Law Question [torts] (1 Viewer)

[Cookiez_n_Cream]

hey, I was wondering if anyone could help me out with a tutorial question that I have for my business law unit.

A) Sheila went to Target in the Hay Street Mall and found an "Alf" doll on the shelf with a price tag of $33. Alf was a talking doll who, when you squeezed his arm, could recite more than 100 insults and swear words. She took Alf to one of the check-out lines but the cashier refused to take her money because, apparently, the price sticker had a typographical error (or just as likely, had been switched around by a vandal). The correct price was $79. Can Sheila insist that they sell her Alf for $33?

B) Alternative scenario: Alf is correctly priced at $79 but it was a busy Friday night and there was a long line at every cashier. Rather than miss the start of the movie at Hoyt's Cinema where she was meeting some friends, Sheila dashed for the exit. Not wanting to take the time to replace it on the shelf, Sheila put Alf onto the floor and kicked it out of sight under a piece of furniture. Unfortunately, the continuous pressure from being jammed in under the furniture soon caused Alf to swear himself to death before he could be rescued (his little motor overheated and expired!). Alf was repairable at a cost of $65. A security guard witnessed all this and lightly tapped Sheila on the shoulder before she reached the only exit to the store. He stated:

"You must go rescue that Alf doll and purchase it. Otherwise, you stay right here while I call the police on this mobile phone."

Sheila responded:

"I'm in a rush and have to go, but if you have a problem here is my business card with my picture, address and telephone number on it. You can find me if you have to."

The security guard just repeated his statement that Sheila had to buy the damaged goods or wait for the police.

Must Sheila do either?

Consider carefully the potential causes of actions between Sheila and Target under the alternative scenario. (keep in mind the doctrine of "vicarious liability", though you do NOT have to discuss that doctrine)

***

The thing that I'm not sure about with A) is what area of torts (if any!) it falls into. I have a feeling that this question has to do with the Sales of goods act but we haven't covered that in class yet. So I'm just really unsure about it.


For the most part I understand B) but we have limited notes in our texts on this area of torts, does anyone have any extra advice?

So does anyone have any like tips or anything at all to help me tackle the question … I’m not trying to get our of doing my work and I don’t expect anyone to like totally write the answer or anything but I just find this situation weird in relation to the things we’ve been learning.

thanks

 

[Cookiez_n_Cream]

Well, the unit is intro to law udy is and one of the areas of studies is torts. I thought part A could possibly refer to the tort of deceit(?) or interference with contractual relations. Part B of the question I think refers to partly false imprisionment and maybe negligence.

See the problem is that I think the situations that were given were hard to match to any of the course work we've done...

 

[Minai]

Well, the unit is intro to law udy is and one of the areas of studies is torts. I thought part A could possibly refer to the tort of deceit(?) or interference with contractual relations. Part B of the question I think refers to partly false imprisionment and maybe negligence.

See the problem is that I think the situations that were given were hard to match to any of the course work we've done...

What the hell does vicarious liability have to do with anything?
I can only see the store being v.liable for any alleged negligence of the security guard

 

[Minai]

so where does vicarious liability come into it?

 

[pigs_can_fly]

it seems to me like these are just hypotheticals but no acts or omissions have yet been committed, so i really can't see that an actual 'tort' has been committed. part a) i think isn't a tort rite? and part b) perhaps there's false imprisonment if the security guard had unlawfully detained her??!?!?!

 

[Ziff]

Least helpful thread I have ever seen.

 

[santaslayer]

hey, I was wondering if anyone could help me out with a tutorial question that I have for my business law unit.

A) Sheila went to Target in the Hay Street Mall and found an "Alf" doll on the shelf with a price tag of $33. Alf was a talking doll who, when you squeezed his arm, could recite more than 100 insults and swear words. She took Alf to one of the check-out lines but the cashier refused to take her money because, apparently, the price sticker had a typographical error (or just as likely, had been switched around by a vandal). The correct price was $79. Can Sheila insist that they sell her Alf for $33?

B) Alternative scenario: Alf is correctly priced at $79 but it was a busy Friday night and there was a long line at every cashier. Rather than miss the start of the movie at Hoyt's Cinema where she was meeting some friends, Sheila dashed for the exit. Not wanting to take the time to replace it on the shelf, Sheila put Alf onto the floor and kicked it out of sight under a piece of furniture. Unfortunately, the continuous pressure from being jammed in under the furniture soon caused Alf to swear himself to death before he could be rescued (his little motor overheated and expired!). Alf was repairable at a cost of $65. A security guard witnessed all this and lightly tapped Sheila on the shoulder before she reached the only exit to the store. He stated:

"You must go rescue that Alf doll and purchase it. Otherwise, you stay right here while I call the police on this mobile phone."

