Is “Force-purchasing” legal?

[Rory640]

Hello,

I need your help with something.

I run a hardware and DIY shop.

A man came in and wanted to buy superglue.

I was supposed to ask for ID from people who looked under 25 when buying age restricted products, even though the man looked over 18.

But the man just put the money on the counter and walked out with the glue, in fact paying slightly more than what the glue cost.

I asked the shopkeeper next door if this was legal. She told me that “Force-purchasing” wasn't legally actionable and that the man had paid.

On some further research, I gather that force-purchasing is where a person pays the listed price for something, but the sale wasn't approved by the seller. Legally it seems like a grey area.

What do you think? Is it legal? What action I could take in the future? Could I report it to the police? I need a second opinion.


Regards,

Rory

[atticus]

Well it's not theft.

I must confess that I had not heard of this before. Maybe you need to find a way of preventing this, such as keeping age-restricted items behind the counter, in much the same way as pharmacists do for prescription drugs.

Are you a member of a trade, association that might be able to advise?

[Rory640]

I'm not. Anyway, I wrote to my local Trading Standards yesterday about what they think I should do and am awaiting their response.

[R0b]

If I were to take a strict legal view of the situation, one might consider it to be a case of theft.

I've never heard of the term "forced purchasing" before without there being any kind of contractual agreement in place e.g. If certain conditions of a contract are met, a sale could be forced.

This is essentially contract law 101 in that items on a display are an invitation to treat, that is the seller is inviting the individual to purchase the item. The individual takes said item to the till and makes the offer to purchase and the seller decides whether to accept such offer to purchase - usually the acceptance would be at the point the seller scans the item and/or asks for payment but up to that point, the seller can refuse to accept the offer to purchase by the individual.

If the man simply put his money on the counter and walked off without giving you an opportunity, I would not consider that to be an acceptance of a sale and therefore that is where one can consider it to be a form of theft. Theft in its basic form is the intention to take something of another without their consent and to permanently deprive the other of it.

In reality, not much would happen if you reported it to the police. I suppose you could have challenged the man as he was leaving, or maybe next time refuse to sell the man anything from the shop and effectively ban him from entering in the future but those things seem a little harsh given the situation. Of course it is an offence to sell certain items those under 18 and the onus is on your to show you have taken all reasonable steps/due diligence such as what Atticus mentioned about keeping items behind the counter but the challenge 25 is not a legal requirement I believe, it's more of a scheme and up to the individual businesses to decide whether to opt into it or not unless you sell alcohol in which case it might be a condition of licence.

Just a word of caution, although reaching out to trading standards might be considered decent thing to do, it can sometimes backfire when you raise questions like this to them. They may choose to investigate and put you under the microscope or potentially take action if they feel it is warranted especially where there is reason to believe a restricted item has been sold to someone underage. Sometimes, it is best to keep it quiet and learn from it to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

[atticus]

I hesitate to disagree with Rob, but I find it difficult to see that a person who has left the price of the goods on the counter has dishonestly appropriated the goods.

s1(1) Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

[des8]

Whether the action is dishonest or not, will surely come down to intention, .. the mens rea?
Theft is not a crime of absolute or strict liability.

[atticus]

If a customer leaves the price of the goods on the counter, what is her intention, if not to pay for the goods? How rea is her mens?

[wales01man]

Have seen this several times mainly in small shops if the customer has left the money on the counter is it any different to giving money to cashier and not taking the receipt Maybe if it was an age restricted products taken and paid for by someone under age.
Is this the concern of the op here

[des8]

OP was concerned about legality of this sort of action.

IMO it is unlikely to be criminal, but it could lead to a civil claim because, as R0b indicated there was no agreement between the parties.

Pragmatically, over a small item it makes no odds, but if it happened over a large ticket item (or an age restricted item) there might be consequences

[R0b]

I hesitate to disagree with Rob, but I find it difficult to see that a person who has left the price of the goods on the counter has dishonestly appropriated the goods.

s1(1) Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

As I'm sure you know, the phrase "dishonest" has a specific legal meaning and now falls under the objective test per the not so long ago decision of the Supreme Court and therefore the subjective/objective "Ghost Test" is no longer valid. I'm not suggesting that the person is 100% guilty of theft, but it is a possibility even if from a technical standpoint.

Also note under s2(2) of the TA 1968:

(2)A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

[atticus]

Does s2(2) not relate to someone who has not paid?

[R0b]

If I remember the case law, your right it related to scenarios where the individual wanted to pay after the fact, but that's not to say it can't be expanded upon as the wording of the section doesn't explicitly say after the fact, it merely suggests you could be dishonest even if you were willing to pay.

In my view, just because you put money on the counter doesn't necessarily mean it can't be theft and the trigger point is whether the money in question has been accepted at the time of sale and thus forming a contractual agreement. If it hasn't, then that may raise the question of theft but as I said in practice, nobody is going to want to spend much time bothering with this.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and there may be a case that's already decided this particular question.

[atticus]

Moving on, I think the greater issue for the OP is likely to be whether he may be found liable for allowing a sale of an age-restricted item without having checked the customer's age. Here I may be wrong, but I think that the applicable legislation imposes obligations on sellers, not buyers.

[HariSeldon]

I hesitate to disagree with Rob, but I find it difficult to see that a person who has left the price of the goods on the counter has dishonestly appropriated the goods.

Envisage the Boxing Day sales. One early-bird customer grabs the last Sony PS5 console marked down to half price in the sale and puts it on the counter preparing to pay. While he fishes out his credit card along comes another customer who picks up that PS5, throws payment in cash on the counter and walks off...

In my view, the cash customer has dishonestly appropriated the goods as they knew the retailer wouldn't have accepted their offer. The OP's situation could be similar if the customer believed they were about to be refused the purchase due to looking too young.

[wales01man]

Envisage the Boxing Day sales. One early-bird customer grabs the last Sony PS5 console marked down to half price in the sale and puts it on the counter preparing to pay. While he fishes out his credit card along comes another customer who picks up that PS5, throws payment in cash on the counter and walks off...

In my view, the cash customer has dishonestly appropriated the goods as they knew the retailer wouldn't have accepted their offer. The OP's situation could be similar if the customer believed they were about to be refused the purchase due to looking too young.

Intersting Scenario theres cash on the counter guaranteed payment and an offer of a card payment which may not go through what then?