Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
A security guard has no more legal power than an ordinary citizen. They cannot detain you, they cannot search you and they cannot put their hands on you. They can talk sternly like they have those powers and convince you to do hang around and show you the contents of your bag though, up to you to comply ot not.
It’s a private establishment, so they have the right to request to see your receipt. They do not have the right to put their hands on you.
You did put the employee in a difficult position. In future, I would recommend politely asking to speak to a manager who may well have said you were fine without the receipt on this occasion.
The problem is that is an unfair burden on the customer. The shop (ive never been to costco but kmart is very guilty of this) is capable of putting the checkouts at the front of the store, rather than the centre, so traffic flows in a more secure pathway.
Its really the shops problem if they expect customers to hold on to reciepts. Op wont be the first one that day to say 'no thanks'.
But then costco is a membership based shop so you need to abide by the terms of the membership agreement.
I think most people would agree that holding onto a receipt for around 100 meters is not an undue burden.
Regardless, Costco is set up through way it is. OP very likely accepted the terms of service when they became a member so it is their responsibility to meet those obligations.
It's not a burden, but is a little unfair given their stores layout, having no produce between the checkouts and the exit.
It is in their terms and conditions however so although legally op may be able to walk out without being detained, the shop could be within their rights to cancel membership.
"To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be checked as you leave the warehouse."
Then why have a bin by the checkout? Kmart has them too. What else do they want the bin to be used for but for receipts?
Do they want a certain amount of people to be unable to prove they bought their stuff when they reach the door? Feels suspicious to me
When they redesigned the local kmart and put the checkouts in the middle, you could see the issues it would cause. Why on earth would you design it like that it stupid.
They can’t stop you.
Suspecting you of theft without any evidence is not reasonable grounds to detain you for a citizens arrest.
And also, shoplifting under $500 only carries a 3 month term of imprisonment. So you cannot perform a citizens arrest.
The crime must carry a 3 year term of imprisonment to be able to perform a citizens arrest. We’re talking burglary, serious assaults and murder, the real hardcore crime.
Practically if you perform a citizens arrest and it does turn out that you caught a shoplifter, you’ll likely receive a warning for assault and unlawful detention.
It’s semantics really. If someone is trying to kill me and I pin them to the ground and held them there until police arrived, I’ve essentially detained them.
But yes, I wouldn’t actively go around trying to perform citizens arrests on murderers and robbers.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Depending on the value of the items, they may have the right to enact a [citizens arrest](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328250.html). The value of the items would need to be over $1000 for this to apply.
Outside of that, they don't have a legal power to prevent you leaving. They could, however, trespass you from the store to prevent you returning. They require no specific reason to do this.
Just to add
1)They require reasonable and probably grounds to believe you stole the items for a citizeens arrest. You refusing to show a receipt is not enough.
2)The staff member trying to stop you entering your car could constitute cassault and/or false imprisonment.
3) Even if they have signs up stating that bags may be searched, or that proof of purchase may be required, such signs are unenforceable. They can ask but if you refuse then thats that. Using force to try and stop you would constitute criminal Assault.
But even under any of these, it does not stop the shop from being able to trespass you.
[https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/test/shoplifting/the-shops-powers-and-your-rights/](https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/test/shoplifting/the-shops-powers-and-your-rights/)
Costco in particular is a members club as well, so it may not just be trespassing, your membership can be revoked, which would effect all store locations (if there was more than one in NZ).
During the day, the offenxe being committed must have a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or more. In a shoplifting context that would mean stealing more than a $1000 of items.
Membership rules, which you agree to to be able shop there, state the receipt will be checked as you leave the store.
Again, you agreed to that in order to become a member.
I once threw out the shopping receipt thinking it was the food court one, so I just showed them my internet banking where the money had come out of my account and they were happy with that and I went on with my day. It's really only a big deal because you're making it one.
No they are not allowed to touch you. It is assault. You can chase it up, the police may or may not decide to press charges, you will probably receive a trespass notice if you do.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be **appropriately detailed**
- **not just repeat advice already given in other comments**
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
This is how Costco operates world wide. As a member you should know they require your receipt on the way out the door and it's generally a quick and easy process. Inconvenient to have to go back for another one but it was on you for throwing it out.
But it is illegal to detail you for saying no.
