Man gets €20k for jambon embarrassment

pilly

If you think about it, the shop staff and management didn't use much common sense or cop on. The man paid for other items and then they claimed he didn't pay for the jambon.

1. If he didn't pay then it was their fault for not ringing it up unless he had it down his underpants.
2. If he was a robber why would he go for such a low value item?
3. Either way, why potentially open up your company to a lawsuit over max €2?

Imo they got what they deserved for not having basic customer service skills.

robinph

__Alex__ wrote: »

Again, this is not an everyday occurence. Nobody would like an insinuation of being a thief levelled at them, no matter how breezy they might come across on this thread. Of course, most of us would just leave it at that and rant about it at home later. Most but not all. They defamed him and were unlucky enough that he pursued it. End of story.

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

__Alex__

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

Well, the courts agree that he was defamed. And the award was based on that.

But again, and this is the third time, what happened to him is out of the ordinary. I know this from my own retail days. There was likely a bit of profiling going on. And nobody would be happy being put in the position he was put in.

Doctor Nick

robinph wrote: »

One would be a making a mistake, the other would involve intent.

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

__Alex__

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

+1

I've been falsely accused of stealing and it still upsets me now, 14 years later.

osarusan

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

Samuel T. Cogley

osarusan wrote: »

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

Indeed defamation requires the statement to be published. They could have called him a thief, a rapist, a coke head or anything else they liked as long as it was not overheard. It was proven to the cvil standard it was over heard.

Now we can level the assuation that it was his fault but that was for Centra to argue thorugh their barrister.

robinph

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

But there is nothing to suggest that they did call him a thief. He's the one that made that accusation against himself.

osarusan wrote: »

That's not necessarily a defence though.

Not that it happened in this case, but roaring 'Did you pay fully for that item?' across a crowded shop at somebody won't be seen any differently from 'Did you steal that item?'

Staff are allowed to make discreet inquiries - in this case, the judge seems to have concluded that they were not discreet enough.

I got the impression from the article that it was him who was the one being indiscreet and drawing attention to the situation, including going back for a second argument with the staff after they had said it was all OK.

1874

robinph wrote: »

The shop did not accuse him of being a thief according to his account, they asked if he'd paid fully for each item. He'd paid for several other things at the same time.

He brought up the word thief. The shop was just saying there had been a mistake at the till.

I just read the article, they did accusse him of being a thief from his account, in the link to the article in the first post, whether they called him an actual thief or not, they certainly seemed to be suggesting it from his account of what they said and their actions. Why would he have felt obliged to stay until the matter was resolved? any instance I've witnessed with people making off with stuff (Ive seen a small handful), the thief invariably attempts to get away

You are incorrect about his account not suggesting they accused him of anything underhand, it appears very much that they did, from the link, quote below.
He stated, They said he did not pay for the item, (his account).
If he was a thief, why would he go back inside and insist on checking the till and cctv?

"A DUBLIN MAN, who claimed he was falsely accused of not paying for a jambon pastry, has been awarded €20,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court for defamation.
Anthony Maher claimed that on 7 August 2014 he bought and paid for a number of items at Centra Corduff in Blanchardstown, Dublin, and had been followed outside the store by two staff members.
Maher, of Fortunestown in Tallaght, said that one of the staff members, Marian Fletcher, told him that he had not paid for the jambon he had bought from the deli counter.
He told his barrister, Maeve Cox, that he tried to explain he had paid for all of the items but Fletcher had asked him to go back into the store where he pointed out to her the cashier who had served him.
Maher said that as the cashier had not remembered him he had asked for the till and security cameras to be checked, arguing he was not a thief. There had been customers inside and outside the store throughout the incident.
Cox, who appeared with John O’Leary Solicitors, said Maher had felt obliged to remain in the shop until the matter was resolved to their satisfaction despite having done nothing wrong."

