MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

misha

Originally posted by A.Jones: As he has not actually asked for you to return it, the question is a moral one

I did not say this is not a moral decision - I said it is not a moral maze. All I meant is that I do not believe anybody really thinks that they are in the right by keeping the laptop. They can find hundreds of convenient excuses and argue about them to death - however just look into yourself - truly - and you would know that unless you employ complex legalistic arguments, the right thing is to return the laptop - simply because another human being has made a mistake.

lindsayg_2

Absolutely. Some poor bod in a low paid job made a mistake which will probably get taken out of their wages. Which given it's nearly £400 of mistake will probably take two weeks.

If anyone thinks they could use their new, cheap laptop with a clear conscience when they let someone else who made a simple error pay so badly for it, then good luck to them. I only hope someone makes you pay so severely for your mistakes in future.

Saving money is one thing. Being a b*st*rd is quite another...

(and yeah, I do know it's hypothetical, I'm just sayin')

:A

A.Jones

fay144 wrote: »

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 didn't say that. I said there are offers seen in magazines and newspapers that you have not bought posted here. Same with vouchers sent to specific people - they are posted here and used by other people.

I mean things like this thread (not picking on this one, just an example)

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1005755

This is meant for subscribers of a magazine, yet it has been posted and is used by others that do not subscribe to the magazine. If it is morally wrong to expect that a contract for an item, once price agreed and paid for, should not stand then surely it is morally wrong to apply for free goods through an offer meant for a particular group of people if you are not one of them. In this case, for example, the magazine subscribers may not get the free gift if the company runs out due to non-subscribers taking up the offer before them.

A.Jones

misha wrote: »

I did not say this is not a moral decision - I said it is not a moral maze. All I meant is that I do not believe anybody really thinks that they are in the right by keeping the laptop.

You belief is wrong - I think I would be in the right. If a company is selling something, and both the buyer and the seller agree on the price and payment is made, then I think the buyer is right to expect that he can keep the goods at the price agreed.

And if you believe nobody thinks they are right when buying an item that is obviously mispriced, just look at a misprice thread on MSE or HUKD and see how many people say "hope they honour this".

misha

Gekite wrote: »

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



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!

Why is this scary? A perfectly innocent human being has made a sincere, perhaps negligent mistake - and you simply refuse to take advantage by keeping the laptop or trying to squeeze a freebie. You (Oh, pardon me, not you PERSONALLY - Alan) should return the laptop and in turn put your destiny in the hands of the manager - if he is decent, he'd appreciate what you've done and will thank you, perhaps with some cash gift.

no one is even permitted to disagree

You are permitted to disagree, but so is a poor man who steals from a rich man under an excuse - I really need it and he won't miss it and anyway he gained his reaches in the first place by probably stealing from me and others like me! So I will wield my own justice! Steel from the him! Take back my own!

I fail to see how an act of honesty creates "self-proclaimed bastions of self-righteousness" - it is simply a matter of a common-place honesty. If in your book honesty means "self-righteousness", I would suggest you examine your slant on life in general.

As I mentioned before, unless one employs complex legal arguments about the store being a separate entity, how the cashier exactly relates to this entity, are they one or not etc, etc, the answer is simple: one should never take advantage of another's honest mistake, and if taking such advantage means personal financial gain, then this act is lowly, unjust and above all simply greedy.

misha

A.Jones wrote: »

I think I would be in the right. If a company is selling something, and both the buyer and the seller agree on the price and payment is made, then I think the buyer is right to expect that he can keep the goods at the price agreed.

Here we go - company, agreements, payments - all these are legal gobbledygook. The only reason you think you would be in the right is because you perhaps not capable of employing simple, human common sense. Instead, you defer it to legalistic definitions and obligations. Please do not complicate things. Please attempt to view this as what it is - a personal mistake by a fellow human. Please do not take advantage - it is wrong - and is based on an attempt to explain away greed.

fay144

A.Jones wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said there are offers seen in magazines and newspapers that you have not bought posted here. Same with vouchers sent to specific people - they are posted here and used by other people.

