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.Thank you so much! My answer is $100 but people keep telling me I'm wrong. They say it's $200.
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.
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?
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?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.
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.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 …
The thief didn't take any inventory. They stole cash.… depends on the supply the stores has.
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?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?