sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
--
Last edited by sally_1912; 1 year ago
0
reply
LoliGod
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
The punishment for this would depend on whether the lorry driver knew there were leftovers, if he knew then it can be considered theft
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by sally_1912)
Hi all,

I'm having some trouble with a Law question regarding theft (at least I think its theft). Is it theft if you, a lorry driver, keep some leftover building material (that is being used for construction and belongs to whoever is building), and then sell it to another building firm before delivering the rest to the construction site?? Its basically selling leftover material but I don't know if the lorry driver would be liable for theft because he did deliver the rest of the materials to the original owner and just sold the leftover ones. It may be straightforward but I just want to make sure.
You need to go through the various elements of the offence of Theft, and check if each one is satisfied. If you cannot satisfy every element, the offence of theft has not been committed.

1. Has there been an (intentional) appropriation of property? See s.3 and s.4 of the 1968 Act
2. Did the property belong to another (at the time of appropriation)? See s.5 of the 1968 Act. Bear in mind the very restrictive case law on abandonment of property (R v Roston; Williams v Phillips)
3. Did the defendant know the property belonged to another?
4. Was there an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property?
5. Was the appropriation dishonest? - Remember that dishonesty is judged by the standards of the ordinary man in the context of the defendant's knowledge/belief (See Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd; R v Hayes)
1
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
The fact pattern of this question is bizarre, and how this works would depend very heavily on the exact wording - although it's possible that this is what is being sought (a discussion of the possibilities rather than a straight up IRAC).

However, from the outset, if D is simply a delivery driver and he has 10 bricks on his van, of which he knows that 7 must be delivered to Smith, and he sells 3 to Jones before delivering to Smith, then by going through the 5 fingers of theft, you would have your answer.

The only possible defences I can see would be extremely circumstantial - such as D is given 10 bricks and told the rest are to be disposed of, or D has some kind of proprietary interest in the property, rather than being simply a delivery driver.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Trinculo)
The fact pattern of this question is bizarre, and how this works would depend very heavily on the exact wording - although it's possible that this is what is being sought (a discussion of the possibilities rather than a straight up IRAC).

However, from the outset, if D is simply a delivery driver and he has 10 bricks on his van, of which he knows that 7 must be delivered to Smith, and he sells 3 to Jones before delivering to Smith, then by going through the 5 fingers of theft, you would have your answer.

The only possible defences I can see would be extremely circumstantial - such as D is given 10 bricks and told the rest are to be disposed of, or D has some kind of proprietary interest in the property, rather than being simply a delivery driver.
The thing is that the question doesn't specify how much material has to be delivered to the owners. It just says Barry (driver) works out how much material is left over from his deliveries for the construction of the motorway and then sells the leftovers to another building firm before he drives to sell the rest to the actual construction firm. I'm thinking maybe this could fall under S 5 (3) where he used the property in a different way from the actual purpose (which is to deliver the material). But he did deliver the material, just not all of it. So would it still fall under theft at all? It feels like I'm trying too hard totto prove did commit theft but what if he didn't.

Furthermore, it says the police showed up in the end. So I'm guessing he did something wrong.
Last edited by sally_1912; 1 year ago
0
reply
Siberiaan
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
It took me a worryingly long period of time to realise this was a hypothetical.
0
reply
MidgetFever
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by TSR Mustafa)
It took me a worryingly long period of time to realise this was a hypothetical.
Even after being in Law Study Help?
0
reply
Siberiaan
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by MidgetFever)
Even after being in Law Study Help?
Good point xD
0
reply
FRS500
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Go through the elements of dishonesty. On the face of it D clearly:

- appropriated X
- property X
- belonging to another X
- with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it X

What you need to do is ascertain whether or not it was dishonest. Did they not give any further info in the problem question?
1
reply
Catherine1973
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
we also covered freegamism in our theft course, dumpster diving, which is sort of similar to this - can you take stuff that has been left out for the bin man? or items put in icelands bins?

