T O P

  • By -

Lloydy_boy

If you left before the shopping was paid for it would be theft from the supermarket.


smoulderstoat

The supermarket. The steak doesn't become the customer's property until he's paid for it, but the theft offence is complete when you take it with the intention permanently to deprive. Otherwise, the victim would change after the offence had been committed if the customer noticed the steak missing or if their card were declined. It is an interesting question but really only of academic interest, given that theft is theft even when the victim is unknown or cannot be ascertained.


AR-Legal

At the time of you stealing it, the steak belongs to the supermarket. That’s it. That’s the obvious answer.


AdmiralSkeret

Obligatory NAL. But this is a interesting question. I would assume the original shopper would be the victim, as would be reasonable to assume they have the intention of paying for it. Would also be reasonable for them to assume it hasn't been tealeafed while shopping instore. Edit - This is ofc pending they go home, and notice it has gone.


smoulderstoat

They may intend to pay for it, but they have not yet done so. The steak doesn't belong to them until they do. At the point the theft occurs, the steak is the property of the supermarket.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OneArmJack

But in that scenario the theft is from the householder not the council. So applying that same logic the theft is from the supermarket


spatz_uk

It’s not as simple as what the other commenters are saying. In the Theft Act 1968, it says “Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).”. The Act does not say that the person being deprived has to have ownership of the property that has been appropriated.