MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

scotbruce

Quote:



I think it would be highly unlikely that CPS or the PF would proceed with a case on the evidence here,however if after asking for £3.99, shop insisted on £399.00 their would be a clear trading standards case to answer.

On what are you basing this assumption? Do you work in law?

I don't know if he does, but I do, albeit only in criminal law and I believe that this would be a civil matter.

IMHO, there's no crime of theft here -

Theft is the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of its rightful owner or other lawful authority. (Theft, Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (England and Wales - Theft Act 1968, Section 1)

- as ownership of the laptop passed from the shop to the customer at an agreed (albeit mistaken) price.

A price displayed on the goods is treated in law as an invitation by you to the customer to come in to do a deal. The contract is usually made at the till when the price is agreed. So if you have put the wrong price on an item you are not legally bound to sell at that price. (Trading Standards FAQ)

This is simply a mistake by either the member of staff who priced it wrongly or the "trainee cashier" (alone on their first day in the job - I don't think so!) who entered the price wrongly on the till.

Any further action, if any were possible, would have to be civil.

The morals of it are something else and an issue for individual and personal decision, surely.

boxoffireworks

scotbruce wrote: »

Quote:
I don't know if he does, but I do, albeit only in criminal law and I believe that this would be a civil matter.

IMHO, there's no crime of theft here -

Theft is the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of its rightful owner or other lawful authority. (Theft, Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (England and Wales - Theft Act 1968, Section 1)

Theft is a criminal offence, not a civil one!

fay144

A.Jones wrote: »

I do not need to make that decision. My transaction is with the shop. The decision I have to make is am I happy to pay the price that they offered the item to me at. The morality of the decision of who takes the financial loss is between the shop owner, the manager, the person meant to be supervising the trainee and the trainee.

If you consider a vaccum, where you only concern yourself with what is right in front of you, then you are probably right.

I, however, live in the real world, and the bigger picture of the impact of my actions have more importance to me than whether I am technically justified in exploiting something.

ILGPink

With all the good will in the world; if the assistant made a mistake that isn't really my fault.

If I was stopped by a manager I would offer to bring it back as long as I recieved a big discount. I may have been willing to pay £399 but that changed the minute the mistake was made and realised that I could now pay less.

Having dealt with many stores in my time I know that if the shoe was on the other foot they dont budge without good reason

A.Jones

boxoffireworks wrote: »

scotbruce wrote: »

Quote:
I don't know if he does, but I do, albeit only in criminal law and I believe that this would be a civil matter.

IMHO, there's no crime of theft here -

Theft is the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of its rightful owner or other lawful authority. (Theft, Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (England and Wales - Theft Act 1968, Section 1)

Theft is a criminal offence, not a civil one!

The buyer was told the price was £3.99 by the retailer. The buyer paid the agreed £3.99 and the contract between them was made. Where is the theft?

adamski82_2

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

He has done so as he realised the shop assistants mistake at the time of purchase and failed to act on it.
Therefore he should pay the full price.

Regards your local constable.

A.Jones

fay144 wrote: »

I, however, live in the real world, and the bigger picture of the impact of my actions have more importance to me than whether I am technically justified in exploiting something.

Whatever you do, do not look elsewhere on the MSE site. There are many threads telling you how to get discounts meant for others, offers that appeared in magazines or newspapers you have not bought and mis-prices in shops.

A.Jones

adamski82 wrote: »

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

He has done so as he realised the shop assistants mistake at the time of purchase and failed to act on it.
Therefore he should pay the full price.

Regards your local constable.

He was told the price, which was less than he thought, and paid that.

barri_2

stephenjacquie wrote: »

Alan noticed at the till that the amounts did not match - he may not have a legal responsibility to point this out but I think he has a moral responsibility!

If it was the other way round and he was overcharged he wouldn't be happy if the manager said "their mistake, my gain" now would he.

I believe there's an old phrase "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander"

Also I don't think the morality of an action should depend on how big the company is but on how developed my conscience is!

I guess I'm going to get flamed but hey - at least my five pence worth didn't cost someone £395.01

Stephen

Right on, Stephen. I agree. Mind you, if the manager offered a discaount or a small freebee, I'd accept it. Barri.

fay144

A.Jones wrote: »

Whatever you do, do not look elsewhere on the MSE site. There are many threads telling you how to get discounts meant for others, offers that appeared in magazines or newspapers you have not bought and mis-prices in shops.

Surely you can see the difference?

If I follow a tip on this site to buy a magazine costing £2 to get a free gift worth £12, for example, who does that hurt? No one. The magazine and participating partner have worked out a deal between them that both are happy with, shops are happy I buy the magazine, I get a free lip gloss. Win win.

I buy something via quidco - I get cashback, the company get a customer they are happy to pay quidco for, and quidco get their own fee. Again - nothing unexpected for anyone involved in the transaction.

It is very rare that a promotion gets out of control and the big companies end up losing. Remember the big publicity around an off-licience offering half price wine last xmas, and how they were losing so much money because it leaked out on the internet, etc? Yeah, right - they were losing so much money they gave out the code in the news and to anyone who would listen, and ran the exact same promotion a month or two later.

Ethics, to me, boil down to - will someone else lose by my gain? The technicalities and legalities are irrelevant as far as my morality is concerned. In this case the answer to that question is too likely to be yes for me to be comfotable doing it.