Does paying after drinking a supermarket drink constitute theft?
Case
Recently, a short video platform has such a news that has attracted the attention of netizens.
When a mother took her child to shop in the supermarket, because the child was too thirsty, the mother took a bottle of drink from the shelf and opened it for a few sips.
In her opinion, this seems to be a normal little thing.
However, there was a dispute with the supermarket owner during the checkout.
At that time, the mother took the opened beverage bottle to the counter to scan the code, but the supermarket owner refused to check out.
He believes that drinking a drink in advance is theft without paying for the bill, and demanded 10 times the compensation.
But the mother was unhappy. She thought that the child could not help but drank the drink ahead of time. She would definitely pay the original price afterwards. Why was it theft?
Is it theft if you drink a drink and then pay?
In the comment area at the bottom of the short video, more than 20,000 netizens interacted and left messages online, but most netizens chose to stand on the same "front" with the fined mother.
A netizen named "Axin" said in a message, "Conscientiously taking a bottle to check out is not considered stealing. Those who stole a penalty of ten should be those who patted their butt and left after drinking."
A netizen named "Fengyin Liuxu" said, "This kind of judgment is arbitrary. After all, there is no escape from the order, and it can be communicated in a humane manner. This is not an example, and the supermarket has no right of punishment."
A netizen named "Uncle Bing" also commented, "There is a practical case in law. The supermarket invites the price when the price is clearly stated, and the customer promises at checkout that the customer drinks a drink and the transaction contract between the two parties is determined to be effective, and the customer can check out. It is not illegal. , And thirst is an emergency measure to protect the right to life!"
However, there are very few netizens who hold the opposite attitude.
A netizen named "Kendezhai Calligraphy and Painting Study" said that as long as you don't pay for things in the supermarket, the ownership of the purchased goods is still in the supermarket, and there is no legal basis for you to use the goods before you pay.
Only after you pay, the sales contract between you and the supermarket will take effect.
Interpretation
It’s not uncommon to drink drinks before paying in supermarkets, but isn’t it true that this mother’s behavior is theft?
In this regard, lawyer Yu Han of Beijing Barry Law Firm explained it from three aspects.
Does the mother constitute a criminal or administrative violation?
First, analyze whether the mother constitutes the crime of theft. I personally think that the mother does not constitute a criminal offence.
According to the relevant provisions on the crime of theft in the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the crime of theft must satisfy the criminal constitution, which is the subject, subjective, object and objective aspects according to the general four elements.
The short video shows that after the mother gave the drink to the child, she did not hide the drink or leave the supermarket, but took the initiative to go to the checkout counter to sign out. Therefore, subjectively, the mother did not intentionally occupy the owner’s property illegally; objectively, the mother and the The supermarket owner had a dispute at the checkout counter, and the mother advocated payment, the perpetrator (mother) and the subject matter (drinks) were still in the supermarket, which belonged to the supermarket owner’s control range, and the mother did not implement it to make others lose their possessions. Therefore, the mother does not constitute the crime of theft under the Criminal Law.
Similarly, it does not meet the conditions for theft as stipulated in the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments, so there is no administrative violation.
Does the mother have civil liability?
From the perspective of contract law, a sales contract relationship will be formed between the supermarket and the customers who come to buy goods.
Article 14 of the "Contract Law" stipulates that an offer is an expression of the intention to enter into a contract with another person; Article 21 of the "Contract Law" stipulates that a promise is an expression of the intention of the offeree to agree to the offer; the second of the "Contract Law" According to Article 15, the contract shall be established when the acceptance becomes effective.
In this dispute, the supermarket placed the beverage on the shelf and marked that the price was an "offer", which meant that the mother entered the supermarket as a customer, confirmed the type of goods and accepted the price, and took the beverage from the shelf as a "commitment" "Means that at this time, the sale and purchase contract has been established.
However, there is no clear agreement on when the payment obligation will be fulfilled after the contract is established, so it is difficult to believe that the mother's behavior constitutes a violation of the contract.
There may be a view that it is a customary practice to check out and then use when shopping in a supermarket, but this view cannot be generalized. Take dining at a restaurant as an example. Some restaurants pay for the bill after the meal, while others pay for the meal first.
From the perspective of tort liability law, the main condition that constitutes tort liability is fault.
According to the foregoing, the mother in the incident was the buyer of the sales contract. When she obtained the drink from the shelf, the sales contract between her and the supermarket had been reached. She had the ability to perform the contract and also meant to pay the contract payment. Said that there is no fault in its behavior itself, so it does not constitute infringement.
Are there other legal liabilities for the incident involved?
On the contrary, the behavior of the supermarket owner mentioned in the short video is worth discussing.
The use of methods of intimidation, threats or coercion against the victim for the purpose of illegal possession, and the illegal possession of the victim’s public and private property, is the crime of extortion and extortion as stipulated in Article 274 of the Criminal Law of my country.
The short video shows that the supermarket owner intercepted his mother at the checkout counter. He knew that his mother had the intention to pay and did not want to steal the drink to avoid payment, but he still believed that his mother’s behavior was theft and demanded her payment. Ten times the compensation. As the owner of the supermarket, he has the ability to prevent the mother and child from leaving the supermarket unless he meets his requirements. Therefore, he may be considered as threatening the mother’s theft, causing mental coercion. Asking him for "compensation" may constitute an act of extortion, but because the value of the drink generally does not exceed 10 yuan, and the ten times compensation is less than 100 yuan, the amount cannot meet the standard for filing a case, so it cannot constitute the crime of extortion in the meaning of criminal law, but it may Comply with the behavioral conditions of extortion stipulated in the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments.
Text/Reporter Wang Jing