Confusing question

[Coatigan]

It wouldn’t be in the till if the transaction hadn’t been completed, but it is because the transaction was completed.

Therefore, at the end of the day, the till will be £100 down, but the business will be £30 down plus the trade cost of the goods sold in that £70 transaction.

I'm not arguing it is not in the till. I'm arguing it is not 'back' in the till.

Once the £100 is out of the till, it is gone. Everything that happens after, is regular business. The money and goods are accounted for, at whatever value or margin is expected. The missing £100 is not.

I can't think of simpler ways to divorce the two completely irrelevant events.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'm not arguing it is not in the till. I'm arguing it is not 'back' in the till.

Once the £100 is out of the till, it is gone. Everything that happens after, is regular business. The money and goods are accounted for, at whatever value or margin is expected. The missing £100 is not.

I can't think of simpler ways to divorce the two completely irrelevant events.

But it literally is back in the till. I can’t think of a simpler way to describe that and am unsure what the motive is in making the two aspects of the question separate of each other. They are fundamentally linked.

 

[Coatigan]

But it literally is back in the till. I can’t think of a simpler way to describe that and am unsure what the motive is in making the two aspects of the question separate of each other. They are fundamentally linked.

In what way are they linked? Not being obtuse. Items bought with or without the money stolen will be accounted for. The money stolen, won't be.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In what way are they linked? Not being obtuse. Items bought with or without the money stolen will be accounted for. The money stolen, won't be.

£70 of the stolen money is back in the till. Check the serial numbers on the notes.

 

[Coatigan]

If the guy walks out with £100 in cash. I come in and buy stuff for £70 of my own money. How much has the store lost?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If the guy walks out with £100 in cash. I come in and buy stuff for £70 of my own money. How much has the store lost?

£100.

Your transaction will make them a profit of rrp-cost price.

The answer is the same, but the working out is different. You aren’t part of the question.

 

[Coatigan]

£70 of the stolen money is back in the till. Check the serial numbers on the notes.

But only as payment for items bought and accounted for.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The shopkeeper has lost the £30 cash plus the wholesale cost of replacing the £70 of goods paid for with his own money.

He starts with £100 in the till and £70 of goods on the shelf. At the end of the scenario, he has £70 in the till but has to find the cash to replace the £70 of goods taken.

To get back to where he was, with £100 in the till and goods worth £70 on the shelf, he has to put £30 cash back in the till and pay whatever it costs to replace the (effectively) stolen goods. Then he'll have £100 in the till and £70 (at retail value) of goods on the shelf.

Now, can we all get back to taking the piss out of united or arguing whether it's a barm or a muffin?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But only as payment for items bought and accounted for.

I refer you to PB’s answer above. I’ll let him take the reins for a while. :-)

 

[Coatigan]

£100.

Your transaction will make them a profit of rrp-cost price.

The answer is the same, but the working out is different. You aren’t part of the question.

I might be!

Joking aside, the two things are exactly the same. The shop is down £100 both ways.