Wonder if anyone can give me advice in the following.

2 weeks ago I ordered the wife an eternity ring from a high st jewellers (I know I'm an old romantic) they didn't have her size in so I left a 50%deposit and was to pay the rest when it's in.
The wife went to pick it up today and pay the other 50% and the shop assistant just packaged the ring up and have it to her without taking money. The wife stood there with her debit card out but he didn't take it. Jut asked her if she wanted anything else then say goodbye so she assume I had paid for it all.

Being the good citizen I am, and more importantly not wanting to get a shop assistant in trouble I'm going to head in tomorrow and pay the rest.

Does anyone know if I'm legally obliged to pay though??
As if not I'm going to try and haggle a discount for my honesty.

You are legally obliged to yes. Having said that, given that in practice you could have gotten away scot free, I think they would be a bit hard faced not to give you a discount.

You entered into a contract, you have not fulfilled your part.

Simple as

You have a legal obligation to pay. But that div of a shop assistant could have handed over all the documentation. Depends on what procedures the shop had in place and how badly he screwed them up.

You might be getting him into trouble. But it's trouble he needs. He needs to know how to properly complete transactions. It could be that the shop has a dreadful system in place and the shop has no knowledge that they've given you the item at half price. It could be that the guy is in trouble already and you're saving him from the chop by going in and rectifying it. It could be that they're already writing to you with an invoice for the remaining 50%.

Whether you get a discount will probably depend on how much discretion the management have.

Go in, find out which days the assistant works then order another ten rings to be picked up on those specific days.

I'd guess it would be theft to knowingly retain their consideration or property (ring) under the contract Cod'ead reports you entered into.

Sections 1 to 6 of The Theft Act 1968 may be pertinent.

More to the point, you ordered a ring as a gift for your bread knife and then you expect her to pay for half of it when she goes to pick it up?

True ... but isn't it the jeweller's responsibility to demand the remainder of the payment?

Why?

Job done.

25% discount on the remaining balance.

Happy days..... Except for the assistant who's probably due a rollicking.

Well done! Most upright citizen since Pele.

Because that is their side of the deal.

Been trying to google this and it's hard to get an answer.

Various things were coming back as it could be classed as theft by deception.

Quote ="citywolf"Been trying to google this and it's hard to get an answer. Various things were coming back as it could be classed as theft by deception.'" www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/contents

Quote ="citywolf"Been trying to google this and it's hard to get an answer. Various things were coming back as it could be classed as theft by deception.'" www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/contents

Well done,
For honesty,
And sheer bloody nerve for asking for a discount



Are you sure you're not a Yorkshireman ?

It's all academic now, but there would be no chance of a criminal offence.

the property was not dishonestly appropriated. It was given and taken in complete good faith, and was in the possession of the donee (wife) without any involvement of the donor (OP).

The OP was not involved whatsoever with taking the item away from the jeweller.

To be guilty of theft you have to dishonestly appropriate something. The OP didn't appropriate anything, ever, let alone dishonestly. He didn't even know it had happened.

His missus did appropriate it, but entirely and transparently honestly. She was not the "purchaser". She just innocently picked something up.

It would therefore be a purely civil matter. Clearly there would have been a balance debt due from the OP to the jeweller which they could have pursued him for, through the civil courts.

Are you telling me wives are no longer mere chattels of their husbands and deemed capable of thinking for themselves these days?

Hang on. I'll have to ask Mrs Aardvark

Don't you go worrying your pretty little head about such things.