MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

sluggy1967

boxoffireworks wrote: »

When can theft ever be morally right?

Again, I ask the question, because some here have suggested this DOES happen; can employers legally deduct mistakes from their employees wages?

therichnessinside

It'd be immoral to keep it, stealing really - But I'd be ever so tempted seeing as it's (surprisingly) legal... I hope I'd give it back, and hope I'd have the sense to ask for a nice freebie of some sort. But maybe I'd be over-tempted. I hope not as it would be thieving really wouldn't it. And I'd be very concerned about the poor trainee who made the boob. He's just a little person like me. Think I wouldn't sleep that night, or more than 1 night...

foo361

The new cashier made an honest mistake. The purchaser went into the shop prepared to pay the asking price. I would pay the full price but suggest that maybe a free laptop bag or software package might in order as a gesture of good will.

scotbruce

sluggy1967 wrote: »

Again, I ask the question, because some here have suggested this DOES happen; can employers legally deduct mistakes from their employees wages?

Basically no, unless it's in your contract.

Even if it is is in your contract, if you're a retail worker, he can only deduct a maximum of 10% of any one wage slip at a time to make up a shortfall of a cash or stock shortage.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Pay/DG_10027228

"What can be deducted from your pay?

Your employer is not allowed to make a deduction from your pay unless:

• your contract says they can - and your employer has given you a written copy of the part of the contract which says so, or a written explanation of it, before making the deduction
• it is required or authorised by law, such as income tax, national insurance or student loan repayments
• you have agreed in writing to a deduction before the conduct takes place for which your employer proposes to make a deduction

If you were overpaid on a previous occasion then these rules do not apply. Your employer will often be allowed to recover the overpayment. You should speak to a lawyer, an Acas advisor (Labour Relations Agency in Northern Ireland) or a Citizens Advice Bureau advisor for more information about how and when you might be able to prevent your employer from taking back an overpayment.
Other situations where the rules don't apply include if you took part in industrial action or if a deduction is made under a court order. Whatever the situation, your employer must still comply with the terms of your contract.
If you haven't been paid at all, this counts as a deduction from your pay of all the pay due to you.
The right to protection from unauthorised deductions from pay covers anyone who is classed as a worker. 'Worker' has a specific legal meaning - check if you are unsure of you employment status.

• More about employment status
• Read more about contracts of employment
• More on breach of contract

Retail work

If you do retail work (for example, if you work in a shop) you have extra protection. Your employer is not allowed to take more than 10 per cent of your gross wages from your take-home pay on any individual payday to make up the shortfall from a cash or stock shortage. If this isn't enough your employer can continue to take money from your wages on subsequent paydays, but not more than 10 per cent on a single payday. If you leave the job, your employer can take the full amount owed.
You can complain to an Employment Tribunal if your employer does not follow these rules."

inkypinky999

Well 399 is Retail price the producer would have got it at far cheaper rate so it is not much of a loss for the store.

Secondaly if the store expects to earn profits from there customers at 30-40% margins, then they should also be able to absord these losses, which have happened because of their own mistake.

Morally, the person should return the laptop but he should be offered the same at 0% profit by the manager.

In Reality : Guess what, this will not happen.

hundredk

I'd keep it - they are not so quick to approach you when technical support is needed.

I once bought several pack of expensive wall tiles from a large chain store expecting to pay £220 and the packs scanned at 1p each - total 11p. The supervisor came and said it was a pricing error but they could not override what the till charged and therefore OK to pay 11p. I said I'd have some more and was told the rest would be withdrawn from sale until the price was changed.

xadoc

Wow, how worrying that people employed in the field cannot agree on what appears to be such a simple legal question.

Attlee wrote: »

... Most undergraduate criminal law exam papers have a question along these lines...

But this does not make it a simple legal question!

Quite the contrary - if it were simple you could hardly be expected to write a 3 hour paper on it! Exams are about showing process and reasoning, and are not necessarily about getting a 'correct' answer (though where there is one it usually helps). Sometimes there is no correct answer.

I am not discussing the 'morality' here, as that is a fluid concept and is why there can be discussion on the topic. Clearly, as different people here are asserting that their morals are the 'right' ones (well, they would, wouldn't they!).

If everyone thought the same way what a boring place the world would be! :cool:

But morality aside (and the fact that the manager already thinks the laptop legally belongs to Alan), we do have on our hands an interesting discussion about legality...

I may be wrong, but the people saying this is theft are not arguing that it is not a legally binding contract... they just say it is also theft...

The British Legal System is highly developed. Maybe I'm naïve and ill-informed - but I do not believe that the contract could be legally binding in Civil Law AND a Criminal Offence at the same time!

So perhaps it is relevant to look at whether the contract is valid.

