Question

Contemporary Canadian Business Law. Chapter 4 (pg.78) Case 6

Jonas purchased a picnic basket at a hardware store in a nearby shopping mall. The basket was not wrapped by the sales clerk at the conclusion of the transaction. Jonas carried his new basket with him to a supermarket located in the same mall, where he intended to purchase a quantity of grapefruit. At the produce counter he could not find grapefruit on display, and asked the clerk if the store had any in stock. The clerk offered to check in the storage room for him. While he waited for the clerk to return, Jonas picked a quantity of grapes from a display case and ate them. A few moments later, the clerk returned to inform him that all the grapefruit had been sold.
As Jonas left the store, he was seized by the store owner and requested to return to the owner’s office. Jonas obediently followed him back inside the store. Once inside the owner’s office, the owner accused Jonas of theft; then, without further explanation, telephoned the police. When the police officer arrived, the store owner informed him that Jonas was a thief and that he had apprehended him just outside the store. Jonas admitted eating the grapes, then to his surprise, he discovered that the owner had apprehended him because he (the owner) thought Jonas had stolen the picnic basket.
Both the supermarket and the hardware store sold similar baskets; even on close examination, the products appeared identical. With the aid of the sales clerk at the hardware store, Jonas was able to convince the police officer that he had purchased the basket which he had in his possession.
He later decided to bring an action against the owner of the supermarket for false imprisonment. Discuss the issues raised in this case and determine the respective arguments of the parties. Render a decision.

Answer 1

answer-

False imprisonment is the act of detaining another person without that person’s consent or without legal authority to detain them.

The legal issues which we can find in this case are- Is owner of the supermarket is liable for false imprisonment?

The only defense which jonas can used in false imprisionment is Consent.Consent of plaintiff is violated where he was arrested without his permission.

there are more defense for store owner that is Shopkeeper’s Privilege: Store-owners or agents of a store-owner, like a security guard, may use a reasonable amount of force to detain a suspected thief for a reasonable amount of time to investigate the theft or an attempted theft. The store-owner must have a reasonable belief that the suspect stole or was attempting to steal their property before detaining the person.

Probable Cause: It is a complete defence to actions for false imprisonment, and false arrest specially. When the probable cause is established than the action of false imprisonment and false arrest fails completely. It is said that the test for probable cause for imprisonment and arrest is an objective one, based not on the individuals actual guilt, but upon the information of credible facts or information that would induce a person of ordinary caution to believe the accused to be guilty.

In this case, we see from facts that The basket jonas used are similar to supermarket's basket. It was hard to tell any kind of difference between hardware store's basket and supermarket's basket. this shows that Owner had a probable cause with facts that his reason that Jonas could be a theif was objective.Jonas should have put the basket outside the supermarket and use another basket for shopping or should have a bill of the basket in the first place.so decision would be in favor of Supermarket owner.