Question RE purchasing alcohol

UrbanSea

Not a big issue here but it just peed me off all the same.

Was in a Dunnes Stores last week with a friend of mine who has buying some vodka. I walked up to the till with her not thinking,just chatting to her. She gave her the vodka,and as expected,asked her for her i.d. That was grand.
Then the cashier asked me for i.d to which I said 'I'm not buying it'' but was told I still needed to show i.d.
Showed her my licence anyway and she said they don't accept licences and her manager confirmed that who was walking by.

This got me thinking. Can they refuse her drink cos they wouldn't take my i.d? The sale,and ultimately the contract,was with her.
Say for example a woman and son are going up to the till and she's obviously overage and he is obviously underage,they're hardly going to ask him for id.
I know that's a different scenario but it's ultimately the same principle,I had nothing to do with her purchasing alcohol.

Just wanted to see what people think.

jor el

A retailer can refuse to sell anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time. There is no inherent right to buy anything that is on sale.

In the case of alcohol, they can refuse to sell on the grounds that it may be being bought for a minor. Not that they actually need a reason, but that is a legal requirement when selling alcohol.

reprazant

Dunnes Stores don't accept drivers licenses?

MyKeyG

Legally speaking I concur with Jor-El. Retail premises reserve the right to refuse the sale of goods/services to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, unless of course you're a foreign national or a member of the travelling community:rolleyes:. With regards alcohol, assuming a drivers license not being acceptable is justified, the penalties for an establishment licensed to sell alcohol not following due process for it's sale are quite severe. As far as that individual was concerned your friend was buying alcohol in the company of an individual unable to provide adequate ID and who for all she knew would be helping to indulge in the grog.

The unfortunate thing is that anyone with a half decent printer/scanner can make up a false drivers license with very little trouble. It's acceptable to the Traffic Corps because they can check it on the spot but Dunnes staff don't have that luxury. Ultimately I don't see the big deal in accepting drivers license but if that's their policy there's not much you can do about it.

thesandeman

Lidl operate the same policy. Ive actually seen them refuse to sell to a mother who had her teenage daughter (or so she claimed) with her.

wmpdd3

Its one of the sinaros the guards can use when checking stores are abiding by the law, according to the new video that was shown a few weeks ago as part of staff training where I work.


Where do you stop though? Can I get served while shopping with my 1 year old?

Shelflife

For me its an area that shops need to tread very carefully.

they are entitled to have any procedures that they wish as long as they are not breaking any of the equality laws.

however (and as an off license holder im awre of the laws) if the senario arose where i went in with my 15 year old to buy drink and was refused on the presumption that i was going to suppy drink to minors i would not take that refusal lieing down and i would feel that my name was sullied as a result of that refusal.

technically every alcohol sale could be for a minor as wmpdd said where do you draw the line?

by refusing drink to someone who is in the presence of a minor you are accusing them of breaking the law-- thats flying very close to a defamation suit if you ask me.

TheIrishGrover

Dunno, does your 1 yearold have a drinking problem?

thesandeman

Thing is how can the customer prove that the minor is their son/daughter without having to bring both passports or whatever?
Probably safer in the long run for the retailer just to have a 'zero tolerence' policy in place.

mw3guc

I've seen people turned away at checkouts similar to the OP. It would make you paranoid about speaking to anyone under 25 in the queue for fear you would be 'associated' and denied the purchase of your alcohol. Don't acknowledge anyone suspiciously young while you're paying at the till either - just in case they don't have the relvant ID :pac:

MyKeyG

Shelflife wrote: »

by refusing drink to someone who is in the presence of a minor you are accusing them of breaking the law-- thats flying very close to a defamation suit if you ask me.

Not if buying alcohol in the company of a minor is against the law. Now someone might need to clarify this.

Ultimately I think the problem arose when the law changed to allow businesses like Dunnes and Tesco do away with off-license positions separate to the grocery section and sell alcohol in the aisles. My local Tesco still has a separate off license and the sign on the door is simple 'No persons under the age of 21 may enter this premises, ID may be requested'. Simple! No suspicion of being associated with the 16 year old in the Q behind you buying a can of coke and a chicken roll.

