Where's the justice in the civil justice system?

Here’s a scenario.

A man walks into a stereo shop. He picks out a stereo that he likes. Then he leaves the store with the stereo without paying for it.

Merriam Webster defines stealing as: “to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully”

Did our man steal?

It depends on the situation.

Let’s add to the story.

A man walks into a stereo shop. He picks out a stereo that he likes. Then he leaves the store with the stereo without paying for it. He doesn’t tell anyone that he is taking the stereo, he just leaves with it.

This is stealing. Depending on the cost of the item, it may only be considered shoplifting and not theft. Either way, it is a violation of the criminal justice system.

Let’s change the scenario.

A man walks into a stereo shop. He picks out a stereo that he likes. Then he leaves the store with the stereo without paying for it. He tells the clerk that he is not going to pay right away, but he will be back in a week once he receives his paycheque. The clerk asks him to sign the bill, saying that he has taken the product and received the goods in good condition and agrees to pay any interest accumulating after 30 days from invoice. However, this man chooses not to pay.

See where I’m going with this?

Now the owner of the shop cannot call the police and have the crook arrested. Mainly because he has entered into a contract with the individual, which makes this a civil dispute. Although the recent scenario does fit Mr. Webster’s definition, he is not considered a thief.

If the man wants his money, he has to serve the defendant with a summons to take him to court. The court date is normally about 1 month in advance from when the summons is issued. If the man does not show up in court, then there is what is called a default judgement, saying that defendant owes money to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff has to wait another 30 days just in case the defendant wants to dispute the charges.

You would think this means a lot, but it doesn’t. A judgement is only a piece of paper saying, “The court agrees that this person owes you money. You may now legally proceed in trying to collect it.” SUCKER. (it doesn’t say sucker, but it might as well).

Now to collect the money, you need to get garnishees. A garnishee can either be for wages, or against a bank or against anyone who owes the defendant money. And it is as easy as pie to get around. If you owe money to someone and you are garnisheed, all you have to do is backdate your cheque and say that you paid him before you were served.

Geez, isn’t that freaking lovely?

Oh, I forgot! That is only if the fellow doesn’t show up in court. If he shows up in court, then they have to set a court date. So the judge sets up a date for a trial, and at the trial, the defendant and the plaintiff both get the opportunity to say their piece.

So, the plaintiff shows the judge the invoice saying that monies are owed by the defendant for the stereo that he received.

But defendant simply says, "Judge, that’s not my signature. Here’s my signature from my credit cards, it doesn't match. I didn’t receive the stereo." The judge rules in favour of the defendant and throws the case out of court."

So, now you have lost the judgement, the man does not legally owe any money to the stereo dude. The defendant has stolen from the store owner, and he did it legally!

Isn’t the justice system great?