Zeller's Aggressive Theft Policy

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

When I read the Husdon's Bay Co vs. White it stated

40 The specific types of relief sought by The Bay in this action are not the appropriate subject for civil recovery from the defendant. In keeping with traditional tort law, The Bay will have judgment for trespass against the defendant in the nominal amount of $100 together with costs assessed in accordance with the Small Claims Court tariff pursuant to rule 57.05(3).

I am not a lawyer by any stretch but I have to wonder if $595 would be considered a nominal amount.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This is like the RIAA telling people to pay $10,000 fines for sharing 3 songs.

Which is entirely ridiculous. Too bad electing the Conservatives pretty mush ensured we'll get DCMA for Canada.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by moon

No they don't take that loss they change their security practices.

Which means they have to spend more money just because some kid can't keep his hands from grabbing something and putting in their pocket. Don't get me wrong I think the $600 'penalty' for these parents in a bit much but at the same time Zellers (or HBC) has to protect their business from theives, 13 year old boys stealing chocolate bars or 40 year old men stealing $900 TVs. Stealing is stealing and even though this is a stupid little kid (most of us have been there making stupid choices as a kid) they need to send a message. And their message is loud and clear, steal from us and it will cost you so go steal from the corner store.

[jar_e]

Zellers goes to court quite regularly as victims of smaller shoplifting items, so they definitely aren't just saying they will.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Zellers goes to court quite regularly as victims of smaller shoplifting items, so they definitely aren't just saying they will.

Source? I find it hard to believe they'd go to court over something as petty as a $15 lip gloss.

[postman56]

The offense was on the evening of Friday the 6th of May, they had the letter in the mail stamped on the 11th. It would be unlikely anyone at either HBC-Zellers or this so called law firm spend two minutes reviewing what took place, whether charges where actually laid,which they weren't and what item or items were taken (all returned) and the value of such!
From other form letters parents have received it's either $400,or $695.00 the recovery fine, pick one!!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have no problem with it at all. If parents are unable to properly school their child in right and wrong then they deserve to have the financial penalty attributed to them.

You obviously don't have kids.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Source? I find it hard to believe they'd go to court over something as petty as a $15 lip gloss.

Check your PM's.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Those fines are absurd.

It is already expensive enough to raise kids as is, ......make the kid volunteer at some charity events, or some other kind of community service, ...maybe with the parent.

When me and an old friend were about 11 we smashed a dozen windows at a closed down school. It was fun while it lasted but we got caught and the police made my dad pay for it. I felt bad about that in hindsight.....

[V]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have no problem with it at all. If parents are unable to properly school their child in right and wrong then they deserve to have the financial penalty attributed to them.

When I was around 14 or 15 I shoplifted quite often. I would usually take a couple chocolate bars every time I went to the local Safeway, usually numerous times a week.

The guy at Safeway finally caught on after months of shoplifting and approached me as I was leaving the store. He told me if I walked out the door with the stuff that he would call the cops and my parents, so I emptied my pockets and left unscathed. Never shoplifted again.

To insinuate that my parents didn't properly raise me is absurd. They did a phenomenal job. Still didn't stop me from being a thieving d-bag at one point in my teenage years.

Anonymity is awesome. I don't think I've ever told anyone about this story before, not even my wife.

[SHOGUN]

Just saw a dude getting arrested at Safeway which apparently he was shoplifting... he was caught by an undercover cop.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by V

When I was around 14 or 15 I shoplifted quite often. I would usually take a couple chocolate bars every time I went to the local Safeway, usually numerous times a week.

The guy at Safeway finally caught on after months of shoplifting and approached me as I was leaving the store. He told me if I walked out the door with the stuff that he would call the cops and my parents, so I emptied my pockets and left unscathed. Never shoplifted again.

To insinuate that my parents didn't properly raise me is absurd. They did a phenomenal job. Still didn't stop me from being a thieving d-bag at one point in my teenage years.

Anonymity is awesome. I don't think I've ever told anyone about this story before, not even my wife.

This story is about a smart employee, and a pretty bright kid too. I hate thieves more than most people have the ability to, but you realized what was going on when your parents were brought into it, and learned your lesson. That's the most important part.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

When I read the Husdon's Bay Co vs. White it stated



I am not a lawyer by any stretch but I have to wonder if $595 would be considered a nominal amount.

Court costs can be expensive, but Zellers wouldn't be very likely to get costs in a situation like this. In fact, they wouldn't even win: Note that they're not demanding compensation from the shoplifter, but from the shoplifter's parents. Even if they could normally sue in trespass (and I guess they could... but their damages claimed are a bit wild and crazy), the fact is against the shoplifter's parents they don't have a leg to stand on.