The question about where you draw the line is an interesting one though because anyone who's been to certain parts of America knows that you can be 60 years of age with silver hair and still be asked for ID.

Shelflife

Not if buying alcohol in the company of a minor is against the law. Now someone might need to clarify this.

its not against the law to be in the company of a minor, its only against the law to actually buy it for a minor.

while im all for being careful and erring on the right side of the law, i wouldnt be happy refusing a person drink because i THINK they might be supplying minors, in my book its up there with accusing a person you THINK might be shop lifting.

jor el

Shelflife wrote: »

its not against the law to be in the company of a minor, its only against the law to actually buy it for a minor.

while im all for being careful and erring on the right side of the law, i wouldnt be happy refusing a person drink because i THINK they might be supplying minors,

In that case, you would be wrong. If the retailer suspects that someone buying alcohol may be supplying it to a minor, then it is a criminal offence for them to sell it. Whether the minor is present or not, if the suspicion is there then there is a legal responsibility on the retailer not to supply it. If they do, they face criminal prosecution.

Shelflife wrote: »

in my book its up there with accusing a person you THINK might be shop lifting.

The law on shop lifting and supplying alcohol (to minors or adults) is completely different. You cannot compare the situations in any way.

Refusing to supply alcohol on the grounds that it may be for someone that is underage is not defamation of character or anything of the sort. It is a legal requirement of the retailer to do this.

Shelflife

Jor el the point im trying to make is from a defamation pov, if i go into your shop and buy a load of drink and you refuse to sell to me on an unsubstantiated suspicion that i may in the future pass that alcohol onto a minor, you have in my opinion (if you are wrong) defamed my character.

in the same way that you incorrectly accuse someone of shoplifting you have defamed their character --hence the anology ( im not suggesting they are similar laws but accusing someone in the wrong would be similar)

From the shop owners pov im just suggesting that they need to be very careful when refusing for this reason.

the groutch

This has become more significant now because now it's not only the retailer, but the staff member can also be fined a four figure sum.
So an employee isnt going to take any chances when the reprocussions are so strong.

ShooterSF

jor el wrote: »

In that case, you would be wrong. If the retailer suspects that someone buying alcohol may be supplying it to a minor, then it is a criminal offence for them to sell it. Whether the minor is present or not, if the suspicion is there then there is a legal responsibility on the retailer not to supply it. If they do, they face criminal prosecution.

How can you prove to a court's level of proof that someone was suspicious of the person they were selling alcohol to? You'd need to be able to mind read.

Dublin_Gunner

Shelflife wrote: »

Jor el the point im trying to make is from a defamation pov, if i go into your shop and buy a load of drink and you refuse to sell to me on an unsubstantiated suspicion that i may in the future pass that alcohol onto a minor, you have in my opinion (if you are wrong) defamed my character.

in the same way that you incorrectly accuse someone of shoplifting you have defamed their character --hence the anology ( im not suggesting they are similar laws but accusing someone in the wrong would be similar)

From the shop owners pov im just suggesting that they need to be very careful when refusing for this reason.

The potential situation with moral prominence will take the high ground here.

Defamation - accusation of theft, probably upheld

Defamation - possibly supplying alcohol to a minor, will not be upheld.

In one case, the shop is acting on their moral/social/legal responsibility to not supply alcohol if there is a genuine suspicion of an adult supplying a minor. This is also a legal requirement.

In the other, they're just being dicks, or it is a case of mistaken identity, and they're trying to protect their own interests.

jor el

ShooterSF wrote: »

How can you prove to a court's level of proof that someone was suspicious of the person they were selling alcohol to? You'd need to be able to mind read.

They don't have to prove anything, the obligation is on them to NOT sell the alcohol if they have any suspicion about where it's going.

Shelflife wrote: »

Jor el the point im trying to make is from a defamation pov, if i go into your shop and buy a load of drink and you refuse to sell to me on an unsubstantiated suspicion that i may in the future pass that alcohol onto a minor, you have in my opinion (if you are wrong) defamed my character.

If the suspicion exists, then they must refuse the sale. If you are accompanied by someone that cannot show proof of age, then the suspicion exists that you may share the alcohol with them, and the sale must be refused. This does not constitute a defamation of your character, it is compliance with the very strict law on the sale of alcohol.

