Incident shopping...would you have been cross too?
Mar 22nd 2010, 2:14 am
#106
Demi-God
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Far North Queensland
Posts: 2,812
Re: Incident shopping...would you have been cross too?
lol, good one!
Why? The right not to have your body and possessions unreasonably interfered with is the most basic there is, isn't it? Don't you think it's worth protecting?
The damages you'd get would of course be fairly minor and life is just too short to bother doing it with every occasion, I agree. But I don't think it's a shame people would sue to protect their rights, I think it's a shame that accessing the courts can be so expensive/difficult/confusing/stressful that more people aren't able to sue to protect their rights.
You're on the right track, but you're wrong on the details imvho afaics ianal and all of that jazz. There is no contract between you and the store: the store gives you a conditional licence (permission) to enter their land. The condition of the licence is that you will let them look in your bags if they ask. If you don't let them look, you're breaching the licence and you have to leave (and they can physically remove you if you don't leave in a reasonable time). But, as you say, the only thing they can do if you've breached the licence is kick you out and bar you in the future - and seeing as you're on your way oot the door anyway and you wouldn't return to such a rude place anyway...<shrug>
If they had a specific reason that was enough for a citizen's arrest, then they'd be entitled to do that just like every other citizen. But as you say, there's no such thing as a "citizen's let me have a peek in your bags 'cos you look a bit shifty".
The touching is not assault - it's battery. Assault is fear of immediate unlawful force. Battery is the actual contact. Although to be fair, criminal lawyers tend to lump A&B together and throw the word "assault" about a bit indiscriminately.
And you'd need to show a loss to sue for defamation, I think.
Why? The right not to have your body and possessions unreasonably interfered with is the most basic there is, isn't it? Don't you think it's worth protecting?
The damages you'd get would of course be fairly minor and life is just too short to bother doing it with every occasion, I agree. But I don't think it's a shame people would sue to protect their rights, I think it's a shame that accessing the courts can be so expensive/difficult/confusing/stressful that more people aren't able to sue to protect their rights.
You're on the right track, but you're wrong on the details imvho afaics ianal and all of that jazz. There is no contract between you and the store: the store gives you a conditional licence (permission) to enter their land. The condition of the licence is that you will let them look in your bags if they ask. If you don't let them look, you're breaching the licence and you have to leave (and they can physically remove you if you don't leave in a reasonable time). But, as you say, the only thing they can do if you've breached the licence is kick you out and bar you in the future - and seeing as you're on your way oot the door anyway and you wouldn't return to such a rude place anyway...<shrug>
If they had a specific reason that was enough for a citizen's arrest, then they'd be entitled to do that just like every other citizen. But as you say, there's no such thing as a "citizen's let me have a peek in your bags 'cos you look a bit shifty".
The touching is not assault - it's battery. Assault is fear of immediate unlawful force. Battery is the actual contact. Although to be fair, criminal lawyers tend to lump A&B together and throw the word "assault" about a bit indiscriminately.
And you'd need to show a loss to sue for defamation, I think.
Mar 22nd 2010, 4:09 am
#107
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Woodvale, WA
Posts: 1,674
Re: Incident shopping...would you have been cross too?
I never came back to this thread. All I got was an apology from the Store management with confirmation that the services of the member of staff had been deployed elsewhere within the store. Training was ongoing for all staff members.
Mar 22nd 2010, 12:12 pm
#108
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
Re: Incident shopping...would you have been cross too?
its bullshit mate......my friend was in the same situ...however she had a new pack of wipes in her nappy bag...with no docket...how dare she do such a thing...she bpought a new pack cos old one was running out...this bitch all but told her she had stole them...same with my kids when they are out of school, if they leave bags outside hop it is a secuity risk. if the take them in on theoir backs they r treated like criminals its just shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 22nd 2010, 1:46 pm
#109
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,825
Re: Incident shopping...would you have been cross too?
I was in Big W last week and the usual - was stopped on the way out. When I refused to let the girl look in my bag she told me not to shop there again. I went outside, thought about it and then went back to speak to the manager. I explained that to speak to a customer like that was not really the way to do it. He however agreed with the shop assistant and basically told me that if I couldn't go along with their rules then I shouldn't shop there again.
I am so surprised that the Ozzies put up with this intrusive behaviour.
The manager told me that thieves stuff stolen goods inside their clothes too - so I asked him if the next thing they were going to do was to ask people to remove their clothing. He didn't find that amusing at all.
I am so surprised that the Ozzies put up with this intrusive behaviour.
The manager told me that thieves stuff stolen goods inside their clothes too - so I asked him if the next thing they were going to do was to ask people to remove their clothing. He didn't find that amusing at all.