They're relying on uneducated people who don't know their rights being intimidated by a demand letter from a law firm and paying up.

Zellers has been doing this for years--and I'm kind of surprised that they're STILL doing it, because in B(DC) v Arkin, Zellers' solicitor was sued by the parents of a shoplifter for recovery of money paid pursuant to a letter pretty much exactly like this.

Zellers was ordered to pay the money back, and costs were awarded to the parents. The court basically slapped Zellers down, saying (not in as many words) that a letter like this is basically a shakedown, and that Zellers and their solicitors clearly knew or ought to have known that they had no chance in court. In fact, the judge was a bit nasty to the lawyer involved, saying this:

Mr. Arkin was not called as a witness at this trial and so we do not have the benefit of what his opinion of the claim was. But I assume that as a competent and responsible lawyer, he knew or ought to have known that the claim had no prospect whatsoever of succeeding in court and that it would be futile to pursue it.

Which stops just short, I guess, of saying that the lawyer WASN'T "competent and responsible." At any rate, if Zellers didn't know that they were legally SOL BEFORE 1996, certainly they know now. My guess is they make enough money off of intimidation and shakedowns that they don't care if they have no actual chance in court.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I don't think that it does. When I asked you, I wasn't sure if the letter had been written by a lawyer or someone from the loss recovery department (that was not a lawyer). If it was a lawyer, I agree that there would be an ethical issue at play and the author should not mislead the potential defendant. I do not think the text of the letter posted is misleading.

If the letter was written by a non-lawyer then I don't think the author would/should be held to the same high ethical standards.

I suppose you can send a demand letter including whatever bogus demands you want to; but to me it does straddle an ethical line, because their clear intention is that people who don't understand the law will just pay up, and then their only cost is a stamp and a half hour of whatever this guy costs:
http://hydellp.com/

But people take letters from lawyers seriously, and they're at a disadvantage when they see legal language that they can't understand. The court in Arkin didn't exactly say "don't do this," but they did intimate that it skirts the line a little bit.

Let me put it to you this way: I can send a demand letter to the King of Persia demanding 1,000 kittens if I want to; he probably has access to lawyers who will advise him I should get bent. A single mother of a teenage boy may not realize that she should give Zellers the same advice without talking to a lawyer, which she can't afford to do; she might as well just pay up.

Also, to me it's a bit interesting that they're using this Hyde guy instead of whichever megafirm usually represents HBC.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suppose you can send a demand letter including whatever bogus demands you want to; but to me it does straddle an ethical line, because their clear intention is that people who don't understand the law will just pay up, and then their only cost is a stamp and a half hour of whatever this guy costs:
http://hydellp.com/

But people take letters from lawyers seriously, and they're at a disadvantage when they see legal language that they can't understand. The court in Arkin didn't exactly say "don't do this," but they did intimate that it skirts the line a little bit.

Let me put it to you this way: I can send a demand letter to the King of Persia demanding 1,000 kittens if I want to; he probably has access to lawyers who will advise him I should get bent. A single mother of a teenage boy may not realize that she should give Zellers the same advice without talking to a lawyer, which she can't afford to do; she might as well just pay up.

Also, to me it's a bit interesting that they're using this Hyde guy instead of whichever megafirm usually represents HBC.

The point I was responding to was that a demand letter doesn't have to tell the potential defendant that they can simply ignore the demand altogether. In fairness to valo, I don't think that's what he was suggesting.

I hadn't read Arkin before making the post you quoted. Having now done so and considered the opinion of the court where compensation sought from the parents was a dubious claim, I tend to agree that this practice does walk a fine ethical line. I'm pretty sure I took an oath at some point that I wouldn't promote frivolous suits. Some, including the judge in Arkin, might think that this fits that description.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Also, to me it's a bit interesting that they're using this Hyde guy instead of whichever megafirm usually represents HBC.

This guy is probably willing to work on "contingency." Another way of saying that would be he gets to keep a portion of the money he pries out of people who aren't educated enought to tell him to shove it.

Also, a mega-firm might not be willing to do this work, since their reputations have significant value.

[Wormius]

How about if you take the "innocent child" scenario out of it. Is it really that aggressive of a stance? What punishment would be reasonable if you compare it to speeding or parking illegally? You could argue that speeding and parking tickets are not reasonable because your speeding didn't cost anybody anything, and your parking only lost the city/impark the $3/hour or whatever it is now.

The content of the letter looks fine. It is menacing enough to scare those who are less knowledgeable and maybe more prone to shoplifting at a Zellers.

I don't know why people are dissing Zellers though, at least its not Walmart.