Sheila responded:

"I'm in a rush and have to go, but if you have a problem here is my business card with my picture, address and telephone number on it. You can find me if you have to."

The security guard just repeated his statement that Sheila had to buy the damaged goods or wait for the police.

Must Sheila do either?

Consider carefully the potential causes of actions between Sheila and Target under the alternative scenario. (keep in mind the doctrine of "vicarious liability", though you do NOT have to discuss that doctrine)

***

The thing that I'm not sure about with A) is what area of torts (if any!) it falls into. I have a feeling that this question has to do with the Sales of goods act but we haven't covered that in class yet. So I'm just really unsure about it.


For the most part I understand B) but we have limited notes in our texts on this area of torts, does anyone have any extra advice?

So does anyone have any like tips or anything at all to help me tackle the question … I’m not trying to get our of doing my work and I don’t expect anyone to like totally write the answer or anything but I just find this situation weird in relation to the things we’ve been learning.

thanks

1) Where's Lazarus?

a) Isn't that about Contract Law? Something to do with invitation to treat? The displaying of a good and pricing of it does not automatically give consent to the potential consumer to purchase it. I don't see any tort involved?


b) I have no idea. Sounds like what you would read in a comic book or something. Sorry.

 

[Lazarus]

There are a few potential tortious actions... nothing major though. I've written up the first few things that came to mind when I read through your post - you'll want to investigate further though.

A) Sheila went to Target in the Hay Street Mall and found an "Alf" doll on the shelf with a price tag of $33. Alf was a talking doll who, when you squeezed his arm, could recite more than 100 insults and swear words. She took Alf to one of the check-out lines but the cashier refused to take her money because, apparently, the price sticker had a typographical error (or just as likely, had been switched around by a vandal). The correct price was $79. Can Sheila insist that they sell her Alf for $33?

Contract
This scenario is covered by standard contract law - as SantaSlayer said, the display of an item on a shelf (even with a price tag) does not constitute an offer and is merely an invitation to treat: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists. Sheila is therefore making an offer to the store to purchase the Alf doll for $33, which the store is entitled to reject.

Tort
It could potentially be argued that the store was negligent in failing to ensure that the proper price tags were displayed. However, as no harm has been suffered, there can no action for negligence. Alternatively, the store may have made a negligent misstatement when advertising the lower price...

B) Alternative scenario: Alf is correctly priced at $79 but it was a busy Friday night and there was a long line at every cashier. Rather than miss the start of the movie at Hoyt's Cinema where she was meeting some friends, Sheila dashed for the exit. Not wanting to take the time to replace it on the shelf, Sheila put Alf onto the floor and kicked it out of sight under a piece of furniture. Unfortunately, the continuous pressure from being jammed in under the furniture soon caused Alf to swear himself to death before he could be rescued (his little motor overheated and expired!). Alf was repairable at a cost of $65.

The damage to the Alf doll may constitute an act of conversion. Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another: Maynegrain v Compafina. Sheila would be liable for damages to the full value of the goods: Howard Perry v British Railway. Upon payment of those damages, ownership of the doll will pass to Sheila.

A security guard witnessed all this and lightly tapped Sheila on the shoulder before she reached the only exit to the store.

It could be argued that the guard's physical contact constituted battery. However, as a "light tap" is the type of thing that is likely to occur in everyday life, the claim will not be actionable.

He stated:

"You must go rescue that Alf doll and purchase it. Otherwise, you stay right here while I call the police on this mobile phone."

Sheila responded:

"I'm in a rush and have to go, but if you have a problem here is my business card with my picture, address and telephone number on it. You can find me if you have to."

The security guard just repeated his statement that Sheila had to buy the damaged goods or wait for the police.

Must Sheila do either?

Sheila's refusal to return the Alf doll to the store could potentially constitute an act of detinue. Detinue is the wrongful retention of goods following their lawful demand for return: Horsley v Phillips Fine Art. If the claim is successful, Sheila would be liable for damages to the full value of the goods: Howard Perry v British Railway. Such a claim is unlikely to succeed, however, as the doll was never taken from the store.

The guard's statement to Sheila, instructing her to remain in the store, may also constitute false imprisonment. A person is falsely imprisoned where, due to the act of another, they are imprisoned in a closed area with no reasonable means of escape. (It's been a while since I've done false imprisonment, can't quite remember the tests.) Sheila would be entitled to nominal damages, if successful.

Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, Target may also be liable for any of the guard's actions if they were performed in the course of his employment.

 

[Cookiez_n_Cream]

thanks laz..

Thanks for the help with the question. I was also wondering if buying a good from a store and carrying it to a the counter would be considered bailment?

And I was looking for information about the "if you break it you buy it"(the alternative) theory. Is it just conversion and detinue? Because that's what I originally thought but those two torts refer to "chattels" ~ personal property, not retail...