Accusing someone of shoplifiting without proof is one thing, but refusing alcohol to someone that you suspect is supplying it to a minor is completely different. If no suspicion exists then the retailer is not going to stop the sale.

http://www.rrai.ie/_fileupload/Training%20Manuals/RRAI_Training_Manual%20%282%29.pdf

Read page 30:

If you are aware or suspicious that alcohol is being purchased for someone who is under 18 then you must refuse the sale

Only the National Age Card provides a defence in court to a charge of sale to underage persons

This answers the OP's question of using his driving licence. A passport or driving licence may be accepted by some retailers, but it will not be accepted by a court if it turns out the ID was forged in any way. That is why the Age Card is preferred.

ShooterSF

jor el wrote: »

They don't have to prove anything, the obligation is on them to NOT sell the alcohol if they have any suspicion about where it's going.

No I get that. It's if they did serve someone how a court could show there was suspicion. I can see how it would work in a pub environment but not in an off license. It's how you prove there was suspicion after someone was served that was my concern.

R.D. aka MR.D

Tesco has refused to sell me alcohol so many bloody times because i don't have the 'proper' i.d. Despite being 24 years of age and looking it!!!

So now i refuse to shop for alcohol in Tesco. I know losing one customer won't do them any damage but it makes me feel better!!!

It's so humiliating as a customer who is overage being refused and walking out empty handed.

jor el

ShooterSF wrote: »

No I get that. It's if they did serve someone how a court could show there was suspicion. I can see how it would work in a pub environment but not in an off license. It's how you prove there was suspicion after someone was served that was my concern.

CCTV footage showing an adult with a minor, or having minors hanging around outside having been seen with the adult that is buying the alcohol. That could be one way. If you go to buy alcohol and there is nothing to suggest that you are buying for a minor, then the retailer is not going to form that opinion.

They can always refuse on the grounds on not having appropriate ID though, or if all parties in a group do not have appropriate ID.

si_guru

What is appropriate ID? Surely your not expected to carry you passport to the shops with you?

wmpdd3

MyKeyG wrote: »

Not if buying alcohol in the company of a minor is against the law. Now someone might need to clarify this.

Ultimately I think the problem arose when the law changed to allow businesses like Dunnes and Tesco do away with off-license positions separate to the grocery section and sell alcohol in the aisles. My local Tesco still has a separate off license and the sign on the door is simple 'No persons under the age of 21 may enter this premises, ID may be requested'. Simple! No suspicion of being associated with the 16 year old in the Q behind you buying a can of coke and a chicken roll.

The question about where you draw the line is an interesting one though because anyone who's been to certain parts of America knows that you can be 60 years of age with silver hair and still be asked for ID.

Totally agree, it was a much better situation.

Camera at the entrance too. I can see the RRAI bringing this back in, as they are getting nowhere with Lidl and Aldi even though I do admit they have the most strict serving policeys.

Superquinn also dont follow the RRAI's guidelines so its up to the government to do away with this internal standard setting.

I heard of a girl a year ago who was refused service and said she was going down the legal route, once this is said the store has no more to do with the customer and the Legal Dept deal directly with her solicitor, but as far as I can see the case never materialised.

Shelflife

Jor el you are correct in what you say, but in the ops situation he was not buying alcohol and his friend was refused service on the basis that his id wasnt sufficient for the store.

therefore the store refused to sell to his friend on the basis that she may be supplying alcohol to a minor (as he couldnt verify his age to their satisfaction) so they are effectively accusing her of a criminal act.

in this instance where the op has shown proof of his age and is not buying alcohol i believe that they are on thin ice, its an over the top reaction imo, and as another poster said where do you draw the line?

father and son, mother and daughter? it would mean that parents wpuldnt be able to bring their children shopping .

MyKeyG

Shelflife wrote: »

Jor el you are correct in what you say, but in the ops situation he was not buying alcohol and his friend was refused service on the basis that his id wasnt sufficient for the store.

therefore the store refused to sell to his friend on the basis that she may be supplying alcohol to a minor (as he couldnt verify his age to their satisfaction) so they are effectively accusing her of a criminal act.

in this instance where the op has shown proof of his age and is not buying alcohol i believe that they are on thin ice, its an over the top reaction imo, and as another poster said where do you draw the line?

father and son, mother and daughter? it would mean that parents wpuldnt be able to bring their children shopping .

