf so there is no mistake of ownership. Attempting to compare a mistake of ownership and some manufactured right of possession based on some self directed exchange process is not equivalent in any way.

Sorry but if thats the best ya got, you still lose

[Stressedpleasehelp]

I think you proved you have no idea about law so I quit listening to your advice around the time you said there was no breach of contract claim which is patently false. As to my experience of what it takes to initiate a lawsuit and particularly a class action you are also completely wrong. And the cite given was an 'or' scenario with the husband and wife portion being the last of a three prong test so thank you for taking the scenario that obviously doesn't apply out of the three and telling me it doesn't apply; that's very helpful. Did I have a right to the value of my purchase. Absolutely by their own policy. I didn't right their terms and conditions and have no ability to alter them so the fact that they cannot even abide by them is pretty ridiculous and given it ups their sales to have one policy in practice and another in writing they are benefitting from their fraudulent behavior. If you think small it might seem like what I did was worse but the damages they were causing and I already found evidence of this affecting other people is exponentially higher. Do you have any experience with class actions and what people actually win based on? I think it is pretty clear the answer is no but it's kind of sad you give 'legal' advice to people when you know nothing about what you are talking about. It's very clear you have no idea of nuance or applying any type of logic to facts which may not fit into the standard reply you give in all circumstances on here. I would hire an attorney in the extremely unlikely result that something occurred from this and I guarantee you my odds are both better of getting off with no punishment and also toys r us being found in breach than the other way around. I came on here because the slim chance of anything else occurring isn't worth it and I was interested in people who actually have helpful advice with something similar offering it. Unfortunately I could have read the standard responses I received in every other thread on here. Happy holidays!

[eerelations]

You just don't like jk's response because it's not what you want to hear. Doesn't make it any less valid though.

Maybe someday when you grow up you will learn to accept responsibility for your mistakes.

[jk]

Above all else, the store and the online "store" can have different policies.

And fraud? Really? Not even close. For it to be fraud there must be an intent. in the vein of a commercial I like; got proof?


Do I have experience with class actions; yes. I recieved my $12 check from the hundred million dollar judgment.


Remember the question you original asked?

can I (you) be charged with shoplifting?


the answer is still; yes you can


now if you want the life reality answer;

i wouldnt by expect you to be charged if for no other reason hunting down people can be difficult and the gain doesn't justify the expense.

Understand that walmart has employed facial recognition camera systems. It would not surprise me to learn a company the size of toys r us has also employed such systems so it would not be surprising if upon entering any toys r us it did become an issue


now with that said, do I think a prosecutor would push this? Probably not but they could and no defense you have presented vindicates your actions.

Get over yourself.

[Stressedpleasehelp]

Thank you very much for the real life answer. As to fraud and this is more since I honestly enjoy noncriminal aspects of law (in criminal law the stakes are too high and it doesn't typically affect my life much for it to have the same theoretical enjoyment for me) it likely wouldn't be that hard to prove. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact (their written policy in both stores and online is untrue),(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue (they have been put on notice that the written policy in both stores and online differs from store practices at a minimum of over six months ago and the manager confirmed on video that this is due to a top down approach not store specific policy), (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim (this is what I think you are referencing but through discovery and if there is no good reason for not changing a policy for such a long period of time after you have knowledge, intent can be construed and negligence, in not taking action to make the practice and policy cohesive, implied. Since direct evidence of intent is very rare and most cases use circumstantial evidence there would likely be enough found in emails, other documents, etc to show this), (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement (this has happened in at least a few cases found by a quick Google search and likely many, many more), and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result (this is why a class action makes more sense bc individually damages will be small but they add up in aggregate). Class actions are typically done on a contingency basis so the issue is finding a firm to take the case. This might be difficult but I do actually know people who specialize in this area of law which would make the process a little easier. The difficulty is identifying people who did returns with a receipt where they were asked for verification beyond what the policies stated, on a large enough scale that it makes sense for a law firm to invest their resources. Depending on the computer system and how data is stored this information might be easily found or might require so many hours of sifting through data that the resources required are too great for it to be financially feasible. However, as soon as a data breach occurs (which in this day and age is sadly more of a question of when not if) and people have their personal data in the system and therefore stolen only because the written policy was not followed and they were forced to have their ID scanned in spite of the terms and conditions they agreed to when making their purchase there will be a very large financial incentive for firms because each potential class member's damages will have suddenly multiplied causing less members of the class to be necessary for the suit to make financial sense. There are also privacy advocate groups who would be interested in the ramifications/help bring attention to the case/give more of a motivation for a suit to be brought, people to come forward, and more of a motivation for settlement due to bad publicity. So I guess I'll worry about growing up, getting over myself, pray the associates didn't care enough in the midst of having several people yelling at them to worry much about me and if they did that I'm not worth the headache I'm sure you all can figure out I would likely be by the headache I've been on here, for anyone else to pursue anything, and limiting my personal interest in legal matters from here on out to those of a civil instead of criminal nature