A lot of people have said that the question is a bit vague and we're not allowed to refer to the sales of goods act.

 

[Cookiez_n_Cream]

Another thing...

Would it be trespass to chattels instead of conversion in the alternative situation. Because conversion is normally either theft or unrepairable damage and trespass to chatel is minor damage.

But then why would a retailer try to resell repaired damaged goods ....


Is there a distinction between these two in the case of retail?

 

[Frigid]

regards the first scenario also, isn't there some retailers' regulation that should an item be advertised at the shelf at lower than the scanned price, the advertised price is accepted?

(*not being sycophantic*) as ultra-pedantic laz is, tim, at least he realises the dialetic nature of the scenario and accordingly makes arguments for both sides.

 

[Ch00]

what a stupid set of questions...

 

[santaslayer]

regards the first scenario also, isn't there some retailers' regulation that should an item be advertised at the shelf at lower than the scanned price, the advertised price is accepted?.

I always thought that was an act of goodwill from the company rather than a regulation?

 

[Lazarus]

I was also wondering if buying a good from a store and carrying it to a the counter would be considered bailment?

I suppose it's arguable... it's not really the intuitive characterisation of the law, though.

And I was looking for information about the "if you break it you buy it"(the alternative) theory. Is it just conversion and detinue? Because that's what I originally thought but those two torts refer to "chattels" ~ personal property, not retail...

As far as I'm aware, there is no distinction between "trespass to chattels" and the torts of conversion and detinue - the latter are simply the torts that correspond to the former. The "you break it, you bought it" doctrine is really just the equivalent of a successful action in conversion.

Retail goods are the personal property of the vendor. Personal in the sense that some entity has title in them.

I always thought that was an act of goodwill from the company rather than a regulation?

I'm inclined to agree... unless it's specified in legislation somewhere.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I agree with my brethren Lazarus CJ for the reasons given in his spiel

I would add a few words on the following:

(a) False imprisonment on the part of the security guard
For false imprisonment there must be total restraint, entailing no reasonable means of escape. Certainly psychological imprisonment fulfils this criteron as recognised by the courts. See Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447; It would be more persuassive if we were told of her actions - whether there was a submission to the security guard's will.

(b) Battery on the part of the security guard
There is no doubt that a tap on the shoulder could be a battery. See Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd - any touching of another person, however slight may amount to a battery. The question seems to be whether the physical contact was in excess of that "generally acceptable in everyday life." On the facts here, it seems very reasonable, and subsequently acceptable.

(c) Conversion - alf
I will just mention that destruction of the chattel is conversion: Atkinson v Richardson.

(d) Bailment - alf
There is no bailment. A bailment arises from a relationship between two or more people concerning an object delivered with the promise to redeliver the exact same thing. I don't see the logic in saying there was a bailment here.

(e) 'Trespass to the chattel' - alf
Although the action should specifically go under conversion, broadly this requires an intentional/negligent act which directly interferes with the with the plaintiff’s possession of a chattel without lawful justification. However the plaintiff must have actual or constructive possession at the time of interference.

(f) The price tag
This is an interesting one. It is certainly the policy of many department stores that if you have two prices, the tag and the scanned price, you will get the lower price. However once when a customer told me that "it was the law" I informed them politely that, though it was our policy, it was not in fact "the law," for the reasons given by Laz. The only other thing I can think of, which you probably haven't been told to look at, is misleading and deceptive conduct - TPA.

(g) Alf
"being jammed in under the furniture soon caused Alf to swear himself to death"
hahaha


Hope this helps

 

[Fcuk!]

Just have a question bout negligent torts – if you are (x) at a supermarket and another customer (y) drops a liquid product on the floor (unintentionally) which you then slip on and break your leg, do you (x) sue the supermarket or the customer (y)? are there any cases similar to this?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Just have a question bout negligent torts – if you are (x) at a supermarket and another customer (y) drops a liquid product on the floor (unintentionally) which you then slip on and break your leg, do you (x) sue the supermarket or the customer (y)? are there any cases similar to this?

Sue both. Of course, the Supermarket will probably have more money.

Closest I can think of is Franklins Limited v Hunter [1998], but that doesnt have multiple respondants.

 

[Frigid]

Just have a question bout negligent torts – if you are (x) at a supermarket and another customer (y) drops a liquid product on the floor (unintentionally) which you then slip on and break your leg, do you (x) sue the supermarket or the customer (y)? are there any cases similar to this?

my pre-tort law gut instinct tells me you sue customer (y).

 

[Fcuk!]

thanks for your replies. i thought it might be the supermarket where it is their responsibility to keep the supermarket in a certain condition. could you bring a seperate action against both of them?

 

[Fcuk!]

thats what i thought. in a case where theres a company/organisation involved and mutiple respondents, is there a way to determine who you can sue? and if its both, through seperate actions or in the same?