
It goes without saying that if you rent a video game, you should return it - preferably on time.
But a Pennsylvania judge has called a halt to the jury trial of a man who failed to return an unspecified game and three movies to a West Coast Video outlet.
As reported by the
Harrisburg Patriot-News, Morris Mumma, Jr. rented the items in January and failed to return them. The store manager called Mumma, who said he had been busy but would bring the game and movies back and pay the late fees.
The video store manager next billed Mumma's credit card $70 for the replacement value of the items, but the charge was declined by the bank. A local police officer then left Mumma a voice mail, at which point Mumma returned the items. The police then filed charges alleging that Mumma had, in effect, committed a theft by failing to pay a $59 late fee.
From the Patriot-News:
The public defender's office and prosecutors couldn't reach an agreement and the case was called for trial Wednesday, on a court calendar filled with murder, rape and other felonies.
Assistant Public Defender Alyssa H. Knisely told the newspaper that Mumma wanted to pay the fee:
If we start criminally charging everyone who returns a movie late, judge, we'll be clogging up the court system, which should be reserved for real criminals.
Judge Richard Lewis agreed and refused to empanel a jury to hear the case. Hizzoner told prosecutors to withdraw the charge or he would dismiss it when Mumma paid the $59.
Comments
She is not suing because they didn't fix it on time, she is suing because they lost it. It had personally identifiable information on it.
She also is not really wanting the money. She wants Best Buy to admit what they did and give her a little more than just the cost of a new lap top. The 54 million amount was to just get the media attention and put pressure on Best Buy to improve their data handling policies.
@SpiralGray
It may have been a breach of contract law, but it is not an amount that warrants a jury trial. These sort of violations could easily be handled in small claims.
Or was it just a library that wanted to start suing over late fees?
Anyway, it's sort of a good point about clogging up the courts with such cases. I mean, they aren't trivial to the business, but certainly they would take up unnecessary legal time. Just send it to a collections agency (which all that many such businesses do).
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
Oh...wait...that is toatally stupid. Sure it is wrong to return your movies late and sure it is wrong to not pay your late fees, but wouldn't it just be better to cancle that persons account and blacklist them or something.
Why go through the trouble of seeking a lawsuit against someone that could cost in the thousands just for $59? Should the money spent on the lawsuit be better used to expand the vidoe selection?
Also: "the case was called for trial Wednesday, on a court calendar filled with murder, rape and other felonies."
That, I would wager, is a type of hilarity that comedians wish they could attain.
For chrissakes, you don't bring this to a court filled to the brim with MURDER and RAPE charges. You'd figure these guys would know of the existance of a, you know, SMALL-CLAIMS COURT.
You mean this guy?
Heh, you're right, he WAS awesome.
by uk law "A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it"
so as long as you can say you didnt mean to permanently deprive them, it wouldnt be theft!
we did some funny cases in law school, apperently LEGALLY you could technically eat out at a restaurant and leave , or a hotel say, n then just claim oh ill be back in a month to pay for it and it isnt theft lol
still you might be hit under civil contract law tho.
Most of those places just refer it to a collection company.
BTW: You can rest assured his credit is already destroyed due to this.
Pretty soon any American that wants to see what "home of the brave and land of the free" originally meant, they will have to move to Canukistan to see what life is like.
If you want to be really picky, yes, it does warrant a jury trial (although, I agree, small claims probably would've been a better choice)
Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.
At the end of of day, when you take this stuff out you know when its due back, after that its just theft, how hard is it to return something on time?
Well I do agree that simply going to small claims would have been easier, the rental place were not in the wrong to treat the unreturned games as theft, because the holder did not return them and did not pay the bill for replacing the games, ie buying them. The judge did the right thing in declaring he will drop the case when the money is paid.
There is a difference, a rather important one.
we do get it, you dont. ITs not illegal because its not a law being broken its a contract. its a civil matter. breach of contract isnt a criminal act.
And the judge saw the stupidity in convicting this person to this degree and threw out the case. This article should be laughed at for how stupid things. It shouldn’t be taken as a sky is falling, the government is taking your rights away kind of thing? Plus what right says you have the right to not pay your debts?
Unless the court has gotten to them too.
GORD! thanks for the reminder
(while its wrong not to pay late fees, its just a violation of contract, not really a theft)
While court might have been a rather excessive step...it's still pretty bad that a majority of people defend this sort of thing as not a big deal...
Why would they sue her? Is it because they want to set an example to their customers (customers who will probably never hear of this and customers who could easily switch to netflix)? Or is this an individual case? Exactly how overdue were her movies? A week, a month, several months?
As has been pointed out before, blacklisting her would work much better than hiring a lawyer and having to tie up the court system.
actually he " said he had been busy but would bring the game and movies back and pay the late fees"
sounds to me like it could be easily argued he intented to return them at some point (doesnt need to be proven returned at any point in the near future, just ANY indication of return) in which case it isnt theft. Its a well known joke (well in UK criminal law) that we had a few seminars over in law school that you can technically eat out for free for the rest of your life and jsut say you intend to come back n pay for it and it isnt theft. (although contract law will sue your ass)
Cynical-er morning hangover post. There are children in my office. Little fuckers.
Are we talking UK law or US law because a woman has gone to Jail in the US for not returning her library books back on time...It was stupid -BUT- I'm pretty sure that the fact it required police involvement to get the items back means that the odds are in favor that he wouldn't have returned it...I know this because I've known quite a number of people who have done this sort of thing and it was theft. He didn't give them a working credit card so odds are he wanted something for free or little cost.
To Say that it isn't theft is stupid in of itself because if you don't pay up...even if you say you will eventually it becomes obvious that you're a thief.
I'm sensitive to the pressures that make bloggers use partial text feeds — some of my friends depend on selling advertising to support their sites.