[jk]

It's great you take such effort to respond to me, a person you stated you quit listening to long ago.

You can write as much as you wish but turning the different policies between the online presence and local store into fraud just isn't going to happen. There is no way for you to prove intent if for no other reason you do not have standing to bring an action against toys r us based on the claim of fraud. Only if the issue directly affected you would you even be able to take step one and if a criminal charge was a concern, that does not bring the fraud issue into play. The prosecution of a criminal charge has nothing to do with fraud even though there are different policies from the online presence and the brick and mortar store. It was your actions alone that would be the basis of a criminal prosecution and your actions were not controlled by the policy matter.

Now if you were refused a refund and you didn't take the foolish step you did and due to the refusal you were somehow damaged you might have an argument but given you still had the path of returning it to the online store, even if the local store outright denied your exchange, your case would fail.

[eerelations]

Thank you very much for the real life answer. As to fraud and this is more since I honestly enjoy noncriminal aspects of law (in criminal law the stakes are too high and it doesn't typically affect my life much for it to have the same theoretical enjoyment for me) it likely wouldn't be that hard to prove. Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact (their written policy in both stores and online is untrue),(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue (they have been put on notice that the written policy in both stores and online differs from store practices at a minimum of over six months ago and the manager confirmed on video that this is due to a top down approach not store specific policy), (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim (this is what I think you are referencing but through discovery and if there is no good reason for not changing a policy for such a long period of time after you have knowledge, intent can be construed and negligence, in not taking action to make the practice and policy cohesive, implied. Since direct evidence of intent is very rare and most cases use circumstantial evidence there would likely be enough found in emails, other documents, etc to show this), (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement (this has happened in at least a few cases found by a quick Google search and likely many, many more), and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result (this is why a class action makes more sense bc individually damages will be small but they add up in aggregate). Class actions are typically done on a contingency basis so the issue is finding a firm to take the case. This might be difficult but I do actually know people who specialize in this area of law which would make the process a little easier. The difficulty is identifying people who did returns with a receipt where they were asked for verification beyond what the policies stated, on a large enough scale that it makes sense for a law firm to invest their resources. Depending on the computer system and how data is stored this information might be easily found or might require so many hours of sifting through data that the resources required are too great for it to be financially feasible. However, as soon as a data breach occurs (which in this day and age is sadly more of a question of when not if) and people have their personal data in the system and therefore stolen only because the written policy was not followed and they were forced to have their ID scanned in spite of the terms and conditions they agreed to when making their purchase there will be a very large financial incentive for firms because each potential class member's damages will have suddenly multiplied causing less members of the class to be necessary for the suit to make financial sense. There are also privacy advocate groups who would be interested in the ramifications/help bring attention to the case/give more of a motivation for a suit to be brought, people to come forward, and more of a motivation for settlement due to bad publicity. So I guess I'll worry about growing up, getting over myself, pray the associates didn't care enough in the midst of having several people yelling at them to worry much about me and if they did that I'm not worth the headache I'm sure you all can figure out I would likely be by the headache I've been on here, for anyone else to pursue anything, and limiting my personal interest in legal matters from here on out to those of a civil instead of criminal nature

No growing up happening today!

[jk]

Btw;

i just pulled this from toys r us website;

Why you need to provide a photo ID for all returns
The information from your ID will be retained in a company-wide database of return activity that Toys”R”Us and its affiliates use to authorize returns. We require you to present one of the following:

• Valid driver’s license
  
• State identification from US, US Territories, Canada or Mexico
  
• Military ID
  
• Passport

http://m.toysrus.com/shop/?categoryId=10760532


kind of makes your entire post a load of crap now doesn't it.