Mercadona: Entering at 9:28 PM and threatening legal action

Mercadona: Entering at 9:28 PM and ending up in court

Closing at 9:30 PM means closing at 9:30 PM. Not at 9:28 PM or 9:29 PM. What the staff understands by closing is another matter, and that's where a dispute heading for trial begins. A regular customer of a neighborhood Mercadona recounts that he entered the establishment at 9:28 PM, that a security guard blocked his way, that the manager—whom he identifies as Teresa—authorized him to pass, and that minutes later, after doing his shopping, they wouldn't let him pay. The result: police, a burofax, and the customer's threat to take the case to court.

The customer's account claims that the chain itself admits, in a phone recording he provided, that charging is not a security guard's responsibility. In other words: the supermarket cashier should have processed the payment, leaving the conflict with the guard for later.

Who decides when a supermarket closes?

At 9:28 PM, according to his account, the shutter was up and the cashier was serving the person in front of him. That's the fact the customer hammers home. From there, two accounts clash. For some, if you are inside during opening hours, you have the right to be served until you finish the process, and the guard cannot prevent payment because that is not his job. For others, entering two minutes before closing is playing with fire regarding the work life of people who clock out at 9:30 PM and then need to balance the till, stock shelves, and close up.

The detail that clarifies the mess is not sarracena but chronological. The chain itself acknowledges, according to the customer, that he entered at 9:25 PM and left at 9:50 PM after police intervention. Twenty-five minutes on the clock. That margin is what turns a one-minute purchase into a fifteen-minute problem for those who have to close.

The security guard, that new nightclub bouncer

In this type of episode, the same character always appears: the security guard from the external company, hired a few months ago, responsible for enforcing rules that the store itself doesn't always define. Some recall theirs posing in front of the customer, puffing out their chests, looking down their noses at staff. The anecdote is not minor: the security service is the first visible face of the company and often the one that bears the brunt of decisions they haven't made.

What the law says and what common sense whispers

The legal side of this matter is murky. On one hand, the Civil Code and rulings for rights abusa: commercial obligations, customer treatment, compensation that sometimes exceeds incivil penalties. On the other, the Penal Code and its articles on the responsibility of legal entities and those acting on behalf of others. The question that no one fully answers: is there a legal obligation to serve someone who enters 120 seconds before closing?

A sector worker points out the reasonable solution that wasn't taken: serve the customer, politely ask them to come earlier next time, close up, and complain at length with the shutter already down. The fuss created is more expensive than the lost sale.

The upcoming lawsuit: what could happen

The customer says he's going after three: the cashier, the greengrocer, and the guard, with Mercadona as the civilly liable party. The company will likely respond that its employees were trinc internal instructions and that no abusa occurred. Justice, veteran observers warn, is slow, and compensation for these matters is usually modest.

It remains to be seen whether the court accepts the case and if the recording the customer presents serves as evidence. If the criterion is that opening hours are sacred until the last second, the precedent would be awkward for all chains. If the criterion is that a supermarket is not obliged to serve someone entering just before closing, the claim will fail. With these ingredients, anyone can bet. And those who bet big are probably wrong.