Your Face

I don't see anything wrong with that.
It was a false accusation.

robinph

__Alex__ wrote: »

But again, and this is the third time, what happened to him is out of the ordinary. I know this from my own retail days. There was likely a bit of profiling going on. And nobody would be happy being put in the position he was put in.

Out of the ordinary for it to end up in court, yes. But hardly out of the ordinary for things to be rung up wrong on a till, or the staff to not remember exactly what items each customer had in their basket and what they paid for it

pilly

robinph wrote: »

Out of the ordinary for it to end up in court, yes. But hardly out of the ordinary for things to be rung up wrong on a till, or the staff to not remember exactly what items each customer had in their basket and what they paid for it

And to send 2 people out of the shop after a customer over a possible €2 mistake made by the cashier?

__Alex__

robinph wrote: »

Out of the ordinary for it to end up in court, yes. But hardly out of the ordinary for things to be rung up wrong on a till, or the staff to not remember exactly what items each customer had in their basket and what they paid for it

Nope, out of the ordinary in a retail outlet. That's what I meant, kindly don't tell me otherwise.

As another poster said, the query may not have been subtle and that is wrong. Subtle enquiry, fine. If it was found that the person was defamed, then the query can't have been subtle. I'm guessing a big deal was made. Guesswork yes, but it was found that the person was defamed so... yeah. As Pilly said, two people were sent after the person. Like I said, out of the ordinary absolutely and attention would have been drawn to the accused. Not on.

ohnonotgmail

robinph wrote: »

Out of the ordinary for it to end up in court, yes. But hardly out of the ordinary for things to be rung up wrong on a till, or the staff to not remember exactly what items each customer had in their basket and what they paid for it

If they had gone after him and said that the shop assistant had made a mistake then they would be in the clear. instead

Anthony Maher claimed that on 7 August 2014 he bought and paid for a number of items at Centra Corduff in Blanchardstown, Dublin, and had been followed outside the store by two staff members.
Maher, of Fortunestown in Tallaght, said that one of the staff members, Marian Fletcher, told him that he had not paid for the jambon he had bought from the deli counter.

thats a pretty clear accusation of theft.

Tombo2001

Its funny.

I was in a clothes store in Dublin about 15 years ago.

Tried on some stuff. Put it back. Didn't particularly want to talk to the shop assistant cause of the banality of the conversation:

'are ya all right for sizes'

'I'm looking for a medium, there's none here'

'well its really just what we have there in the shop'.

Anyway, on this occasion, shop was in temple bar. I left, walked 2 or 3 blocks away, and was stopped by a security guard who wants to look in my bag.

What for

You took something from the shop.

No I didn't

Lets see your bag.

Not opening it here on the street in front of everyone. I'll do it back in the shop.

Ok

......I go back to the shop, security guard, shop assistant, store manager are all there. I open my bag. Nothing in it.

And then.....

Not even an apology. The manager starts whingeing at the assistant; the assistant is giving out because I wouldn't talk to her in the shop, as if the whole thing is my fault. They said not a word more to me.

I have often thought back at how much they would have paid out if I had sued and gone through the courts.

Having said that - for the level of discomfort and embarrassment it caused me on the day, I would think a 100 euro voucher would have easily been fair redress.

Where they get this 20k from - its an insult to all the people who go out and do an honest days work for 100 or 200 a day..

Samuel T. Cogley

robinph wrote: »

Out of the ordinary for it to end up in court, yes. But hardly out of the ordinary for things to be rung up wrong on a till, or the staff to not remember exactly what items each customer had in their basket and what they paid for it

I worked in retail for 2 decades. I can count on one hand the amount of times a customer was persued outside the store by anyone other than store secuity and it was always genuine theft. Cashiers don't suddenly remember they didn't scan something.

I'm sure some of the knicker twisting going on here is to do with insurance. Insurance is exactly why staff shouldn't be approaching people in these sorts of situations anyway. That and a genuine interest in them not getting stabbed/punched...

pilly

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its funny.

