Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Refused sale of alcohol - forced to buy in lower quantities

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    I was hoping the OP of this comment was going to come back and clarify rather than me doing a guessing game, but Section 11 of the 1924 Act could be interpreted to mean what was stated. I'm not sure now (can't get on to westlaw to see the consolidated legislation) but it does seem logical that the licensing laws would allow this.

    As far as I know, I read somewhere that a retailer is perfectly within their rights to refuse the sale if they suspect that the drink will be supplied to an under-18. It seems like a no-brainer!

    Thing is, he said "only naggins or cans". So what's stopping me from giving those to an under 18.

    I could understand if I was refused the sale of multiple naggins/bottles/1L bottles OR if I was refused buying any alcohol at all (I'd be pissed - but they'd be perfectly within their rights to do so). But refusing me from buying a cheaper product (price per litre) puts me at a disadvantage (have to pay around 30-40% more than anyone else for vodka in that shop) and therefore it is discriminative.


  • Options
    #63
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    As far as I know, I read somewhere that a retailer is perfectly within their rights to refuse the sale if they suspect that the drink will be supplied to an under-18. It seems like a no-brainer!

    Thing is, he said "only naggins or cans". So what's stopping me from giving those to an under 18.

    I could understand if I was refused the sale of multiple naggins/bottles/1L bottles OR if I was refused buying any alcohol at all (I'd be pissed - but they'd be perfectly within their rights to do so). But refusing me from buying a cheaper product (price per litre) puts me at a disadvantage (have to pay around 30-40% more than anyone else for vodka in that shop) and therefore it is discriminative.

    I don't disagree - as you can see from my earlier posts. However it is more than believable that it could be justified under licensing laws.


  • Options
    #64
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    I don't disagree - as you can see from my earlier posts. However it is more than believable that it could be justified under licensing laws.
    No it is not.

    If they said sorry we are not serving you because we think you might give it to someone under 18 fine, but they said we cant serve you 1litre or 700ml bottle of vodka but we will sell you 3 x 200 ml bottles which are much more expensive and more likely to be distributed amongst under-age persons!

    This appears to be a clear cut case of age discrimination!


  • Options
    #65
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    No it is not.

    If they said sorry we are not serving you because we think you might give it to someone under 18 fine, but they said we cant serve you 1litre or 700ml bottle of vodka but we will sell you 3 x 200 ml bottles which are much more expensive and more likely to be distributed amongst under-age persons!

    This appears to be a clear cut case of age discrimination!

    That's not what they did though. They said no litre - only a nagan. e.g. only enough for your personal consumption. I'm afraid if you look at this dispassionately it can be argued from either side and as I say it is possible it's in the licensing laws. Quite happy for someone to wade through them and tell me its not!


  • Options
    #66
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    That's not what they did though. They said no litre - only a nagan. e.g. only enough for your personal consumption.


    Quote from the person dealing with me at the counter:

    "Only naggins or cans"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    Quote from the person dealing with me at the counter:

    "Only naggins or cans"

    Did you buy naggins?


  • Options
    #68
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Did you buy naggins?

    Nope. I went to another shop to buy a 35cl bottle. Does that make much of a difference though?


  • Options
    #69
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    Nope. I went to another shop to buy a 35cl bottle. Does that make much of a difference though?

    Yes, because people use the plural when they mean the singular.

    The reason I find it believable is because under licensing laws the only acceptable form of ID is a garda age card. If you're a foreign national visiting you don't have one - discrimination on race? Arguably yes - law - also yes.

    (strictly speaking its a single defence rather than an offence)

    It's also not unheard of in other European countries. In Germany for instance beer if purchasable at 16 spirits at 18.

    (Now to be fair that was 16 years ago! Ah the memories! EDIT: Actually no memories I was too pissed and so were my 15 year old mates on the beer I'd bought. Fantastic policy.)


  • Options
    #70
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    They discriminated against the op because of age, it doesn't matter at all about the size of the containers once the op was over 18, and the shop are committing an offence selling any alcohol if they have any suspicions it will be given or shared with someone underage.

    in other countries they allow beer to be sold to 16year olds but they dont say they can only buy 250ml bottles and not 500ml bottles!

    they refused to sell one size but instead offered a more expensive size which benefited themselves at the expense of the op


  • Options
    #71
    mdebets
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    Cathalog wrote: »
    Nope. I went to another shop to buy a 35cl bottle. Does that make much of a difference though?

    Yes, if he would have allowed you to buy several cans or naggins, he couldn't argue anymore that the policy was only there to make sure that you only bought for personal consumption and not for sharing with your underage friends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    They discriminated against the op because of age, it doesn't matter at all about the size of the containers once the op was over 18, and the shop are committing an offence selling any alcohol if they have any suspicions it will be given or shared with someone underage.

    they refused to sell one size but instead offered a more expensive size which benefited themselves at the expense of the op

    Well to be fair they didn't he went somewhere else - at least he was sensible there.

    While you can argue your point, anecdotally from other posts here it does seem that this scam/policy isn't without precedent. Now as I say, without committing myself either way I'll simply restate; it's arguable from both sides.


