Please help

Dee

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3
This was posted on Facebook and there are so many different answers. I would appreciate any help. Thanks.11368
 

MarkFL

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
1,043
C. $100

The owner lost $100 due to the initial theft, but lost nothing further, because he was paid $70 for the $70 worth of goods.
 

Dee

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3
Thank you so much! My answer is $100 but people keep telling me I'm wrong. They say it's $200.
 

Dee

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3
Otis! ahaha!! I ask myself that same question.
 

topsquark

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
253
Thank you so much! My answer is $100 but people keep telling me I'm wrong. They say it's $200.
Originally the owner lost the 100 dollars. During the purchase the 100 was given back, but in exchange for 70 dollars of product plus 30 dollars change. As MarkFL points out, the transaction gives the owner nothing back, nor does the owner lose anything more.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dee

Denis

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
1,465
....or simply pretend the person who came back to purchase is someone else...
 

Jomo

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,009
Hmm, I disagree with you folks. The stolen $100 bill given back in exchange for $30 in cash and $70 in merchandise. The thing is that the store owner did not lose $70 in merchandise as I am sure that the store owner paid less than $70 for the merchandise. And I do not believe that I am over thinking this.
 

MarkFL

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
1,043
Hmm, I disagree with you folks. The stolen $100 bill given back in exchange for $30 in cash and $70 in merchandise. The thing is that the store owner did not lose $70 in merchandise as I am sure that the store owner paid less than $70 for the merchandise. And I do not believe that I am over thinking this.
Yes, the store owner presumably sells things for a profit, but he/she would have gotten $70 for that merchandise from anyone who brought it to the register, so getting $70 from the thief is a loss of $0 with regards to just that transaction. And so the initial loss is the net loss. As Denis mentioned, we could simply pretend the thief is anyone regarding the purchase.
 

Jomo

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,009
I have to think about what you are saying (especially since you are agreeing with Denis).
Suppose the thief knows what they want to buy cost exactly $70 so they steal $70 from the register. Then 5 minutes later they come back and buy the merchandise. Isn't this the same exact scenario as the thief just coming in and stealing the merchandise?
In the original post, isn't what happened the same as the thief coming in and stealing the merchandise worth $70 and also taking $30 from the register?
 

MarkFL

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
1,043
Suppose the thief knows what they want to buy cost exactly $70 so they steal $70 from the register. Then 5 minutes later they come back and buy the merchandise. Isn't this the same exact scenario as the thief just coming in and stealing the merchandise?
Yes, in both cases, the merchant loses $70.

In the original post, isn't what happened the same as the thief coming in and stealing the merchandise worth $70 and also taking $30 from the register?
Yes, in both cases, the merchant loses $100.
 

Jomo

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,009
Yes, the store owner presumably sells things for a profit, but he/she would have gotten $70 for that merchandise from anyone who brought it to the register, so getting $70 from the thief is a loss of $0 with regards to just that transaction. And so the initial loss is the net loss. As Denis mentioned, we could simply pretend the thief is anyone regarding the purchase.
This is still disturbing me. Maybe this is the issue that makes us think differently. If the store owner has only a few left of this $70 item (or a few items that add up to $70) which will sell out before a new shipment comes in then I agree that the store owner lost $70. But what if the store owner always has this item in its store (until it becomes unpopular or a new version comes out), then will that change things?
 

Otis

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
This is still disturbing me … If the store owner has only a few left of this $70 item (or a few items that add up to $70) which will sell out before a new shipment comes in …
You seem to be overthinking it. The question does not talk about any of that stuff above, but the author does warn you to not overthink it.

😎
 

Jomo

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,009
Otis, the thing is that I instantly think that the answer depends on the supply the stores has.
 

Otis

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
1,170

Dr.Peterson

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
3,045
This is still disturbing me. Maybe this is the issue that makes us think differently. If the store owner has only a few left of this $70 item (or a few items that add up to $70) which will sell out before a new shipment comes in then I agree that the store owner lost $70. But what if the store owner always has this item in its store (until it becomes unpopular or a new version comes out), then will that change things?
Suppose there's no theft involved. You're the store owner. Someone comes in and buys this thing for $70. In each of your two scenarios, how much do you gain or lose?

And in each case, are you glad that person came in, or do you wish she hadn't?

By the way, I don't think you meant to say that the owner lost $70.
 
Top