Confusing question

[Mr Kobayashi]

If it happened in your shop, you'd cut the CCTV off at the point the point he stole all the cash.

 

[Coatigan]

The till is £100 down. The business is £30+ the trade cost of the items bought for £70. That is less than £100.

In what way is it down the items? It is completely irrelevant, and assumes the shop trades nothing else with nobody else. And even if it did, it would still be £100 down. It would be £100 down if it traded £70,000 worth of goods or 70p.

 

[PragueBlue]

The till is £100 down. The business is £30+ the trade cost of the items bought for £70. That is less than £100.

Not if the trade cost of the items is £70. Maybe they were selling them at cost to clear stock. We can only work with the figures provided and so £100 is the only answer.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In what way is it down the items? It is completely irrelevant, and assumes the shop trades nothing else with nobody else. And even if it did, it would still be £100 down. It would be £100 down if it traded £70,000 worth of goods or 70p.

£70 is back in the till and £70rrp have been bought with it.

Therefore the till has £30 missing from it plus the £70 of goods (which the shop will have bought for much less, unless they want to go out of business.)

so, say the goods were bought at £35 and sold at £70, the company is down the £30 in the till, plus the £35 they paid for the goods =£65.

If you owned a company, would you rather have £100 stolen or £100 of RRP stock stolen?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Not if the trade cost of the items is £70. Maybe they were selling them at cost to clear stock. We can only work with the figures provided and so £100 is the only answer.

That is the only scenario where the answer can be £100.

If you assume the shop is selling at trade price, it doesn’t really matter as they’ll go bust pretty soon.

 

[Coatigan]

£70 is back in the till and £70rrp have been bought with it.

Therefore the till has £30 missing from it plus the £70 of goods (which the shop will have bought for much less, unless they want to go out of business.)

so, say the goods were bought at £35 and sold at £70, the company is down the £30 in the till, plus the £35 they paid for the goods =£65.

If you owned a company, would you rather have £100 stolen or £100 of RRP stock stolen?

£70 is not 'back' in the till. The two are completely separate things.

So the rest, while sensible, is not relevant.

 

[hammocity]

He didn't steal £70 worth of goods. The goods are all accounted for, in regular sales. The cash is not. They are £100 down, regardless of how much or little they sell in goods or at how big a margin.

Incorrect, when a stocktake is undertaken goods are valued at their purchase price not the sales price so it’s £30 plus SAV. The goods on the shelf are not guaranteed sales for various reasons and could even be written off completely.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

£70 is not 'back' in the till. The two are completely separate things.

So the rest, while sensible, is not relevant.

£70 of the missing £100 is back in the till when he paid for the goods.

 

[hammocity]

The till is £100 down. The business is £30+ the trade cost of the items bought for £70. That is less than £100.

Spot on.

 

[Coatigan]

Fuck it. I'll ask ChatGDP!

It says.

'The store has lost a total of £100'.