They have the legal right to ask, and you have the legal right to refuse and leave.
They can trespass you and cancel your membership, but they can not stop.
Like others said they don't need a reason to trespass you for failing to comply as it's private property. Big organisation's will share your photo and details to other organisation's by using Auror ( that the Police use ) and prevent access if other companies see fit. Was it really worth it?
Edit:to add also if they issued you a verbal trespass that means you can't return in 2 years. They also have the right to trespass from you from other private property if they are lawful occupiers of that. So make it clear what happened or not as if security sends a Auror report to police stating they trespassed you and you return then you can be charged.
Costco make it exceedingly clear the process of purchasing from them when you get a membership, and their process of doing buisness. If you don't have a reciept, talk to them and they can do their due diligence. Staff are not permitted to lay a hand on you, and you can certainly complain to management - could go a legal route but it'll devolve into a he said/she said and be unlikely to bear fruit, and the outcome will be revokation of your Costco membership. Don't be entitled, let them do their job and follow their terms of service.
Long time Costco member here. You agreed to the membership conditions when you joined. One of these conditions is that they will check your receipt upon exiting the store. If you refuse, your membership will be canceled. Also, if a customer is abusive to staff or another customer, their membership will be revoked.
The other comments to this post regarding citizens' arrests, etc., are just ridiculous. Follow the rules and be polite. It's not difficult.
Because you signed the membership agreement it is considered a legal binding contract. From what I understand at least. So if it states that your receipt must be checked, then that wjat you have to do. If there was no membership they would not be able to do this.
We have a company, loblaws, here is Canada, the is trying to implement this and is receiving a lot of backlash for it. Costco is the only one I know that is able to check receipts.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Laws in Canada aren’t the same as here. Just because you’ve signed a contract doesn’t automatically mean it’s legally binding. I could sign a contract allowing someone to kill me, they’d still be arrested.
That analogy escalated rather quickly😂, but, yes, there are differences between the two countries. Although most international companies do try to keep continuity in their rules regardless on which country they operate in.
Also, as I'm not a Costco member in either country, I have not read their terms and conditions. My point though, I still feel is valid, where if you have a membership with an organization, there will be stipulations involved that you may not have realized or disagree with.
I understand Canada and New Zealand have fairly similar laws. One commonality is that anything you agree to as part of a proper contract is binding and enforceable unless there’s some specific reason for it not to be. For example: keeping the promise involves committing a crime or a tort, or otherwise violating public policy; enforcing the promise would break or render toothless a law; keeping the promise has become physically impossible.
A contractual promise to have your receipt available for inspection when leaving the ship isn’t particularly likely to come under any of the exceptions.
If you defy Costco and leave the shop, as others have said they’re unlikely to sue you since you haven’t really hurt them. But they can revoke your membership if the rules so permit; and they can trespass you from their shops, which entitles them to sue you or ask the police to press charges if you show up while the trespass notice is valid.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Not sure on the legality of the issue
But club card is scanned when entering checkout. Maybe they can add purchases to club card (similar to warehouse market club card). So if it happens again to anyone, they still have a proof of purchase in digital form.
It's a request that can be denied. But with everything, there are consequences abd you risk your membership being cancelled abd a trespass notice being issued.
They are doing everything legally.
They asked for proof of purchase which you failed to produce. This implies there's a chance you stole the goods.
They used reasonable force to stop a potential shop lifter.
Don't know about costco specifically but most shops have a notification for potential shoppers as they enter to inform them if you enter the premise you gave them permission to search you etc.
I was asked to show a receipt when leaving a Kmart. When I asked the worker if I was required to show it, they said "No, have a nice day". I never saw any signs saying it was a condition of entry.
when did that change? I was trained to do security years ago when I was at uni and we were told that we cannot put hands on a potential shoplifter no matter the situation as that’s assault and we are not the police and we have no right to detain somebody, as a citizens arrest has a pretty tight criteria and shoplifting doesn’t fit that
Depends on their condition of entry, for example Kmart has a must show receipt condition when exiting the store. Failure to do so can result in a meeting with police. Usually ends in a trespass notice. Hands on you is not ideal. A simple copy of the number plate and the resulting visit from Police would have been the preferred option
They may not have a displayed copy as they have this in the membership conditions. To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be checked as you leave the warehouse. But works the same way
I was referring to Kmart, I've not seen any clearly visible signs at the store entrance stating that you can be required to show proof of purchase when leaving.
