MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

oldowl

When much younger with 3 small children, I did purchase a very large box of Lego which had a number of different priced labels attached. I confess to having carefully presented the box to what was clearly a temporary Christmas employee, and with the lowest price uppermost, which I was charged and paid. (This predates barcodes).

However, I now know that for an exchange to take place (such as money for a purchase or contract), then a basic requirement is for there to be a willing buyer and a willing seller at agreed terms and conditions, which cannot be said in this laptop scenario. Further, my personal values (ethics if you like) have changed over the years, as has my ability to afford my needs and occasionally my wants.

I have made purchases from the DSG companies such as Currys/PCWorld, yet I have never paid the label price. My experience shows that a discount can always be negotiated when I evidence my willingness to source my purchase elsewhere by walking as though out of the store. Of course I have really only gone to the store to actually see the real product in all its glory, having made my shortlist from an online search, where the price is not always the same as that in store anyway. Even some online prices are negotiable by sensible use of the 'contact us' facility, and/or by telephoning DSG's centralised enquiries department and working out how 'we' can enable them to afford my custom.

Remember, the retailer only wants the business of those who meet the company's aims, of which I am just asking for my share.....or to go elsewhere. In this laptop scenario, I am quite certain that I would seek my 10% to 15% as my gesture of goodwill, but couldn't live with paying only 1%

haydn

I thought money received by mistake was recoverable?

I once sold a necklace for £1600 and the next day the customer returned (after checking his credit card receipt) saying I had made a mistake because he thought it was £160.

The necklace was really £1600 and the customer was mistaken by misreading the obvious price ticket and not checking the credit card transaction at the point of sale.

I refused to take the necklace back and offer a refund.

However the necklace could well have been only £160, but the customer would have accepted the price as £1600.

Gekite

bjliz wrote: »

Should Alan give the laptop back?

Yes, of course he should - would anyone really think otherwise?

Yes, why? Do you have a problem with people who express a difference of opinion?

I think we can see why Britain was so 'great', it must have been one hell of an intolerant place to live!

debbsie

Why pay £399.99?. . . I bet the profit made is about £399 anyway

misha

It is very simple - you MUST return he laptop without any negotiations.

All those who advice otherwise have the state of mind of: "many times I was cheated - so now I can get my own back!"

The size of the shop does not make any difference nor the experience of the cashier. There IS NO moral maze - everybody on this forum knows what is the RIGHT an moral thing to do, but many simply decide to ignore it for personal, unjust, lowly and greedy gain.

KidMoe

Gekite wrote: »

Answering just one would be a useful start! That's usually the correct way for arguments to be conducted.

I have answered the points I considered relevant, and ignored your pseudo philosophy which, when it all boils down to it, is a weak attempt to clear your (Alan's, whatever) concious of obtaining a large discount on a purchase via a dishonest method. You similarly have ignored arguments I have made, so what's your point, exactly?

Gekite wrote: »

Twasn't a definition, but the form it takes is actually quite accepting of morality - doing right by your fellow man. You are showing no such regard to your opponents in this discussion. Instead, deploying all the rhetorical tricks of someone out to convince with no consideration shown to anyone else.

I have little regard for your opinion, that is true. I think you will find you have been deploying rhetorical tricks to a far greater degree than I have. I simply stated I would return the laptop, you have turned it into the ridiculous argument it has become.

Gekite wrote: »

So if it isn't akin to haggling then it isn't legit? I too don't think this dilemma has anything to do with haggling and I don't believe any but you has attempted to make such a distinction. I'd pay more attention to what you wrote if it made some sense and wasn't deliberately out to further obscure the issue at hand.

You were the one who equated this dilemna with haggling, you might want to pay more attention to what you are writing.

Gekite wrote: »

Your moral code?

Taking advantage of another persons mistake is always wrong.

There is not a need to equate it to anything else, an argument should be able to stand by itself without appeals to emotion.

That seems like a worthwhile aim for morality.

Is it really always wrong to take advantage of another persons mistake? I doubt it, but feel free to argue for such a point.

I would argue that taking advantage of another person's mistake for your own gain is a highly dubious thing to do, yes.

