A game trading shop

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

cathy01 wrote: »

really the adhd shouldnt come into it.My point was more, taking candy from a baby type of thing.
wrong.
cathy

surely, it is, "taking candy from a baby and then paying them for it", as the most appropriate analogy?

parsi

I think that the OP will just have to get over it.

Kids have been hawking their possessions since time immemorial and starting to make it contingent upon receipts or being in the presence of their Mammy and Granny won't be appreciated.

In this case there isn't anybody at fault except maybe for junior not having full appreciation of his console but at the end of the day (to coin a phrase) it was a normal transaction.

chrislad

GameStop make you sign something to say the goods are yours. How can they possibly know what is stolen and what's not?

chuckles30

The problem here is between the mother and the son. The shop is the innocent party. They probably carry out this type of transaction with teenagers regularly and it's never question as the teenagers get what they want - new/updated games/consoles - and the shop makes some money, so everyone is happy.

Ian Beale

cathy01 wrote: »

My point was more, taking candy from a baby type of thing.
cathy

I've watched this thread since it was created and I have to say whats the point of this as you've read the t&c and theres nothing in the t&c about age restrictions?
The person went in and traded in their console,no legal obligation not to accept the trade in,the shops not at fault either way you look at it if the shop assistants said hey want to trade in your console and we'll give you €70 the kid still made the decision.
Its a business theres no legalities with a child selling something to them,in my view if a child is capable of communicating that he wants to trade in his console for cash then theres nothing ethically wrong with that.If it was a 5 year old now thats different but clearly this child madethe decision to trade it in.

tbh

well the point that the OP was making was that in law, no-one under 18 can enter a contract.

Ian Beale

Ah right now I see but in saying that there is nothing in the law that says a child can not exchange an item which he owns for cash/item,if there was any legal implications it would be in the t&c of all game shops to protect themselves from this kind of occurence,which I just had a look at the major ones and theres no age restrictions.
Chuckles30 was right when he said this was between mother and son and the shop was an innocent party,if someone is willing to trade in their console that they received as a present without consulting the giver well then that falls on their shoulders and not the shops as someone else has said the shop was happy and the kid was happy,if the parent was unhappy with it well then they'll have to have a word with the kid the shop fulfilled their obligation.
No-one under 18 can enter a contract - I think thats a little to broad in saying that, a 6 year old going into a shop and buying some sweets shouldn't be allowed because s/he is entering a contract by handing over money for the item.So what would be done about that?At the end of the day the responsibility is with the kid not the shop,there not under any obligation to return the console as they fulfilled their part of the agreement and so did the kid,both were happy - parent wasn't - parent should teach the child the value of money.

tbh

just to reiterate, I don't blame the shop here. If the parents didn't want him selling the console, it's up to them to enforce it. That's my opinion, tho, and I don't have kids. However, the op raises a valid point. Of course a 6 year old can buy sweets from a shop, but can a 6 year old sell sweets to a shop? If a 6 year old comes into a shop with a console, I doubt any shop would buy it, agreed? So, that establishes the fact that there's a line somewhere, right? the point the op is making is, who decides where this line is? The law says it's 18, like it does for drink, and no off-license in the country can get around that, so why should game shops be different?

again, that's not the argument I'm making, it's my interpretation of the argument I think the op is making I don't think it's as black and white as I thought it was when I made my first post in this thread.

Ian Beale

tbh wrote: »

If a 6 year old comes into a shop with a console, I doubt any shop would buy it, agreed?

Oh I do completely agree with that, my point was if a child is capable of agreeing to sell their item to a shop for €X amount and the exchange goes through thats where the line is,obviously if a child goes in and doesn't understand that their selling their console by taking the money then that I would find a disgrace and obviously try and get the console back.
However as the OP has pointed out it was a 15 year old and I think that most 15 year olds can understand what there doing in that situation,by the sounds of it it was the boys parents that were unhappy at what he had done and wanted to try and blame the shop for going through with the transaction.

tbh

and I agree with you - but again, the argument is that while you and I may say that a 15 year old is capable of that, the law says that they can't and they have to wait until they are 18. You know, the more I reply, the more I come around to the OP's way of thinking... I don't agree with it, but technically she's right.

