MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

bmc875

Bit grey but!

I believe the two parties agreed to a contract i.e. a product/service at a mutually agreed price. The fact that the wrong price was taken is unfortunate.

If nothing else there is a moral obligation to return or renegotiate a new contract.

As for "big stores can absorb this" - read "Big stores would pass the cost on to other customers over time."

:rolleyes:

Gekite

kelper wrote: »

If you have morals, then, clearly, you go back and pay the price you had intended ...

To those who would take it and run ... it's people like you who cause prices to be higher than they should be....

So say the the slaves of capitalism. If you had a better defined morality, one that could actually tell right from wrong, rather than being told what was right and wrong, then clearly, you wouldn't go back and pay any more.

This idea that if all other things being equal all prices would be lower is a pernicious myth that business has spread to cloud the judgement of the masses. Profits might increase though! Which could probably help someone buy themselves a new desert island or the umpteen car, maybe the third jet.

No need to take and run, just pay and walk calmly, why the need to employ such emotively leading language in making your point, surely if your points were sound they would stand without such being needed?

adouglasmhor

Attlee wrote: »

Perhaps surprisingly, this is theft. The fact that the cashier made a mistake is no defence. (If prosecuted and convicted, this would affect Alan's sentence though, as it makes it an opportunistic, rather than a planned, crime.)

What makes it theft is, amongst other things, that Alan was aware of the error.

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

All good moneysavers will know that shop managers aren't reliable authorities on the law. In theory, Alan risks (i) a criminal record, (ii) a court order to return the laptop to the shop, or to compensate the shop for its loss, and (iii) any other sentence the court decides to impose. So it's not entirely true that the laptop is legally his.

Of course, asking what's moral isn't the same as asking what's legal. It sounds as though Alan might be able to get away with it.

Personally, I'd do the decent thing. I like to think of myself as having more integrity than most businesses, and to beat them at their game legally.

Perhaps in England and Wales or Northern Ireland this is legaly classed as theft, I cna't commnet on this, but in Scotland it would be covered under invitation to treat/tender, what you agree to pay at the checkout is the price, and you can negociate this legaly up to the point money and goods change hands. The fact the cashier was unsupervised would mean he was trusted to negociate on behalf of his employer in the eyes of the Scotish Justiciary.

x-shysteria-x

I definitely wouldn't bother owning up - the cashier will learn from her mistakes - my conscience would be clear and I'd be very pleased with my bargain for the day. If it broke or got stolen, Oh well!!! I only lost £4.00 and could get another laptop for £395.00

boxoffireworks

If the customer knew that it was a mistake when he paid for the laptop, then to keep it is the mens rea element of theft under the Theft Act 1968. If you didn't realise it was a mistake (and at that price, of course you would!) then not all five elements of theft are present so it isn't theft.

jgriggle

Before you start saying "it's a large company they can absorb it" stop and think. You may have cost someone their job.

A similar thing happened to a friend of mine a few years ago. He worked in a shop, and the credit card machine stopped working. A customer bought a 400 quid CD player so my friend had to take a manual imprint of his card. Unfortunately it was a busy day and he hadn't noticed the card imprinter hadn't picked up the last digit from the credit card, so the payment was never processed. He wrote to the customer explaining what had happened, but he never replied. He probably thought "great, a free CD player - they're a big company, they can afford it". In reality, instead of persuing the matter, or just absorbing the cost, the company deducted the 400 quid from my friends wages, something he could ill afford with a young family.
And I'm afraid, Richer Sounds, you COULD afford to absorb the cost, and deserve to be named and shamed here.

lady_stardust

Good dilemma, this is the first one for a while when the answer hasn't been obvious to me.

I think I would pay full price as that is what I had intended to pay. I would hate the idea of the cashier potentially getting into trouble for it (unless s/he had offered really sloppy service).

I would be more likely to pay up if it was a small local store (the big chains can go hang if their systems are so poor that something like that could happen). But in any case I would want my honesty to be well appreciated, perhaps with a discount or some freebies thrown in.