Gekite wrote: »

Not quite, that's just you playing at being a master wordsmith once again. Tell me, have you always had this ability to think yourself right and for everyone else to be morally deficient? Just because Alan appears to have gained in this particular instance doesn't mean that he has. So he got a laptop for £3.99 where the shop had it 'marked up' at £399.00 Is this questionable, of course it is, it isn't called a mark up price for no reason, so my morality does take account of how questionable it is. I suspect however, yours doesn't give a dam. After all if it akin to theft, then why even consider whether it is right or wrong in the circumstances - as surely theft is always wrong.

How has he not gained? It's pretty simple. He saw a laptop for £399. He was prepared to pay that. He actually paid £3.99. Once again, how is this different to just nicking it?

Gekite wrote: »

It's a perfect example to set others, shame you aren't willing to go to the trouble of understanding the concept involved, one build on a consistence of thought, one being employed by people the world over. It is certainly a better example to set others than the one of intolerance to others; that you set. And yours seems to be decided on a whim of what you consider to be right. How questionable is that?

Dishonesty is a good example to set others? Like hell it is. As intelligent as you seem to think your argument is, all it's based on is your (rather laughable) attempts to justify a self-centered attitude to life. Fair enough, but at least be able to admit that to yourself.

Gekite wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. Very bad form, this is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one considered the least honest. When someone disagrees with you position you attack them for playing with semantics! On re-reading I think you'll find that it is hard to play semantics with something that had no substance in the first place!

I think you will find you were the one to start with the semantic tricks. I merely pointed this out to you. You might want to re-read that last sentance and apply it to yourself.

A.Jones

oldowl wrote: »

When much younger with 3 small children, I did purchase a very large box of Lego which had a number of different priced labels attached. I confess to having carefully presented the box to what was clearly a temporary Christmas employee, and with the lowest price uppermost, which I was charged and paid. (This predates barcodes).

However, I now know that for an exchange to take place (such as money for a purchase or contract), then a basic requirement is for there to be a willing buyer and a willing seller at agreed terms and conditions, which cannot be said in this laptop scenario.

Why cannot that be said? There was a willing seller that wanted £3.99 and a willing buyer, that was told the price was actually cheaper than he thought. They agreed on the price, and the item changed hands for the amount agreed.

A.Jones

misha wrote: »

It is very simple - you MUST return he laptop without any negotiations.

Why MUST you return it? If you read the question, the manager has not even asked for you to return it. All he has done is stated that you got a good deal because he let a trainee serve you, and they made, in the eyes of the manager, an obvious mistake. As he has not actually asked for you to return it, the question is a moral one - should you morally return it once the manager has pointed out that you got a good deal because of a trainee's mistake?

Gekite

misha wrote: »

It is very simple - you MUST return he laptop without any negotiations.

I'm really loving some of these takes on morality. Scary or what?

misha wrote: »

There IS NO moral maze - everybody on this forum knows what is the RIGHT an moral thing to do, but many simply decide to ignore it for personal, unjust, lowly and greedy gain.

There we go again, no one is even permitted to disagree with these self-proclaimed bastions of self-righteousness! From where do they develop such attitudes?

Alan is the case it point here, I have neither personally, nor unjustly, nor lowly nor gained from any greed, Anything what-so-ever! I'm really at a loss if such a basic principle can't even impact on some peoples delusions!

A.Jones

KidMoe wrote: »

How has he not gained? It's pretty simple. He saw a laptop for £399. He was prepared to pay that. He actually paid £3.99. Once again, how is this different to just nicking it?

It is different because the cashier told him the price was £3.99. I bought some wine a couple of weeks back, £6 a bottle. I was prepared to pay £18 for three bottles. At the checkout they came up at £12 for the three. The cashier asked for £12 and I paid it without questioning the amount. Once I was outside I saw on my receipt it was 3 for 2, yet there was no sign in the shop to say this. I don't think I stole the third bottle, despite being willing to pay £18 for the three.

I don't see any difference to this moral dilemma - he took the item to the cash desk, the price came up at £3.99, less than what he expected, and he paid what he was asked by the retailer.