mickoneill30

If you're legally able to work when you're 14 why is 15 too young to buy or sell something with a shop?

cathy01

that is my point.
The law was broken, in the sense that a child was allowed sell goods to a company who,
didn't ask for proof of ownership.
didn't ask for proof of age.
Didn't display any terms and conditons of exchange of goods for cash.
All three points as far as I know are against the law.
It is irresponsible of the shop to take the console without identifying if any of the above where true.
Yes the parents where annoyed, but not as annoyed as me.
I see that the shop exploit a young child, who wanted cash .
15 is a child, ok they can work in a shop , but at 16.
15, is to young.
The shop should have shown reasonable care, they didn't .They wanted to make a profit , a % of money and they did.At the child's and families expense.
its wrong.
In order to sell something to a shop they should first make sure the person selling owns the goods and that they are legally allowed to enter into a contract such as selling an item.
that is my point.
I haven't named the shop , to protect boards etc.But again when I looked at their site, there are no terms , no request for ID, .
cathy

jhegarty

cathy01 wrote: »

The law was broken, in the sense that a child was allowed sell goods to a company who,
didn't ask for proof of ownership.
didn't ask for proof of age.
Didn't display any terms and conditons of exchange of goods for cash.

What law is this ?

Or are you just guessing that is is a law?

Ian Beale

They don't have to check for proof of age thats the point if this was against the law it would have long since been stated in their terms and conditions they are reputable businesses and they wouldn't over look something like that.
As for their terms and conditions if you went up and asked to see the t&c they would show you it,thats why on the banners its says terms and conditions apply ask and you will receive :rolleyes:

As for proof of ownership thats the businesses risk by not signing any document saying its yours,last week I went into the biggest retailer of games and consoles and traded in over 60+games and I never had to sign anything no questions asked.

It was a business transaction the 15 year old would've realized this when he handed his console in and got money back from the assistant and walked out of the shop.

As for reasonable care thats up to the parents and as for the business wanting to make a profit of course thats why there in business you hardly thought they would give a big cash amount?They would've given more in store vouchers then cash :rolleyes:

Musha

I personally think that the bottom line is "ownership" of the goods, Little gurrier goes into your house, Robs Playstation, Games, DS + Games and can then go to the nearest Game Shop and "trade" them for cash surely the shop are acting as a fence they should have some duty of care at the very least for their own protection that the Person completing the transactions has rightful ownership of the goods, this should not have any age limitations on it and there are plenty of thevies out there over the age of 18. For high value items like console there would be some discreation as far a 2 year old game worth less than €20 on trade.

cathy01

law=contract with minor.child is a child.
Terms and conditions where asked for , by me, with the head office as non where viewable on their web site.I was told to send in a request in writeing.I asked could I speck to the person in relation to this and was told, she talks to noone over the phone, honestly every question I asked had to be relayed to her.

Guy:Incognito

cathy01 wrote: »

law=contract with minor.child is a child.
Terms and conditions where asked for , by me, with the head office as non where viewable on their web site.I was told to send in a request in writeing.I asked could I speck to the person in relation to this and was told, she talks to noone over the phone, honestly every question I asked had to be relayed to her.

You only seem to be looking at this "Law= contract with minor" thing from the side that suites you. If you had to go to a shop for any person under 18 that was in your care everytime they wanted to buy anything from a penny sweet to a new car youd be on giving out abouyt the ridiculous inconvenience of young "adults" (as you described him in you op) not being abole to buy things without an over 18 with them.

Nightwish

everytime a child buys something, they are entering into a contract with the store. There is no law that states the minor can be the vendor and a store the buyer. The store did nothing wrong. Its the child who was an ungrateful little git who decided to sell a gift from his parents.

If the OP personally finds the actions of the store to be reprehensible, she should take it up with the store - write a letter explaining your opinions, but just be aware they broke no law.

cathy01

why do poster keep seeing buy , I am of course referring to selling.
But thanks anyway for the replies.:)

Ian Beale

Its the same buying or selling and if your so sure that the shop did something illegal would you please post a link to the article of the law that states a child can not sell something.

Toto Wolfcastle

Ian Beale wrote: »

Its the same buying or selling and if your so sure that the shop did something illegal would you please post a link to the article of the law that states a child can not sell something.