See my other example about the xmas free wine. Comanies are aware of the existance of the internet, and know exactly what they are doing when they put discount codes out there. Why do you think they are still doing it?

The paper doesn't lose out, as I wouldn't buy it anyway. The company are probably offering 10% off something with a 30% profit margin, so the more people who get the code the better as far as they are concerned.

UKan2

As well as moral reasons not to take the laptop, there are legal ones. It was obvious to Alan that the wrong price had been charged when he saw £3.99 instead of the expected £399. From the moment he paid that amount and took possession of the laptop he was being dishonest and to walkout with the laptop is tantamount to theft.

He should point out the error to the manager and expect a decent 'reward' for his honesty, and if he didn't get one, write in to their head office and public relations. The bottom line is though, it wasn't his to take and at least he knows he won't get a knock on his door later on.

galaxynicole

MikeyBoosh wrote: »

I dont understand how people can say the moral thing to do is give it back!!

If I decided to be morally just, I would take the laptop for £3.99 as every part in that laptop and been made out of profitable companies + the shop.. So its not that much of a loss for any of them..

Actually a lot of laptops make nearly no profit or just break even.

I can't believe some of the posters are so greedy. It doesn't matter whether it's a big chain or a independent shop, I'd take it back.

Also not everyone that works at PC World or Currys are slimy salesmen. Quite a lot of them are just like you and me trying to earn a living. Next time in you're in there, you ask these guys what wage they are on, believe me you'd be shocked at what wage they actually earn if they don't sell the covers and warranties. Everyone thinks that they earn big wages but only the "slimy" salesmen do.

A.Jones

misha wrote: »

Here we go - company, agreements, payments - all these are legal gobbledygook. The only reason you think you would be in the right is because you perhaps not capable of employing simple, human common sense. Instead, you defer it to legalistic definitions and obligations. Please do not complicate things. Please attempt to view this as what it is - a personal mistake by a fellow human. Please do not take advantage - it is wrong - and is based on an attempt to explain away greed.

No, I think I would be in the right because the cashier suggested a price for the item I wanted, I agreed with it and bought the item at that price. To me, common sense is that if two parties (in stable mind) agree to a transaction, then that transaction should not be changed once agreed and paid for (unless there are conditions in the contract that allow this - for example, cancelling subscriptions with 14 days and so on). In my eyes, that is not wrong.

It doesn't matter if the item is a £400 laptop sold for £4, or the tin of beans that should have been 40p going for 4p. The price is agreed, the money paid and the item changes hands. Once that is done, one party cannot decide they want more money for it.


As to words like company, payment and agreement being legal gobbledygook, at least they are definable terms. Human common sense is not something that can be defined. To me common sense is, if I am offered an item cheaper than I thought it was, then I should take the offer before it is removed. Whether this is a laptop or a bank rate, if the offer is better for me than I thought it would be, I would snap it up quick. The trainee clearly has very little common sense, if they sell a laptop for £4 without questioning it. They should not be working in a computer store. The manager also clearly has very little common sense, since they should check that their staff have had basic training in how to spot pricing errors if they are using the tills alone. To hire someone that does not question it if the price of a laptop comes up as £4 is, to me, complete incompetence. Common sense is variable. So to say I am not capable of employing common sense because I would take up a deal which is good for me, even if I knew it was a mistake, is ludicrous. Common sense, to me, is to get the best deal I can - that may be by accepting a cheap price before the retailer uses their common sense and thinks about the price they have just quoted me, or by checking out what the best bank rate is on MSE (and other sites) before putting money into a savings account. Common sense, to me, is also that once two parties make an agreement (even if you don't like that word as it is too legal for you), that agreement should stand. Neither party should be allowed to change it to the detriment of the other. Otherwise an agreement would be worthless.