Calm Man Successfully Buys TV And Denies Walmart Receipt Checkers

TheConsumerist ^ | March 7, 2011 | Ben Popken

[muawiyah]

Your position (that of you and your funny little friends) degenerated to the morality of line jumping ~ which your side approved of.

That was right after you all agreed that it was OK to beat up on the little old ladies checking receipts.

We are still waiting for "you people" to come up with a legal citation for Virginia that says you don't have to show your receipt while still on the premises of the store.

Tick tock tick tock ~ whoopsi ~ Daylight Savings Time add an hour ~ tick tock tick tock..................

[KrisKrinkle]

“Natural law is also on the side of Wal-Mart.”

Why is natural law on the side of Wal-Mart?

[muawiyah]

Because, as it turns out, Wal-Mart is made up of natural critters called HU-MAN BEANS.

Natural Law does not disregard Natural Associations ~

[muawiyah]

And the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes the pre-existing right of "the people to assemble" and the pre-existing right of "contract".

Contract and society are not just creations of the mind ~ they exist, per se, with or without cerebral counseling.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Because, as it turns out, Wal-Mart is made up of natural critters called HU-MAN BEANS.

Natural Law does not disregard Natural Associations”

As it turns out, the same can be said of those on the other side.

Since you're having trouble explaining why natural law is on the side of Wal-Mart, let’s try another question:

Why is natural law on the side of Wal-Mart and not on the other side?

[KrisKrinkle]

And the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes the pre-existing right of "the people to assemble" and the pre-existing right of "contract".

If you see that, you must see that the United States Constitution explicitly recognizes the pre-existing right of "the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... (emphasis added).

That's the right some people believe Wal Mart violates, even if they don't put it that way.

[muawiyah]

Wal-Mart is not your government. They are simply another bunch of people ~ just like you and your family.

If they come to your house to do a search, I suppose you can call the cops to haul them away. If you go to their house to do a search, and you act at all funny, or like you're going to steal something, or you messed up something, I suppose they can call the cops to haul you away.

We are the master ~ the government is our servant.

[muawiyah]

The people constituting Wal-Mart are entitled to be secure against unreasonable seizures ~ like trying to waltz out the door without showing your receipt!

[KrisKrinkle]

At least partially erroneous and not relevant to the question at hand. But I'm not interested in pursuing it and allowing you to further divert from the question at hand which you don't seem to be able to answer.

[muawiyah]

Typical of your kind (Chicago voters) you think everything belongs to the government.

[KrisKrinkle]

“The people constituting Wal-Mart are entitled to be secure against unreasonable seizures ~ like trying to waltz out the door without showing your receipt!”

The people constituting Wal-Mart customers are entitled to be secure against unreasonable seizures ~ like preventing them from leaving without showing a receipt when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime on their part.

Let me give you a clue, if you're going to give a reason why natural law is on the side of Wal-Mart and not on the other side, the reason can't apply equally to both sides.

[muawiyah]

It's a private business full of private individuals going about their work, or they are shopping, or whatever.

You get a few yahoos in there who don't respect other's rights and it just turns to poop.

The government doesn't have to be involved in any of this, so don't bring them in, and don't dare others to do so by being needlessly obnoxious.

[KrisKrinkle]

Your argument is invalid.

[KrisKrinkle]

Your argument is incoherent in the context of the discussion. Stop trying to evade the question.

[longtermmemmory]

actually he is right. His state law says the store is NOT allowed to check the reciept and therefore the checking of the reciept is an illegal act.

Walmart is not above the law.

[muawiyah]

Then, let's bring in "statutory law" ~ to wit, the private express statutes. Wal-Mart was allowed by a statutory exception to hand that "letter" to the customer without payment of postage.

You can imagine how much it would improve postal fortunes to rescind that exception eh. But, we digress.

So, under the law Wal-Mart continues to OWN THE RECEIPT (or "letter") and the ownership NEVER conveys to the recipient.

I know that's too esoteric for you, but you will have to handle the receipt in a way required by Wal-Mart until you exit their premises and drive away out of their parking lot. Then, if they didn't snatch it back from you, you could dispose of it as you wish, but you still don't own it.

This business about who OWNS a stack of letters was settled ages ago through a series of statutes and court decisions, and sometimes there are disputes ~ particularly when a famous sender dies! But such things as receipts with personal information (e.g. part of your credit card number, time, date of purchase, location, price) makes them "personal information", which, if mailed, subjects them to First Class Mail rates ~ just like any other personal document.

Always make sure that you have a "release" from the owner in hand before attempting to sell your souvenir collection of "bills sent to Elvis" (e.g.).

[longtermmemmory]

if the law says you are not allowed to ask for a reciept after payment is made, it does not matter if it is a private property.

this is no different than states that say a ccw permit means you can’t prohibit ccw in public invided stores.

[KrisKrinkle]

“His state law says the store is NOT allowed to check the reciept and therefore the checking of the reciept is an illegal act.”

I tried to find where his state law said that but was unable to. But then I'm not well enough acquainted with his states law and the system I was searching in to do a good search. Can you give us a citation or reference or something?

[muawiyah]

No one has come up with a cite to a statute, but you can come up with whole big bunches of Virginia Supreme Court decisions that suggest the merchant CAN CHECK A RECEIPT for merchandise as long as you are on the premises.

The legislature and the courts in Virginia favor owners (and stores) ~ both in questions of quality of custody of goods normally vended there as well as issues of employment. There's a huge body of law targeting retail and all of it anti-customer, anti-thief, anti-clerk.

[KrisKrinkle]

Then, let's bring in "statutory law"...

Let's not. Let's You provide a proper response on natural law.