ABSTRACT
Kaur was a case tried by magistrates where the defendant, a customer in a self-service shop, had spotted a pair of shoes with different price labels attached to the two shoes, £4.99 and £6.99. She realised that £6.99 was the correct price but, nevertheless, picked up the pair and took them to the checkout in the hope that the cashier would charge her only the lower price. The cashier did indeed only notice the lower price, took the shoes from the defendant, bagged them and accepted the £4.99 from the defendant who then picked up the shoes and left. The defendant was convicted of theft and, in a case stated, the magistrates indicated that the basis of the conviction was that the cashier was not authorised to make the contract at an undervalue and that the contract was therefore void. When Mrs Kaur had picked up the bagged shoes she had appropriated property belonging to the shop. The Divisional Court quashed the conviction holding that the cashier had authority to make the contract, which was, therefore, not void. That being so, property passed to Mrs Kaur when she paid for the goods, with the result that when she picked up the bagged shoes she was not picking up property ‘belonging to another’.
