Post office error in my favour

TheEffect

PhenoM wrote: »

I'd keep it rather than getting ripped off on exchange rate anyway.

It's not like it's coming out of his pocket. It's a business.

Next time he comes around to your house, in case he does, just tell him tough luck.

The law is on your side on this one.

What's wrong with just doing something because it's the right thing to do?

When I worked at an inner London secondary school a year or so ago with a high crime/poverty community, a pupil (year 10, 14 years old) found an envelope on the floor while walking to school, containing quite a bit of money. Inside was a withdrawal receipt.

The pupils (with a little help from a teacher) phoned the bank on the receipt and contacted the police. To cut a long story short, the owner of the money came to collect the money and met the boy who found it. He was an elderly gentleman and it was his pension he had withdrawn. He was chuffed. One of the boys friends asked him why he didn't keep it, and his reply was "because it wasn't the right thing to do".

And it's the youth of today who get negatively slammed in the news!

OP, do the right thing. Set a good example for those who may look up to you. Give the money back.

RuthnJasper

TheEffect wrote: »

What's wrong with just doing something because it's the right thing to do?

When I worked at an inner London secondary school a year or so ago with a high crime/poverty community, a pupil (year 10, 14 years old) found an envelope on the floor while walking to school, containing quite a bit of money. Inside was a withdrawal receipt.

The pupils (with a little help from a teacher) phoned the bank on the receipt and contacted the police. To cut a long story short, the owner of the money came to collect the money and met the boy who found it. He was an elderly gentleman and it was his pension he had withdrawn. He was chuffed. One of the boys friends asked him why he didn't keep it, and his reply was "because it wasn't the right thing to do".

And it's the youth of today who get negatively slammed in the news!

OP, do the right thing. Set a good example for those who may look up to you. Give the money back.

Well said. This is a great post. There are plenty of good kids who get tarred with the same brush as the idiots.

The OP is the only one who can make the decision. Equally, he (or she) is the only one who bears ultimate responsibility for any fallout from their choice. If a manager or cashier loses their job as the result of an error (and we're all human and all fallible) and they are the sole income-earner for their family - is that really worth a few extra quid to the OP?

As others have posted, I'm sorry that this question even had to be posed... I certainly wouldn't wish to profit from someone else's inadvertent error.

sharnad

It would depend If I had went around and they has quoted me the buy back price as what I would get, say getting 1.5 euro instead of 1.2. I would junk I was getting a good rate and keep it. If they told me the sell for price 1.2. And gave me too much 1.5. Then I would have informed them they have me too much money. I would be annoyed either way by he manager knocking at my door

Daedalus

TheEffect wrote: »

What's wrong with just doing something because it's the right thing to do?

When I worked at an inner London secondary school a year or so ago with a high crime/poverty community, a pupil (year 10, 14 years old) found an envelope on the floor while walking to school, containing quite a bit of money. Inside was a withdrawal receipt.

The pupils (with a little help from a teacher) phoned the bank on the receipt and contacted the police. To cut a long story short, the owner of the money came to collect the money and met the boy who found it. He was an elderly gentleman and it was his pension he had withdrawn. He was chuffed. One of the boys friends asked him why he didn't keep it, and his reply was "because it wasn't the right thing to do".

And it's the youth of today who get negatively slammed in the news!

OP, do the right thing. Set a good example for those who may look up to you. Give the money back.

Not comparable in the slightest. The boy did his legal obligation to reunite the property with it's rightful owner.

Right or wrong is irrelevant and subjective. Profiting from someone who wishing to sell excess currency they bought from the same place is wrong to most.

Hominu

TheEffect wrote: »

What's wrong with just doing something because it's the right thing to do?

Think of it the other way around: If you asked for currency, got it and they gave you too little change, but you didn't notice until you got home, what do you think they would do?

I'll tell you: They'd say "Tough, you should have checked before leaving the counter.".

Likewise, the clerk should have checked before you left the counter, or at least before you left the post office.

There shouldn't be one rule for if a business makes a mistake that profits them, and another rule if it makes them a loss.

Your boy analogy isn't comparable in the slightest. Completely different.

matttye

Hominu wrote: »

Think of it the other way around: If you asked for currency, got it and they gave you too little change, but you didn't notice until you got home, what do you think they would do?

I'll tell you: They'd say "Tough, you should have checked before leaving the counter.".

Likewise, the clerk should have checked before you left the counter, or at least before you left the post office.

There shouldn't be one rule for if a business makes a mistake that profits them, and another rule if it makes them a loss.

Your boy analogy isn't comparable in the slightest. Completely different.

If the Post Office had any way of knowing that they did actually short change you, they would probably set that right. The only thing is, there's no way of them knowing, and I'm sure lots of people try it on with shops to get free stuff.

In this case, the OP KNOWS they were given too much, so they have the opportunity to put it right.

The_Boss

Several people talking about offer and acceptance, nobody mentioning consideration.
Selling money for less than it's worth probably wouldn't amount to good consideration.

That said highly dodgy of him to come round with a note. Assume there was a big loss on their part to not just write it off, let alone make a home visit.

The_Boss

"Post office error in your favour. Collect £20"

Until now thought that only ever happened in Monopoly.

Daedalus

The_Boss wrote: »

Several people talking about offer and acceptance, nobody mentioning consideration.
Selling money for less than it's worth probably wouldn't amount to good consideration.

That said highly dodgy of him to come round with a note. Assume there was a big loss on their part to not just write it off, let alone make a home visit.

Value has no bearing on consideration. The court doesn't care whether a contract is good value for either party.

Daedalus

matttye wrote: »

If the Post Office had any way of knowing that they did actually short change you, they would probably set that right. The only thing is, there's no way of them knowing, and I'm sure lots of people try it on with shops to get free stuff.

In this case, the OP KNOWS they were given too much, so they have the opportunity to put it right.

The reason the Post Office has no way of knowing that they short changed someone is because they have made the decision to not implement systems that would check, because it would be uneconomical to do so.

Mispricing in a supermarket, they could hire 10 people to walk to store continuously to check the prices, they don't because it would cost too much and most won't notice being overcharged, those which do will just be refunded.

That is how companies work, they work on money. Just because a customer is more likely to sport a mistake doesn't mean they should help a company out who would allow the customer to be ripped off to save a few pounds.

Like in everything, the company have their fingers burnt and hit in the pocket do they implement policies to prevent it happening again.