(just to expand the essay a bit in different ways)
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by sally_1912)
The thing is that the question doesn't specify how much material has to be delivered to the owners. It just says Barry (driver) works out how much material is left over from his deliveries for the construction of the motorway and then sells the leftovers to another building firm before he drives to sell the rest to the actual construction firm. I'm thinking maybe this could fall under S 5 (3) where he used the property in a different way from the actual purpose (which is to deliver the material). But he did deliver the material, just not all of it. So would it still fall under theft at all? It feels like I'm trying too hard totto prove did commit theft but what if he didn't.

Furthermore, it says the police showed up in the end. So I'm guessing he did something wrong.
My concern would be making this a far more complex answer than it needs to be. It's either a really clever or really stupid question.

On its face, I would look to answer the question in the most straightforward manner possible - and then add the caveats. So I would look at it from the point of - the materials don't belong to Barry, ergo there is dishonesty, then work on what you might have as a defence. The thing that makes me think it may be a complex question is the careful rubric of the question - how the question is saying that Barry works it out *before* leaving. This may point toward dishonesty. It's not what is actually left over, but what Barry has calculated to be left over - and the property can't possibly be described as being abandoned - which is something that may have to be covered. The property still has an owner, and there is no indication (unless you cover it in your caveats) that surplus materials are to be disposed of. It would take something quite explicit like "anything left over is yours" or "I don't want anything brought back". However this wouldn't cover situations such as the customer asking for more at the time of delivery, or the deliveries being cancelled. Again, the question is quite odd in that it describes building materials, not perishables - which would make more sense if surplus were to be abandoned.

One argument is that by selling what he believes *will* be a surplus, Barry is really committing a tort of conversion. If, and only if the company had a policy that any surplus was to be disposed of could he be acting in good faith - and even then, he would have to be selling it *after* his deliveries, not before. It's something that you'd have to read the caselaw on, understand converting property and then write your own arguments on.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Trinculo)
My concern would be making this a far more complex answer than it needs to be. It's either a really clever or really stupid question.

On its face, I would look to answer the question in the most straightforward manner possible - and then add the caveats. So I would look at it from the point of - the materials don't belong to Barry, ergo there is dishonesty, then work on what you might have as a defence. The thing that makes me think it may be a complex question is the careful rubric of the question - how the question is saying that Barry works it out *before* leaving. This may point toward dishonesty. It's not what is actually left over, but what Barry has calculated to be left over - and the property can't possibly be described as being abandoned - which is something that may have to be covered. The property still has an owner, and there is no indication (unless you cover it in your caveats) that surplus materials are to be disposed of. It would take something quite explicit like "anything left over is yours" or "I don't want anything brought back". However this wouldn't cover situations such as the customer asking for more at the time of delivery, or the deliveries being cancelled. Again, the question is quite odd in that it describes building materials, not perishables - which would make more sense if surplus were to be abandoned.

One argument is that by selling what he believes *will* be a surplus, Barry is really committing a tort of conversion. If, and only if the company had a policy that any surplus was to be disposed of could he be acting in good faith - and even then, he would have to be selling it *after* his deliveries, not before. It's something that you'd have to read the caselaw on, understand converting property and then write your own arguments on.
ahh okay, thanks, we were only taught to an extent on Theft and all we do is just see if the facts meet the actus reus and men's rea elements of theft. I'm not really looking for a defence, the question asks what could Barry be charged with, so I'm trying to prove that he's either committed theft or he wouldn't be liable.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
thanks, I've been trying to go through the elements but keep thinking I'm trying too hard to prove that he's liable. Sometimes they try to trip you up. Also, I've been searching for a case similar to this scenario but I can't find it, do you remember what it's called?
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
Thanks!
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by FRS500)
Go through the elements of dishonesty. On the face of it D clearly:

- appropriated X
- property X
- belonging to another X
- with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it X

What you need to do is ascertain whether or not it was dishonest. Did they not give any further info in the problem question?
It mentions that D works out usually how much is left over and keeps that to the side. He sells those leftovers to another building firm on his truck route before delivering the rest to the construction site (original owners). So you could say yes he was dishonest. He also drove away as soon as he saw a police car waiting for him at the construction site.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (13)
29.55%
As I expected (12)
27.27%
Harder (17)
38.64%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (2)
4.55%

Watched Threads

View All