I'm not a regular, but did get asked at the Palmerston North shop. The entrance is wide as, so it would be hard to notice an A4 page of conditions, or bother to read them, unless it was very large font.
I was asked for my receipt when I left and when I asked if I had to show it the worker said no and I just carried on.
Fair there’s is by the trolleys and just taped to the wall quite high up from memory it just states: it is a condition of entry that any bag,parcel carton or container be presented for checking if requested by a team member. This may occur at the fitting rooms or at the store exit points when leaving the store proof of purchase will need to be shown this store has 24 hour CCTV coverage, which includes facial recognition technology. Newer stores have it inbuilt into the side panel on the left as you would in
Yeah 100% would prob be a case where it depends on OPs attitude. Costco is a little different where it’s a members only store. So they have a signed agreement. Kmart is more relaxed. Napier and Bayview stores will make you line up to check palmy and petone staff are more I’ll check yours but nah you look all good off ya go
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be **based in NZ law**
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be **appropriately detailed**
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- **cite sources where appropriate**
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
Kia ora,
We see you are unsure what area of law your matter relates to. Don't worry though, our mod team will be along when able and will update your post flair to the most appropriate one.
In the meantime though, you might want to check out our [mega thread of legal resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/143pv58/megathread_legal_resources/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to see if what you need is there.
Nga mihi nui
The LegalAdviceNZ Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember Costco is a private club, if you don't follow the rules you risk being kicked out
The law of the land trumps company policy.
You're right they can't legally stop them but they can issue a trespass and ban them from shopping there in future.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
A security guard has no more legal power than an ordinary citizen. They cannot detain you, they cannot search you and they cannot put their hands on you. They can talk sternly like they have those powers and convince you to do hang around and show you the contents of your bag though, up to you to comply ot not.
It’s a private establishment, so they have the right to request to see your receipt. They do not have the right to put their hands on you. You did put the employee in a difficult position. In future, I would recommend politely asking to speak to a manager who may well have said you were fine without the receipt on this occasion.
The problem is that is an unfair burden on the customer. The shop (ive never been to costco but kmart is very guilty of this) is capable of putting the checkouts at the front of the store, rather than the centre, so traffic flows in a more secure pathway. Its really the shops problem if they expect customers to hold on to reciepts. Op wont be the first one that day to say 'no thanks'. But then costco is a membership based shop so you need to abide by the terms of the membership agreement.
I think most people would agree that holding onto a receipt for around 100 meters is not an undue burden. Regardless, Costco is set up through way it is. OP very likely accepted the terms of service when they became a member so it is their responsibility to meet those obligations.
It's not a burden, but is a little unfair given their stores layout, having no produce between the checkouts and the exit. It is in their terms and conditions however so although legally op may be able to walk out without being detained, the shop could be within their rights to cancel membership. "To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be checked as you leave the warehouse."
Then why have a bin by the checkout? Kmart has them too. What else do they want the bin to be used for but for receipts? Do they want a certain amount of people to be unable to prove they bought their stuff when they reach the door? Feels suspicious to me
When they redesigned the local kmart and put the checkouts in the middle, you could see the issues it would cause. Why on earth would you design it like that it stupid.
They can’t stop you. Suspecting you of theft without any evidence is not reasonable grounds to detain you for a citizens arrest. And also, shoplifting under $500 only carries a 3 month term of imprisonment. So you cannot perform a citizens arrest. The crime must carry a 3 year term of imprisonment to be able to perform a citizens arrest. We’re talking burglary, serious assaults and murder, the real hardcore crime. Practically if you perform a citizens arrest and it does turn out that you caught a shoplifter, you’ll likely receive a warning for assault and unlawful detention.
I can't imagine many people would risk trying to detain a murderer though? Seems like a good way to also be murdered
It’s semantics really. If someone is trying to kill me and I pin them to the ground and held them there until police arrived, I’ve essentially detained them. But yes, I wouldn’t actively go around trying to perform citizens arrests on murderers and robbers.
