"Well done!" A woman took her child to the supermarket, and the child was too thirsty, so the woman asked the child to drink directly in the supermarket, and then took the empty bottle to the checkout. As a result, the boss said that the woman was involved in theft and demanded that the woman pay ten times the compensation.
In November 2020, a very controversial incident occurred somewhere, where a mother brought her own child into a supermarket to shop.
During the shopping, the child held his mother's hand, kept saying that he was thirsty, and then kept his eyes on the drink next to him.
The mother knew in her heart that the child was not only thirsty, but also greedy, she picked up the drink, and planned to wait for the payment to give the child to drink, but then imagined that there seemed to be no conflict between drinking now and drinking after checkout, anyway, only one bottle was enough for the checkout.
The child was really hungry, and after a few sips, the mother put the empty bottle on the shopping cart and took it to the front desk to pay for it.
Unexpectedly, when the supermarket owner saw the empty bottle, his face changed greatly, and he directly told the mother that she drank the drink without paying the bill, which was an act of theft.
According to the rules of their supermarket, "stealing one will pay ten", that is, the boss thinks that the mother will compensate them ten times the price of the supermarket for drinks.
The mother was stunned, she was going to drink this drink anyway, and she didn't sneak away with the drink, how could it be theft.
For the compensation demanded by the boss, the mother refused to pay, and even directly picked up her mobile phone to call the police, ready to let the matter be handed over to the police to solve.
The reason why the mother does not make "compensation" is very simple, she thinks that she is not stealing, and there is no such thing as compensation, if he really makes compensation, then it will not admit that she stole something, which is a major damage to her reputation and to the psychology of her children.
The boss insisted that the mother was stealing and should be punished, while the mother did not think that she was stealing, because she would pay the bill, and it was a concept to mention the use of credit.
After the video of the quarrel between the two was uploaded to the Internet, it attracted the attention of the majority of netizens, and the opinions and ideas of netizens were also different.
Some netizens said that he often does such things, and he is too thirsty, so he directly picks up the water and drinks a few sips first, and then goes to check out after quenching his thirst, and the boss will not say anything.
This boss is so picky and tricky, most of it is because he has his own problems, maybe he is a black-hearted businessman who wants to cheat customers' money, and even ruined the customer's reputation for some black-hearted money.
Some netizens said that the supermarket customers should not eat the goods at will, if they are too thirsty, they should seek the opinions of the staff, and eating them privately is a violation in itself, if everyone is like this, then the rules and order in the supermarket will be chaotic.
In the end, many lawyers came forward to speak out, and one of them said that the mother's behavior had actually constituted a tort.
Because she did not have the right to dispose of the goods in the supermarket, she had to compensate for the goods, but according to the Tort Liability Law.
This mother also doesn't need the so-called "stealing one to pay ten", and "stealing one to pay ten" has never been a legal regulation, so she has no need to fulfill it.
Moreover, after the infringement was constituted, the mother immediately went to the counter to pay the bill, which is actually her son's obligation to compensate.
To put it bluntly, according to the lawyer, the mother did violate laws and regulations by letting her children drink without buying drinks, resulting in infringement.
But she also made corresponding compensation in the end, and this compensation is also very simple, that is, to buy this bottle and pay the due price of this bottle.
Some lawyers also said that if they want to say that it is illegal, it should be that the supermarket and the supermarket owner are illegal, and the mother and his child do not have any illegal acts.
The definition of theft in the law is very strict, and people cannot be charged with theft casually.
The so-called theft is both illegal possession and secret theft, and looking at the mother's behavior throughout the whole process, it has nothing to do with illegal possession and secret theft.
She was so honest that she let the child drink the drink, and in full view, she finally paid for it with an empty bottle, and there was no theft at all.
Later, the supermarket owner stopped the mother who tried to pay for the bill with a thief's hat and forcibly restricted her freedom, causing great mental damage to her and her children.
If the mother wants to defend her rights through legal channels and sue the supermarket and the supermarket owner, the probability of success is very high, because the supermarket owner has already constituted the crime of illegal detention.
In fact, the key to solving this incident lies in a human relationship, if the supermarket owner is reasonable and does not insist on death, they will not have a dispute at all, and the mother will pay the bill and go home happily with the child.
But the supermarket owner was unreasonable, the mother could only solve the problem by calling the police, the police came to understand the whole thing, and also felt that the supermarket owner's stealing was too outrageous, so the mother bought the bill and left, and the matter ended.
Resources:
Observer.com - Is it reasonable to pay after drinking drinks in a supermarket, and ask for ten times the compensation for the alleged theft?