I was in a clothes store in Dublin about 15 years ago.

Tried on some stuff. Put it back. Didn't particularly want to talk to the shop assistant cause of the banality of the conversation:

'are ya all right for sizes'

'I'm looking for a medium, there's none here'

'well its really just what we have there in the shop'.

Anyway, on this occasion, shop was in temple bar. I left, walked 2 or 3 blocks away, and was stopped by a security guard who wants to look in my bag.

What for

You took something from the shop.

No I didn't

Lets see your bag.

Not opening it here on the street in front of everyone. I'll do it back in the shop.

Ok

......I go back to the shop, security guard, shop assistant, store manager are all there. I open my bag. Nothing in it.

And then.....

Not even an apology. The manager starts whingeing at the assistant; the assistant is giving out because I wouldn't talk to her in the shop, as if the whole thing is my fault. They said not a word more to me.

I have often thought back at how much they would have paid out if I had sued and gone through the courts.

Having said that - for the level of discomfort and embarrassment it caused me on the day, I would think a 100 euro voucher would have easily been fair redress.

Where they get this 20k from - its an insult to all the people who go out and do an honest days work for 100 or 200 a day..

The shop were punished for not engaging whatsoever with the customer and so they should have been in this case. That's why it ended up at 20k.

__Alex__

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I worked in retail for 2 decades. I can count on one hand the amount of times a customer was persued outside the store by anyone other than store secuity and it was always genuine theft. Cashiers don't suddenly remember they didn't scan something.

+1. It is vanishingly rare.

Tombo2001

pilly wrote: »

The shop were punished for not engaging whatsoever with the customer and so they should have been in this case. That's why it ended up at 20k.

I don't see how those two sentences are connected.

The shop were punished for not engaging with the customer.

Fine.

That's why it ended up at 20k.

That bit I don't get; why 20k and not 2k? 2k would have been absolutely fine.

robinph

1874 wrote: »

I just read the article, they did accusse him of being a thief from his account, in the link to the article in the first post, whether they called him an actual thief or not, they certainly seemed to be suggesting it from his account of what they said and their actions. Why would he have felt obliged to stay until the matter was resolved? any instance I've witnessed with people making off with stuff (Ive seen a small handful), the thief invariably attempts to

You are incorrect about his account not suggesting they accused him of anything underhand, it appears very much that they did, from the link, quote below.
He stated, They said he did not pay for the item, (his account).
If he was a thief, why would he go back inside and insist on checking the till and cctv?

"A DUBLIN MAN, who claimed he was falsely accused of not paying for a jambon pastry, has been awarded €20,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court for defamation.
Anthony Maher claimed that on 7 August 2014 he bought and paid for a number of items at Centra Corduff in Blanchardstown, Dublin, and had been followed outside the store by two staff members.
Maher, of Fortunestown in Tallaght, said that one of the staff members, Marian Fletcher, told him that he had not paid for the jambon he had bought from the deli counter.
He told his barrister, Maeve Cox, that he tried to explain he had paid for all of the items but Fletcher had asked him to go back into the store where he pointed out to her the cashier who had served him.
Maher said that as the cashier had not remembered him he had asked for the till and security cameras to be checked, arguing he was not a thief. There had been customers inside and outside the store throughout the incident.
Cox, who appeared with John O’Leary Solicitors, said Maher had felt obliged to remain in the shop until the matter was resolved to their satisfaction despite having done nothing wrong."

You must be seeing different words there from what I can see then.

He said that the staff told him that he'd not paid for one item. That is not an accusation of being a thief. It is just stating that an item was not included in the bill he'd paid. He's not even claiming that they accused him of being a thief at that point.

The first mention of thief is once he starts asking for CCTV to be checked.

Samuel T. Cogley

__Alex__ wrote: »

+1. It is vanishingly rare.