I'm not going to go into the contract, it's already been said more than once; Sale of Goods Act etc.I believe that legally, in Contract Law terms the the shop agreed to the purchase at the price the till rang up and consented to Alan taking the goods, issued a receipt etc.

So, if it is a legally binding contract, that is proof enough that a Criminal Offence has not been committed! Theft cannot take place where the owner has consented to the transaction, and for the contract to be valid it must have taken place with consent of both parties.

QED.

For those of you quoting s1 of the Theft Act, perhaps you should read further... there is a very good reason why Acts go on past the first sentence, and why the Act in subsequent sections goes on to define the pertinent words of that first section.

And for those of you saying your view of the law is enshrined in Case Law, perhaps you should consider citing the actual case law than just saying it exists... apologies, but proof and quotes from judgements are so much more compelling than your say so (and get you more points in that exam we mentioned earlier...)

Sally87

I don't really understand the need for the big argument over whther it's legal or not - the whole point is it's a moral dillema, and something isn't neccessarily moral just because it's legal.

I'd definitely give it back if I hadn't realised up to that point - it's not like I'm losing out on anything, I'd be getting a laptop for £399, which is what I'd gone in there for.

It doesn't matter whether it's a big store or little, whether the service is good, etc. - this isn't about their morals, it's about mine and mine don't change depending on who I'm dealing with!

A good way to decide whether something is right or not is to think what the world would be like if everyone behaved the same way. Frankly, if everyone was a self-serving and unforgiving as some people on this thread, it would be a horrible place to live.

AngryTank

When i had my first real job in Mark's and Spencer's I was working on the menswear department. I started working there about 6 weeks before Christmas. Over the next few weeks I sold dozen's of mens suits carefully scanning the jacket and putting it into a suit bag with the trousers that came with it, that is until one day a woman buying a suit for her son pointed something out to me. The trousers and jacket are paid for as seperate items, so all the customers i'd served up until that point had been getting FREE trousers with thier jackets. I tell you this story so that you can see it's perfectly believable for a newbie sales assistant to make a grave error.

Now then would I pay up for that laptop? No. If the item has been sold and the manager says it's legally mine i'd keep it. The store will have no problem writing off the loss off £400 (even a small one would cope with this one off).

Gekite

Henwen wrote: »

Think of the poor cashier - he/she may be sacked or have the difference deducted from their salary.

So you condone such immoral behaviour by the business? Yet not legal and moral practices by individuals!

Why should Alan 'take on' the sins of the business! Shouldn't you be fighting against the injustice being perpetrated by the business rather than trying to punish Alan for what the business does?

This is nothing more than blatant emotional blackmail. What the business ends up doing to the cashier isn't Alan's responsibility. But should Alan be held to ransom by the possibility that the business is going to behaviour immorally! But if Alan so wished to make the trainee's fate his responsibility then he could ask what the business intended to do to them. If the reply was as bad as you highlight then he could inform them, that the practice they intend to conduct is immoral, legally dubious (which I suspect many already know) and that in no way should the trainee be held responsible to such a degree because of an innocent mistake, especially SINCE they were NOT properly supervised on their first day. That if any harm comes to the said trainee then he (Alan) will not be pleased and WILL take matters further.

To be moral, certainly isn't a case of attempting to manipulate or ignore the evidence that one has available, or even to base the judgement on dubious claims of punishment. Why are so many acting immorally in order to get Alan to capitulate with their own pet prejudices! Maybe some don't actually understand what being moral entails? Assuming it's nothing more than the application of some mantra like phrases in a best fit to my feeling type way. The problem here is that even with such phrases, good judgement is also required. And ignoring the evidence to please ones own feelings will not lead anyone to any form of good judgement!

Henwen wrote: »

You went there expecting to pay £399 (and, being a good MSE-fan, after saving up and/or buying from the shop with the cheapest price).

Emotive blackmail once again, There is no indication that they went there to pay £399, and to be a good MSE they would have tried to haggle the price, so Alan obvious isnt' a very good MSE now is he, as he never tried to haggle before paying. Being good at saving money is more than just shopping at the cheapest store, it also includes knowing ones rights, educating oneself as to what is accepted and what isn't, knowing when your responsibility ends and someone else's begins. In total it's about informing oneself about life rather than trying to bend life and everyone else to ones own set of rather limiting biases.

Henwen wrote: »

Why should you have a windfall at the trainee's expense?

Fallious, Alan's windfall isn't at the trainee's expense. See above.

Henwen wrote: »

Moneysaving? Definitely in favour. Unfair advantages over individual sales staff? No way. Have a heart.

Yet more emotive nonsense, what has having a heart to do with accepting a price at the checkout! What unfair advantages does Alan have over the sales staff?