Attlee

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Perhaps in England and Wales or Northern Ireland this is legaly classed as theft, I cna't commnet on this, but in Scotland it would be covered under invitation to treat/tender, what you agree to pay at the checkout is the price, and you can negociate this legaly up to the point money and goods change hands. The fact the cashier was unsupervised would mean he was trusted to negociate on behalf of his employer in the eyes of the Scotish Justiciary.

I think this is confusing civil with criminal law, isn't it?

I'm no expert on Scottish law. But I believe the elements of the offence of theft are the same as they are in English law. Whether or not there is a contract is, legally, a separate point.

As far as contract law is concerned, yes, the cashier is clearly an agent of the shop. But, even if the contract was concluded at the till, as adouglasmhor thinks, the shop would probably have a defence of mistake.

But I guess we should be considering the morality of the question, not the law, here!

IainCMartin

I can't believe anyone pays £3.99 for a laptop - I got mine (and one for the in-laws) for 27p each (+vat) from the Dell Outlet some 4 years ago.I was browsing the site, there was an offer on for free delivery and a laptop rucksack for 99p when you bought a laptop and 2 systems appeared, as if by magic at 27p each.The specs weren't that good (even for then), but for the price, I snapped them up, along with 2 rucksacks and waited.I waited, and waited and then got in touch with Dell - they were processing the order, they were prepping the machines etc etc every process under the sun.Eventually a few WEEKS later, I spoke to an assistant who took it on himself to look into it further. He came back with bad news - "We can find the boxes, but can't find the laptops".But, he then made me an offer - would I accept 2 better laptops (Celerons 2.2 - that shows how long ago it was) with 3 year onsite warranties instead for the same price ?Hand dutifully snapped off, the laptops arrived about a week later and I am still using it to this day (I know I could upgrade, but I can't bear the thought of paying £hundereds to replace a 27p laptop (the in-laws still think their one is cutting edge !!).But, going back to the original question, if I went to the till and the employee messed up on entering his figures I would point it out at the time and pay the "right" price - £399. If the price rang through automatically at £3.99 I would take the price, and, if "challenged" would offer to negotiate with the manager.

kestrya

They say good deeds can and often pays dividends just like good high yielding shares/funds.

It was an honest mistake by teh cashier as so often can happen in any institution big or small.

A) He should by all accounts return it as it was caused by an honest mistake - to not do so for such a large amount of money and the fact that they've both realized it even more so.

To deny the request the request of play coy and demand a discount is akin to blackmail/kidnap and ransom isnt it?
"You have something not rightfully (but accidentally) falling into your hands and you then demand perks for returning it for some fraction of the original right price.

C) Although to some it can seem like a good deal in the short term and something to laugh about...such dishonesty has its drawbacks - imagine if in retalliation you got banned from that store forever or chain for that matter.

D) I like others here "Do Not" accept that "someone just becasue theyre a big organisatio" can afford to be ripped off.

Martin, teaches us to fight for whats right here so often for example with the banks n Credit card companys who try and rip us off whcih is fair and true..however...does it mean you or I have the moral and ethical right to then "rip them off as we feel theyve ripped us off" by say spendning £10000 on several cards then "defaulting intentionally" by declaring themselves bankrupt so they wont have to repay any of it (as some students in university accordnig to various national newspapers have reported) ...

Is it right when youve lent some money from someonebe it a friend or family member or a business and even though you "can" repay it you inentionally choose to default on it - Imagine if it was done to you and you were the lender and soem cheeky client decided, well screw thsi I "dont want" to repay it so I'm not going to now.

It's basically stealing and makes one out to be a thief.

***Besides, being magnanimous has its own rewards - as the Harvard medical journal said a few years back on teh issue of physiological responses to acts of altruism (good deeds) it not only makes the reciever feel healthier and happier but also notably the giver too ^

And the manager could (if one returned the good for purchase at the right price etc) recive a special bonus offer (even whilst not having to ask for it as a condition) from the store as a sign of gratitude.

*******
^