I remeber chasing some guy half way round the Blanch shopping centre, many years ago. The bollocking I got of the store manager was epic :pac:

Doctor Nick

robinph wrote: »

You must be seeing different words there from what I can see then.

He said that the staff told him that he'd not paid for one item. That is not an accusation of being a thief. It is just stating that an item was not included in the bill he'd paid. He's not even claiming that they accused him of being a thief at that point.

The first mention of thief is once he starts asking for CCTV to be checked.

Ah seriously you must be winding us up? Being told you didn't pay for something is being called a thief!

__Alex__

robinph wrote: »

You must be seeing different words there from what I can see then.

He said that the staff told him that he'd not paid for one item. That is not an accusation of being a thief. It is just stating that an item was not included in the bill he'd paid. He's not even claiming that they accused him of being a thief at that point.

The first mention of thief is once he starts asking for CCTV to be checked.

Dog-with-a-bone.

Two people following someone out of a shop is making a big deal and treating them great suspicion. And that's why he won.

Tombo2001

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Ah seriously you must be winding us up? Being told you didn't pay for something is being called a thief!

No its not.

I could simply be seeing - you made a mistake, we made a mistake, the 2 euro scone wasn't paid for.

That's certainly how I would see it.

Samuel T. Cogley

robinph wrote: »

You must be seeing different words there from what I can see then.

He said that the staff told him that he'd not paid for one item. That is not an accusation of being a thief. It is just stating that an item was not included in the bill he'd paid. He's not even claiming that they accused him of being a thief at that point.

The first mention of thief is once he starts asking for CCTV to be checked.

What ever people think of lawyers, they're not fools. Every single part of this would have been picked apart by counsel on both sides. That's part of my hardon for these threads is the newspapers are written with a specific spin and word count in mind.

It may also be the case that you're abaolutely right and that the current law on defmation, or the defences to it are not satisfactory. It's not up to me to be the blesser of internet threads but FWIW that's a discussion I'd happily see engaged in. This thread is yet another tabliod dig at compo culture and it annoys me as the real issue is being completely masked by it. That being insurance companies ripping people off and blaiming it on someone else.

Doctor Nick

Tombo2001 wrote: »

No its not.

I could simply be seeing - you made a mistake, we made a mistake, the 2 euro scone wasn't paid for.

That's certainly how I would see it.

Nope, sorry. 2 members of staff follow me out of a store and accuse me in front of others of not paying for something is accusing me of thieving.

robinph

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Ah seriously you must be winding us up? Being told you didn't pay for something is being called a thief!

No it isn't.

Doctor Nick

robinph wrote: »

No it isn't.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Just never tell me I didn't pay for something when I have :pac:

Tombo2001

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What ever people think of lawyers, they're not fools. Every single part of this would have been picked apart by counsel on both sides. That's part of my hardon for these threads is the newspapers are written with a specific spin and word count in mind.

It may also be the case that you're abaolutely right and that the current law on defmation, or the defences to it are not satisfactory. It's not up to me to be the blesser of internet threads but FWIW that's a discussion I'd happily see engaged in. This thread is yet another tabliod dig at compo culture and it annoys me as the real issue is being completely masked by it. That being insurance companies ripping people off and blaiming it on someone else.

First, the insurance companies are regularly scapegoated by politicians and the press.

Second, it is a fact that insurance companies are pulling out of the Irish market because of the extremely high costs of settling claims here compared to other markets. That's documented, it has happened.

Can you show me evidence that insurance companies are completely ripping people off - that meaning they are making excessive profits over what they should be making.


I don't see how you can square that with a situation where Insurance companies are getting fed up with low profits and pulling out of the market.

Kat1170

robinph wrote: »

You must be seeing different words there from what I can see then.

He said that the staff told him that he'd not paid for one item. That is not an accusation of being a thief. It is just stating that an item was not included in the bill he'd paid. He's not even claiming that they accused him of being a thief at that point.

