MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Alan give the laptop back?

adouglasmhor

I got a stainless steel exhaust back box for my fiesta for £15 plus vat because the guy picked it up of the shelf by mistake instead of a mild steel one. I did not tell him because he was being a !!!!!!!! before this and treating me and my mate like crap. Ignoring us, keeping us waiting while he chatted to someone, trying to up the price we had been quoted before driving across the city to get the part. I know it's not the same and this is definitely illegal but I don't feel in the slightest bad about doing this. I would have said something at the till in the case of the laptop, unless cashier was being a Muppet too, if they are not paying attention because they are new and nervous - play fair with them, if they are not paying attention because they are chatting, texting, letching at customers or something they are fair game IMO.

Dungbeetel

* what a morally bankrupt approach the majority of respondents appear to have - and would you encourage your children in such moral dishonesty ? What if everyone always took such attitudes ? Watch a film called "Pay it Forward" sometime and learn.

* some people talk of adopting a different stance whether it is a large or small company - I don't understand how you can adopt a different moral position - it's a principle you're being asked about

* the fact that it's a large company makes no difference - an individual is still accountable and the store manager is likely to be directly impacted by the hit on his/her bottom line for the shop. You have a choice about that and you might even gain the manager's gratitude and more beside.

* if you 'do the right thing' might there be a chance that the store manager will treat the trainee less harshly ?

adouglasmhor

Attlee wrote: »

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!

When he asks for the money he is treating, I have addressed the morality or otherwise in another post. You pay what the shop (in the form of their agent asks - you are not going to get done for theft. Unless of course you have pre aranged with said agent to deliberatley do this).

kamoha

I would mirror a lot of the other replies - depends on the size of the company, I would definitely ask for a generous reduction if I offered to return it.
If it was a small one person business I would have more scruples, for rip off PC world I would not, because I have been ripped off by them in the past.

Gekite

bmc875 wrote: »

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.

:rolleyes:

The agreed price was at the checkout, not that advertised in store. The contract was finalised at the checkout. There is no wrong price, Alan paid the price that was required of him. Prior to checkout the price shown is provisional and there is no compulsion on a store to sell at the advertised price, in fact I tend to haggle most prices down from advertised price.

There is no such moral obligation, I'm surprised that people in this day and age still try to pull the appeal to the authority of a particular morality, which funny enough just happens to be what they themselves believe to be right!

The only kind of morality that business recognises is the one that benefits it. But I'm sure it would be easy enough to get people to believe this morality, especially if they were indoctrinated it into it early enough. A typical slave morality if ever there was one.

dizzydaryluk

stogiebear wrote: »

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but these sales people are not your mates trying to do you a favor and find you a great deal. They are ruthless lying sneaks who would kill their families to make employee of the month.

Sounds like you have a small problem with Curry's :rotfl:

lemming64

I work in a shop that uses tills and I am pretty sure that trading standards states that if your till correctly scans an item at an incorrect price then you must sell the item to that customer at the cheapest price, or withdraw it from sale.

As stated earlier it is the person who programmed the tills mistake, not the cashiers.

brightonman123

i bet the shop wouldn't be so on the case, if OP was OVERcharged..?

decent thing to do would be cancel the sale, and get refund at the prevailing price.. so they owe you £395 or so?:beer:

failing that a huge discount, as the manager himself said it was a 'legal' sale..

btw, just how many peope does it take to price & mark up an item, before someone notices the price is WAY out? (printing price labels, checking stock in/out etc..)

Gekite

Dungbeetel wrote: »

I don't understand how you can adopt a different moral position

Well it's never to late to learn, or so they say. No doubt you where brought up to believe that a morality was something fixed, given and applied to all things through all time.

Situation and circumstances most surely do decide what position or action is best to take, and not what someone thinks should always apply in all cases. Common sense really when one thinks about it, especially when actions are to be considered humane.

As an aside to highlight my point:

Is it morally right to shoot at a person? Surely that will depend on whether they were shooting at you, are you at war; are they the enemy trying to kill you, or umpteen other considerations. Of course one could take the extreme position that it is never right to shoot at another human regardless. Either position would be classified as moral and hence different moral positions could be taken.

hyperbole_2

What if you wanted to get insurance for that laptop? I guess you would have to provide the receipt to estimate the cost of replacement but then again to loose the PC that is worth £3.99 wont heart you that much.

I say why be a hypocrite and gain profits from others weaknesses/mistakes I am quite sure you wouldn’t like to be charged for something that is not worth that much. If you were willing to pay £399 pay £399. I call it greed