Just to reiterate my point. Reverting to alcohol being sold in units separate to the grocery section or having an alcohol only till would eliminate the drawing of any line, or any suspicion, or debates about ID's and accusations and defamations!

I know the OP is making the point purely out of frustration but where's the big deal really? If you can't get your grog in Dunne's because of one reason or another then there are almost as many off-licenses in every town in Ireland as there are pubs. OK it's less convenient but you get your tipple.

I once brought a box of beer to the till in a particular supermarket. The guy scanned it, put security tape on it and then said 'would you mind if I asked for ID. I said I didn't have any so he said he couldn't sell it to me as it was their policy. I could have said well then why scan it in, it wasn't your policy last night etc...but I just said 'that's grand' left the beer in front of him and went to an offy. Problem solved. I got my sup and he had to carry the case of beer back to the liquor section.

slimjimmc

Shelflife wrote: »

therefore the store refused to sell to his friend on the basis that she may be supplying alcohol to a minor (as he couldnt verify his age to their satisfaction) so they are effectively accusing her of a criminal act.

There is no implied accusation. If a child suddenly went out of her way to avoid walking past you in the street would you say she's effectively accusing you of being a child molester? After all surely bystanders would be wondering why she did that, even though the child actually just wants to avoid the dog you're walking. Same principle applies, unless an accusation is actually uttered the rest is only in your imagination.

Shelflife

But the accusation IS there. if they give you the reason ---we are not selling alcohol to you because we suspect that you will supply it to minors ---that would be the accusation and unless they could back it up--it would be defamatory !

mw3guc

... not to mention the fact that someone who really is supplying alcohol to minors is highly unlikely to bring said minors into the shop with them. So the person who innocently brings along a young person or meets them in the queue gets hammered while the guilty go through without a bother, having their IDs ready to hand and their 'customers' safely out of suspicious sight.

slimjimmc

Shelflife wrote: »

But the accusation IS there. if they give you the reason ---we are not selling alcohol to you because we suspect that you will supply it to minors ---that would be the accusation and unless they could back it up--it would be defamatory !

So you are confusing the act of refusing to sell with the manner in which that refusal is given. A retailer can refuse without giving any reason, or simply give a generic reason such as it's shop policy not to sell to people accompanying minors. There is no accusation in that. So the act of refusing to sell is not an accusation nor is it defamatory, though if it's mishandled it might (just like mishandling refusing to sell other restricted goods).

Corruptedmorals

Dunnes will not accept driving licenses because they are easier to fake. I have signed so many forms and been trained on the sale of alcohol countless times over the years working there, despite only ever working in drapery and never selling alcohol, which shows you how seriously they take it. The store will be shut down if caught and fined heavily to regain their license. The staff member will be sacked, no question. You can see why the staff member has a vested interest in checking ID's of people who are more than likely 25.

The general thing about buying alcohol when you're in a group is that they have to make sure you're not buying it for someone in the group who is underage. 2 people isn't a group but the principle still stands. So many stores have been stung with this one over the years, it just isn't worth it to them to ignore whoever is standing beside you. I have no idea how they manage the issue of obvious minors.

jor el

si_guru wrote: »

What is appropriate ID? Surely your not expected to carry you passport to the shops with you?

Read what's written above. The only legally acceptable ID is a National Age Card. All other forms of ID are not acceptable by a court in the case of criminal prosecution for serving to minors (even a passport).

Shelflife wrote: »

Jor el you are correct in what you say, but in the ops situation he was not buying alcohol and his friend was refused service on the basis that his id wasnt sufficient for the store.

Yes, and this is exactly right. If two people together cannot prove both are over 18, then the alcohol cannot be served. No accusations needed, it's a legal requirement for the shop not to sell it.

Shelflife wrote: »

father and son, mother and daughter? it would mean that parents wpuldnt be able to bring their children shopping .

This has been known to happen on many occasions. The retailers are within their rights to not sell if the alcohol is being bought in the company of minors. They don't always, but some will stick to the letter of the law. A consumer can do nothing about this.