The first mention of thief is once he starts asking for CCTV to be checked.

Big difference between ''Hey you !! You didn't pay for that !!!!!'' and ''Excuse me Sir, but we forgot to charge you for that item''. Now I'm not saying that either of these is what was said, but I know which one I'd rather be on the receiving end of.

__Alex__

Kat1170 wrote: »

Big difference between ''Hey you !! You didn't pay for that !!!!!'' and ''Excuse me Sir, but we forgot to charge you for that item''. Now I'm not saying that either of these is what was said, but I know which one I'd rather be on the receiving end of.

Absolutely.

Tombo2001

Kat1170 wrote: »

Big difference between ''Hey you !! You didn't pay for that !!!!!'' and ''Excuse me Sir, but we forgot to charge you for that item''. Now I'm not saying that either of these is what was said, but I know which one I'd rather be on the receiving end of.

Sure.

And which one justifies a 20000 euro compensation payment.


Or even a 500 euro compensation payment.


Jeez......perspective people.

Tombo2001

I mean really folks.

Twenty thousand euros.

2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Euros.

Someone earning the average industrial wage here, it would take them 5 years to save up that sort of money.

How can that possibly be justified here.

Please explain it to me.

I just don't get it, and I don't get why so many people here endorse it.

Why would 2000 euros not be MORE THAN ENOUGH compensation.

Does nobody see the absolutely MASSIVE MORAL HAZARD here in that it encourages people to be on the alert, on the lookout for any situation where they can achieve this outcome.

Kat1170

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Sure.

And which one justifies a 20000 euro compensation payment.


Or even a 500 euro compensation payment.


Jeez......perspective people.

And from the Judges perspective €20k was justified ............ ''perspective'' there's always more than one.

Tombo2001

Kat1170 wrote: »

And from the Judges perspective €20k was justified ............ ''perspective'' there's always more than one.

I am not asking about the judges perspective.



I'm asking about your perspective.



If you think its fair, the please explain why.

nhunter100

Tombo2001 wrote:

Why would 2000 euros not be MORE THAN ENOUGH compensation.

Tombo2001 wrote:

Does nobody see the absolutely MASSIVE MORAL HAZARD here in that it encourages people to be on the alert, on the lookout for any situation where they can achieve this outcome.

Do you think putting parts of your post in capitals makes it more relevant? Just curious.

Doctor Nick

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I mean really folks.

Twenty thousand euros.

2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Euros.

Someone earning the average industrial wage here, it would take them 5 years to save up that sort of money.

How can that possibly be justified here.

Please explain it to me.

I just don't get it, and I don't get why so many people here endorse it.

Why would 2000 euros not be MORE THAN ENOUGH compensation.

Does nobody see the absolutely MASSIVE MORAL HAZARD here in that it encourages people to be on the alert, on the lookout for any situation where they can achieve this outcome.

Businesses will certainly be more careful who they accuse of theft going forward and be absolutely certain before throwing slanderous accusations around. That can only be a good thing.

percy212

From the judge's perspective 20k isn't a lot of money.

As for saving 20k on the average industrial wage, it would never happen. It is not possible to save in modern Ireland on the average wage, mostly because of RENT.

Bandana boy

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Then everybody accused of theft would simply say "Sorry bud, I neglected to pay". By all means, prosecute thieves to the full extent of the law but do not accuse somebody of theft without just cause. It's a horrendous accusation to make against somebodies character and should rightly be challenged if said person is innocent.

That is exactly the kind of post a thief would make

Samuel T. Cogley

Tombo2001 wrote: »

First, the insurance companies are regularly scapegoated by politicians and the press.

Second, it is a fact that insurance companies are pulling out of the Irish market because of the extremely high costs of settling claims here compared to other markets. That's documented, it has happened.

Can you show me evidence that insurance companies are completely ripping people off - that meaning they are making excessive profits over what they should be making.