Exactly, and if the child was selling wouldn't it be up to the child to set out the terms or the contract? Like the shops would if they were selling to you? (I could be completely wrong here!)

jhegarty

cathy01 wrote: »

law=contract with minor.child is a child.
Terms and conditions where asked for , by me, with the head office as non where viewable on their web site.I was told to send in a request in writeing.I asked could I speck to the person in relation to this and was told, she talks to noone over the phone, honestly every question I asked had to be relayed to her.

The law says that a contract can't be enforced against a minor .... not that a minor can't make a contract....

If this got to a court case the shop would have to give the console back , and the child would have to give the €70 back... but no laws where broken here....

T&Cs are only there to protect the shop , not you... there is no legal requirement for shops to have them...

Absolam

A minor (person under 18) may enter into a contract (ie sell goods to anyone including a shop). However, except in certain circumstances, the contract is not binding on the minor.
http://www.lawyer.ie/10steps/contract10s.htm (nice simple reference)

So realistically Cathy both parties were entitled to freely engage in the transaction, and the shop was under no obligation to do anything other than what they did. The only thing is if the child/his parents/guardians decide to change their minds, the contract is voided, which would not happen for someone over 18.

cathy01

hi, thanks for the link.
Cathy

Hanley

Ignoring the legalities of all this, I think it's ridiculous that the shop is being blamed for this. I know the boy has ADHD, but presumably if it was severe he would be under constant watch by his parents and not allowed out on his own.

He's 15, how close to 16 is he? I'm just asking because you said 16 was ok, so presumably you can mature enough in 300 odd days to form a binding contract?

I'm guessing that he does not want the console since he sold it, as a result he should not have it. Going and getting it back and returning it to him will only re-enforce the litigious attitude that is becoming only too prevelant in Ireland. "I did something wrong?? Not my fault... and I'll find a legal loophole to prove it!!". Basically by doing this, your friend is teaching him he is not responsible for his own actions.

In my opinion, while he might not have got a "good" deal, it was fair.

tbh

Hanley wrote: »

He's 15, how close to 16 is he? I'm just asking because you said 16 was ok, so presumably you can mature enough in 300 odd days to form a binding contract?

All other points aside, this is a completely irrelevant argument. You can be too young to drink one day, and completely legal the next. You can be too young to drive one day, and completely legal the next. You can be too young to enter into a contract at 23:59 one day, and yet one minute later, it's completely legal.

Hagar

I think the question is did the shop take advantage of the child in any way?
Did they pay him the same price that they would have paid an adult?
If they did pay the adult price, I don't think the shop did anything wrong. However if they took advantage of the innocence of a child in money matters that is another matter entirely and should be followed up by the parents.

Garth

I've worked in shops where teenagers were the primary consumers... and I've seen parents try and work it both ways -- coming in saying, "You have to return this, you've no right to sell a €200 whatever to a child" (as far as I'm concerned, a kid has €200, then the parents are ok with him spending it) and if you refuse to serve a very young child, you get the parent coming in demanding to know why you wouldn't serve the child (this only ever happened when the child was so young it was hard to know what he/she was asking for).

In fairness, the console was given to the child as a gift, so it's his. Imagine if he'd walked in there with mum's permission and been refused until an adult was with him? There'd be murder.

And I am ADHD myself. It doesn't make me incompetent to make my own choices in life. It just makes it harder to remember what they were. ;-)

cathy01

like I said already the ADHD doest come into it from where I was thinking anyway.
So, just want to make that crystal clear.

I know it works both ways.
I am just so angry for the person and the child.
Children are that...children they do things and regret it a few minutes later and no come back at all.
What annoyed me most, was the attitude that terms and conditions will only be given if requested in writing.

Toto Wolfcastle

cathy01 wrote: »

like I said already the ADHD doest come into it from where I was thinking anyway.
So, just want to make that crystal clear.

Then why bring up the fact that he has ADHD?

If my younger brother had sold a console like that at the age and my parents found out they would have taken the money off him.

In fact he sold his old soccer boots to a friend last week for ten euro and they made him give the money back.

It's a parenting issue, not an issue with the shop.

Another thing: Have the parents gotten in touch with shop about it or is it just you that's dealing with it? It really is none of your business, it's up to the parents to sort it if they believe the shop is in the wrong.