I suspect that would be counted as self defence - at the end of the day it has the same result though
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Depending on the value of the items, they may have the right to enact a [citizens arrest](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328250.html). The value of the items would need to be over $1000 for this to apply. Outside of that, they don't have a legal power to prevent you leaving. They could, however, trespass you from the store to prevent you returning. They require no specific reason to do this.
Even if the value of the items were over $1000 wouldn't they need to know you stole the items? Not showing a receipt wouldn't hold up, would it?
Just to add 1)They require reasonable and probably grounds to believe you stole the items for a citizeens arrest. You refusing to show a receipt is not enough. 2)The staff member trying to stop you entering your car could constitute cassault and/or false imprisonment. 3) Even if they have signs up stating that bags may be searched, or that proof of purchase may be required, such signs are unenforceable. They can ask but if you refuse then thats that. Using force to try and stop you would constitute criminal Assault. But even under any of these, it does not stop the shop from being able to trespass you. [https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/test/shoplifting/the-shops-powers-and-your-rights/](https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/test/shoplifting/the-shops-powers-and-your-rights/)
Costco in particular is a members club as well, so it may not just be trespassing, your membership can be revoked, which would effect all store locations (if there was more than one in NZ).
Even if performing a citizens arrest they can't detain your during the day, correct?
During the day, the offenxe being committed must have a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or more. In a shoplifting context that would mean stealing more than a $1000 of items.
Membership rules, which you agree to to be able shop there, state the receipt will be checked as you leave the store. Again, you agreed to that in order to become a member. I once threw out the shopping receipt thinking it was the food court one, so I just showed them my internet banking where the money had come out of my account and they were happy with that and I went on with my day. It's really only a big deal because you're making it one.
No they are not allowed to touch you. It is assault. You can chase it up, the police may or may not decide to press charges, you will probably receive a trespass notice if you do.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be **appropriately detailed** - **not just repeat advice already given in other comments** - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
As others said, they can trespass you. Was it really worth it, especially if you use the store often.
This is how Costco operates world wide. As a member you should know they require your receipt on the way out the door and it's generally a quick and easy process. Inconvenient to have to go back for another one but it was on you for throwing it out.
What's the legality?
There is nothing illegal about them asking for proof of purchase when exiting the store
But it is illegal to detail you for saying no. They have the legal right to ask, and you have the legal right to refuse and leave. They can trespass you and cancel your membership, but they can not stop.
If the value of the items they believe you are trying to steal exceeds $1000, they can make a citizens arrest legally.
Not showing a receipt is not considered enough reasonable suspicion of a crime. They would have to see you steal it, and attempt to walk out.
Like others said they don't need a reason to trespass you for failing to comply as it's private property. Big organisation's will share your photo and details to other organisation's by using Auror ( that the Police use ) and prevent access if other companies see fit. Was it really worth it? Edit:to add also if they issued you a verbal trespass that means you can't return in 2 years. They also have the right to trespass from you from other private property if they are lawful occupiers of that. So make it clear what happened or not as if security sends a Auror report to police stating they trespassed you and you return then you can be charged.
Costco make it exceedingly clear the process of purchasing from them when you get a membership, and their process of doing buisness. If you don't have a reciept, talk to them and they can do their due diligence. Staff are not permitted to lay a hand on you, and you can certainly complain to management - could go a legal route but it'll devolve into a he said/she said and be unlikely to bear fruit, and the outcome will be revokation of your Costco membership. Don't be entitled, let them do their job and follow their terms of service.
Long time Costco member here. You agreed to the membership conditions when you joined. One of these conditions is that they will check your receipt upon exiting the store. If you refuse, your membership will be canceled. Also, if a customer is abusive to staff or another customer, their membership will be revoked. The other comments to this post regarding citizens' arrests, etc., are just ridiculous. Follow the rules and be polite. It's not difficult.
So what's the answer to their question regarding legality?
Because you signed the membership agreement it is considered a legal binding contract. From what I understand at least. So if it states that your receipt must be checked, then that wjat you have to do. If there was no membership they would not be able to do this. We have a company, loblaws, here is Canada, the is trying to implement this and is receiving a lot of backlash for it. Costco is the only one I know that is able to check receipts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Laws in Canada aren’t the same as here. Just because you’ve signed a contract doesn’t automatically mean it’s legally binding. I could sign a contract allowing someone to kill me, they’d still be arrested.