I don't see how you can square that with a situation where Insurance companies are getting fed up with low profits and pulling out of the market.

Have a wander over to Legal Discussion, the report is there and the discussion on what is really driving up insurance prices.

__Alex__

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Sure.

And which one justifies a 20000 euro compensation payment.


Or even a 500 euro compensation payment.


Jeez......perspective people.

Sure, the vast majority of people wouldn't take the case but this person did and won. It's probably a standard amount for defamation. People don't willy nilly decide the amount they want to be compensated.

Samuel T. Cogley

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I am not asking about the judges perspective.



I'm asking about your perspective.



If you think its fair, the please explain why.

Until the case is reported



It's going to be very difficult to make any intelligent or



certainly informed points











in that regard. That's assuming it is ever reported, does anyone have the case, I didn't see if it was in the Curcuit or High Court.

Doctor Nick

Bandana boy wrote: »

That is exactly the kind of post a thief would make

:rolleyes: right, ya got me.

Sam Kade

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Seriously would these threads ever fcuking stop? The guy was defamed, it was a profitable business that decided to do it (by not training it's staff). The begrudary in this country really grinds you down after a while.

I was with you until you brought out the begrudgery line :mad:

Samuel T. Cogley

Sam Kade wrote: »

I was with you until you brought out the begrudgery line :mad:

Ah don't begrudge me my anti-begrudary.

Sam Kade

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its funny.

I was in a clothes store in Dublin about 15 years ago.

Tried on some stuff. Put it back. Didn't particularly want to talk to the shop assistant cause of the banality of the conversation:

'are ya all right for sizes'

'I'm looking for a medium, there's none here'

'well its really just what we have there in the shop'.

Anyway, on this occasion, shop was in temple bar. I left, walked 2 or 3 blocks away, and was stopped by a security guard who wants to look in my bag.

What for

You took something from the shop.

No I didn't

Lets see your bag.

Not opening it here on the street in front of everyone. I'll do it back in the shop.

Ok

......I go back to the shop, security guard, shop assistant, store manager are all there. I open my bag. Nothing in it.

And then.....

Not even an apology. The manager starts whingeing at the assistant; the assistant is giving out because I wouldn't talk to her in the shop, as if the whole thing is my fault. They said not a word more to me.

I have often thought back at how much they would have paid out if I had sued and gone through the courts.

Having said that - for the level of discomfort and embarrassment it caused me on the day, I would think a 100 euro voucher would have easily been fair redress.

Where they get this 20k from - its an insult to all the people who go out and do an honest days work for 100 or 200 a day..

Was it Dublin or New York :rolleyes:

Tombo2001

__Alex__ wrote: »

Sure, the vast majority of people wouldn't take the case but this person did and won. It's probably a standard amount for defamation. People don't willy nilly decide the amount they want to be compensated.

I see lots of people answering questions I didn't answer.

Sure its the standard amount for defamation. THat is exactly the problem. THat is why we have a major moral hazard issue. That is why there is a compo culture.

The question I asked is

Why is a 20k payment appropriate in this case, for what happened, and not a 2k payment.

20k being the equivalent of 5 years savings for someone on the average wage in Ireland.

I have no problem with the shop being punished. Its the amount I have a big problem with.

Tombo2001

Sam Kade wrote: »

Was it Dublin or New York :rolleyes:

Genius comment.

osarusan

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Sure.

And which one justifies a 20000 euro compensation payment.


Or even a 500 euro compensation payment.

I think the issue of what constitutes appropriate compensation is a fair question.


But I think it is a different question to whether or not the judge reached the right verdict or not. That is what I, at least, was talking about.

Tombo2001

osarusan wrote: »

I think the issue of what constitutes appropriate compensation is a fair question.


But I think it is a different question to whether or not the judge reached the right verdict or not. That is what I, at least, was talking about.

Nobody is saying the shop was in the right here.

There is no discussion around that.