Wouldn't we all be guilty of this "crime"?

Mijas teenager charged with misappropriation for eating chocolates sent to her house by error


The 14 year old ate half the chocolates in the box after the courier de livered them to the wrong address.

A fourteen year old girl from Mijas, Málaga, has been charged with misappropriation for eating a gift of chocolates which was delivered to her house in error.

The teenager was unable to resist the temptation when she opened up the package after it was delivered to her house by courier and found pieces of chocolate *laid out inside the box to form the words, ‘Feliz cumpleaños’ – ‘Happy birthday’.

The error in the delivery was discovered when the true recipient contacted the courier service enquiring about a package his wife had sent to his office in Fuengirola. The courier went back to the Mijas address and, despite finding on arrival that half the chocolates had been eaten, took away what remained and they were sent on to their destination.

ABC newspaper reports that the recipient placed a formal complaint with the police after he opened up his birthday gift and found that some of it was missing.

It’s understood that the teenage girl told officers that she had opened up the package thinking it was a gift for her mother, whose birthday was coming up in the next few days. She was then charged with misappropriation.



Source: typicallyspanish.com

Grammar point:

"It’s understood that the teenage girl told officers that she had opened up the package thinking it was a gift for her mother."

"... despite finding on arrival that half the chocolates had been eaten, took away what remained..."

Both of the above example contain two past actions (one further in the past than the other). To show the first action, we use the Past Perfect (had + past part.).

Read this previous post on Past Perfect and check out all the links to practice it more.

Confusing words:

What's the difference between lay* and lie?

to lay - laid - laid

to lie - lay - lain


to lie means to be in or move into a horizontal position on a surface:

I like to lie in bed on a Sunday, having breakfast and reading the newspapers.

He fell asleep while lying on the beach and woke up to discover he was burnt.

He just lay on the sofa all day yesterday watching football and drinking beer.


to lay means to put sth in a horizontal position:

"... and found pieces of chocolate *laid out inside the box"

I remember laying the book on the table when I answered the phone.

She laid the baby on the bed.

We are having a new carpet laid in the hall.


So we can see from the above examples that "lay" takes a direct object while lie does not.


It's a bit like the difference between "rise" and "raise".

Comments

José said…
Hi Graham,

This event happened because the teenager from Mijas didn’t eat all the chocolates in the box. If the fourteen year old girl had eaten all chocolates, the courier wouldn’t have taken it to the true recipient. Do you agree? It’s that without saying. It’s necessary to do things very well and from cover to cover.

Regardless, in my opinion, the true recipient can’t complain against the teenager but against the courier or his company and the courier or his company can complain against the teenager after. As you say, this isn’t crime because our Penal Code doesn’t categorise the fact “eat chocolates that people give you at home” as crime. If I'd defended the teenager, I would have beaten the trial and she wouldn’t have charged with misappropriation.

Your explanation is okay, thanks, but could you give me another clear explanation about rise and raise, please?

P. S. I have wasted half an hour looking up in my dictionary the word “de” and the word “livered”, because the best English teacher in the world made a typing mistake in the first paragraph of the text. I realized it when I read the second paragraph and I saw the word “delivered”. I ban you say stupid student.

See you.
Graham said…
Hi José,

I'm sure most adults would have eaten the chocolates too. In fact, if they thought the'd get away with it, most people would accept anything that was meant for their neighbours.


This event happened because the teenager from Mijas didn’t eat all the chocolates in the box. If the fourteen year old girl had eaten all the chocolates, the courier wouldn’t have taken it to the true recipient. Do you agree? It goes without saying. It’s necessary to do things very well and from cover to cover.

Regardless, in my opinion, the true recipient can’t complain against the teenager but against the courier or his company and the courier or his company can complain against the teenager later. As you say, this isn’t a crime because our Penal Code doesn’t categorise the fact “eating chocolates that people deliver to your home” as a crime. If I'd defended the teenager, I would have won the trial and she wouldn’t have been charged with misappropriation.

Your explanation is okay, thanks, but could you give me another clear explanation about rise and raise, please? /Sure, but in class)

P. S. I have wasted half an hour looking up the word “de” and the word “livered”, because the best English teacher in the world made a typing mistake in the first paragraph of the text. I realized it when I read the second paragraph and I saw the word “delivered”. I forbid you from saying stupid student.


Apologies for the typo but half an hour to look up two words??!!