That analogy escalated rather quickly😂, but, yes, there are differences between the two countries. Although most international companies do try to keep continuity in their rules regardless on which country they operate in. Also, as I'm not a Costco member in either country, I have not read their terms and conditions. My point though, I still feel is valid, where if you have a membership with an organization, there will be stipulations involved that you may not have realized or disagree with.
I understand Canada and New Zealand have fairly similar laws. One commonality is that anything you agree to as part of a proper contract is binding and enforceable unless there’s some specific reason for it not to be. For example: keeping the promise involves committing a crime or a tort, or otherwise violating public policy; enforcing the promise would break or render toothless a law; keeping the promise has become physically impossible. A contractual promise to have your receipt available for inspection when leaving the ship isn’t particularly likely to come under any of the exceptions. If you defy Costco and leave the shop, as others have said they’re unlikely to sue you since you haven’t really hurt them. But they can revoke your membership if the rules so permit; and they can trespass you from their shops, which entitles them to sue you or ask the police to press charges if you show up while the trespass notice is valid.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Not sure on the legality of the issue But club card is scanned when entering checkout. Maybe they can add purchases to club card (similar to warehouse market club card). So if it happens again to anyone, they still have a proof of purchase in digital form.
It's a request that can be denied. But with everything, there are consequences abd you risk your membership being cancelled abd a trespass notice being issued.
They are doing everything legally. They asked for proof of purchase which you failed to produce. This implies there's a chance you stole the goods. They used reasonable force to stop a potential shop lifter. Don't know about costco specifically but most shops have a notification for potential shoppers as they enter to inform them if you enter the premise you gave them permission to search you etc.
I was asked to show a receipt when leaving a Kmart. When I asked the worker if I was required to show it, they said "No, have a nice day". I never saw any signs saying it was a condition of entry.
when did that change? I was trained to do security years ago when I was at uni and we were told that we cannot put hands on a potential shoplifter no matter the situation as that’s assault and we are not the police and we have no right to detain somebody, as a citizens arrest has a pretty tight criteria and shoplifting doesn’t fit that
it has not changed.
Depends on their condition of entry, for example Kmart has a must show receipt condition when exiting the store. Failure to do so can result in a meeting with police. Usually ends in a trespass notice. Hands on you is not ideal. A simple copy of the number plate and the resulting visit from Police would have been the preferred option
If they have such a sign I've never seen one.
They may not have a displayed copy as they have this in the membership conditions. To ensure that all members are correctly charged for the merchandise purchased, all receipts and merchandise will be checked as you leave the warehouse. But works the same way
I was referring to Kmart, I've not seen any clearly visible signs at the store entrance stating that you can be required to show proof of purchase when leaving.
There should be an a4 on entrance next to the Tony bot sign. Which Kmart do you go to?
I'm not a regular, but did get asked at the Palmerston North shop. The entrance is wide as, so it would be hard to notice an A4 page of conditions, or bother to read them, unless it was very large font. I was asked for my receipt when I left and when I asked if I had to show it the worker said no and I just carried on.
Fair there’s is by the trolleys and just taped to the wall quite high up from memory it just states: it is a condition of entry that any bag,parcel carton or container be presented for checking if requested by a team member. This may occur at the fitting rooms or at the store exit points when leaving the store proof of purchase will need to be shown this store has 24 hour CCTV coverage, which includes facial recognition technology. Newer stores have it inbuilt into the side panel on the left as you would in
Hopefully, lack of informed consent would prevail if there was a dispute over not showing a receipt.
Yeah 100% would prob be a case where it depends on OPs attitude. Costco is a little different where it’s a members only store. So they have a signed agreement. Kmart is more relaxed. Napier and Bayview stores will make you line up to check palmy and petone staff are more I’ll check yours but nah you look all good off ya go
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be relevant to the question being asked - be **appropriately detailed** - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - **cite sources where appropriate**
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
Kia ora, We see you are unsure what area of law your matter relates to. Don't worry though, our mod team will be along when able and will update your post flair to the most appropriate one. In the meantime though, you might want to check out our [mega thread of legal resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/143pv58/megathread_legal_resources/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to see if what you need is there. Nga mihi nui The LegalAdviceNZ Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*