  • Options
    #73
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Yes, because people use the plural when they mean the singular.

    Maybe that's what he meant. But it's ambiguous tbh.

    The reason I find it believable is because under licensing laws the only acceptable form of ID is a garda age card. If you're a foreign national visiting you don't have one - discrimination on race? Arguably yes - law - also yes.

    You said that by law, it's discrimination by race. It just hasn't been challenged by anyone yet.

    (strictly speaking its a single defence rather than an offence)

    It's also not unheard of in other European countries. In Germany for instance beer if purchasable at 16 spirits at 18.

    That's in other countries. Ireland has no such law. Secondly, that law makes no mention of quantities - only types/concentration (so to speak) - of alcohol. I don't see how this point is valid.

    (Now to be fair that was 16 years ago! Ah the memories!)

    Isn't this law in effect in some countries still?

    Answered in bold above.


  • Options
    #74
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    in other countries they allow beer to be sold to 16year olds but they dont say they can only buy 250ml bottles and not 500ml bottles!

    No but I don't know about you but I got pissed cheaper on Vodka than I ever did on cans of fosters.


  • Options
    #75
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    Answered in bold above.

    As I say I don't disagree. TBH I've stated I'm going to be lazy and not wade through the legislation. I've invited other people to. I've simply stated I find it possible they were adhering to/taking advantage of the law.

    On validity of points - no one has made any valid ones as we're all talking out of our arses here - no one's checking anything.


  • Options
    #76
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    No but I don't know about you but I got pissed cheaper on Vodka than I ever did on cans of fosters.


    So what? It's not about the quantity of alcohol in the product, it's about the quantity of the product.

    Secondly, if someone is under 18, they can't be discriminated against over the age ground according to the Equality Act. (in Ireland)


  • Options
    #77
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    No but I don't know about you but I got pissed cheaper on Vodka than I ever did on cans of fosters.
    We used to get the Fosters free off the train:D


  • Options
    #78
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    So what? It's not about the quantity of alcohol in the product, it's about the quantity of the product.

    You mentioned concentrations yourself...
    Cathalog wrote: »
    Secondly, if someone is under 18, they can't be discriminated against over the age ground according to the Equality Act. (in Ireland)

    I'm missing your point here.

    I think I might leave you to it. You seem to be getting quite annoyed over someone NOT disagreeing with you and simply expressing the point that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that this is in the licensing laws - while admitting I haven't checked.

    However I can see the (rather cack handed) logic of trying the defence of we only sold him X amount so he couldn't pass it on to his mates. Again I've not expressed an opinion as to whether that's just a sham or not.


  • Options
    #79
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Procrastastudy wrote: »

    However I can see the (rather cack handed) logic of trying the defence of we only sold him X amount so he couldn't pass it on to his mates. Again I've not expressed an opinion as to whether that's just a sham or not.

    It is no defence at all!


  • Options
    #80
    Cathalog
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭Cathalog


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    You mentioned concentrations yourself...



    I'm missing your point here.

    I think I might leave you to it. You seem to be getting quite annoyed over someone NOT disagreeing with you and simply expressing the point that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that this is in the licensing laws - while admitting I haven't checked.

    However I can see the (rather cack handed) logic of trying the defence of we only sold him X amount so he couldn't pass it on to his mates. Again I've not expressed an opinion as to whether that's just a sham or not.

    I have to say that I can't remember mentioning concentrations. I posted this up a while ago at this stage :P Mind quoting me?

    I am not annoyed with you. I don't know where you got that notion, but I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was. I am entirely open to points and opinions being made supporting the retailer, but, surely you can accept me replying to them with a counter-argument?

    I genuinely haven't seen one good backed-up point showing that the retailer was allowed to act like they did. Hence, I am inclined to believe that my rights were broken here.




    Sorry for not being clear in my other post regarding discrimination and under-18 year olds:

    According to the Equal Status Act, if an under-18 year old is treated less favorably than an over-18 year old, it isn't regarded as discrimination.

    Quote from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3
    (2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

    ...

    (f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

    .....

    (3) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

    I believe you were trying to say that in Germany, one could say that a 16-17 year old is being discriminated against as they can't buy spirits (and only cans).

    My point is that this wouldn't be regarded as discrimination in Irish Law.


  • Options
    #81
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Cathalog wrote: »
    I believe you were trying to say that in Germany, one could say that a 16-17 year old is being discriminated against as they can't buy spirits (and only cans).

    My point is that this wouldn't be regarded as discrimination in Irish Law.

    I was just pointing out the the licensing laws can be pretty illogical and there is precedence in other European countries for a half measure approach to refusal of sale.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    With regards the suspicion to provide the alcohol to minors it would be my belief that you couldn't claim a suspicion based on discriminatory grounds, including age. If the OP was accompanied by minors or if they were witnessed in discussion with what appears to be minors outside the store that might lead to suspicion but to be suspicious of someone breaking the law based solely on age seems to be hovering pretty close to discrimination.


Advertisement