re: Constitutional lawyers : Is Walmart demand to show receipt legal?

quote:

---

it isn't legal to demand a receipt unless you agree to it in contract like sams or Costco.

---

Can you please link this fabricated law?

quote:

---

Stop bumping the thread.

---

If anything was ever in need of an anchor....

quote:

---

Can you please link this fabricated law?

---

Exactly my point. There is no law to support them in demanding the receipt. They can try, but there is also no law compelling departing customers to present their receipts, either. Amazingly many on this board have claimed its their store and they make the rules, ergo we must comply. No, sheeple ,you don't have to comply.

The staff at any store, including big box establishments, can ask to see your receipt as you exit. Although, in most cases, you'll probably acquiesce and hand the receipt over, you might wonder whether the store could do anything if you refused to show it. The answer is generally no, but it depends on the situation.

Even if you don’t have to comply with the store’s request, you might want to anyway.

Before taking further action, the personnel must have reasonable suspicion to believe that you’ve shoplifted. Without that suspicion, the staff can’t stop you from leaving the store. For instance, it would be inappropriate to:

stand in your way
use abusive language, or
physically detain you.
Membership stores are different, though. The chances are that when you purchased a club membership, you also signed a contract agreeing to allow the store to check your receipt before you leave. Under the terms of your agreement, the store doesn’t need to suspect that you engaged in shoplifting to detain you at the door.

Any restraint, even without physical contact, is sufficient to constitute false imprisonment. "If a [person] is restrained by fear of a personal difficulty, that amounts to false imprisonment within the legal meaning of such term." Coblyn v. Kennedy's Inc., 359 Mass. 319, 321, 268 N.E.2d 860, 861 (1971) (quoting Jacques v. Childs Dining Hall Co., 244 Mass. 438-439, 138 N.E. 843, 843 (1923)). In Jacques, the plaintiff while leaving a restaurant with her guest, was told to wait by the cashier and was then asked by the head-waiter to accompany him into the rear of the restaurant for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not she and her guest paid for all of the food they ate. This investigation lasted approximately thirty minutes and was ended when the manager of the restaurant informed her that she could leave. The Supreme Judicial Court found that the investigation by the restaurant amounted to false imprisonment. The plaintiff's veracity and honesty had been openly and repeatedly challenged, so much so that, if the plaintiff had gone out of the restaurant before being exonerated "her departure well might have been interpreted by the lookers-on as an admission of guilt ..." Jacques, 244 Mass. at 441, 138 N.E. at 844.







LINK




Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is made up.