Confusing question

[urban genie]

£100 in cash

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Could cost the thousands in the end!

I’m going to say, £125,000.

Foreclosure off his shop and the subsequent effect on his own net spend with other retailers. Not to mention the redundancy of his staff and their ability to contribute to society whilst in receipt of U.C.

Ripples


Maybe I'm overthinking : /

 

[Coatigan]

The order does matter for two reasons. What you’ve described is pure theft, the other scenario is not, but also because the shop will be more out of pocket in your scenario because they’ve lost pure cash whereas in the other scenario they’ve lost the £30 and whatever those goods cost to purchase (which will be less than £70).

How are the two things related? They are £100 down. Whether he bought the goods first, last, or someone else got them, they are accounted for. The £100 is not. None of it really went back in the till.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

How are the two things related? They are £100 down. Whether he bought the goods first, last, or someone else got them, they are accounted for. The £100 is not. None of it really went back in the till.

They are accounted for differently. Ask any retailer if they would rather lose cash or stock I’m pretty sure they’d all say the latter. I know I would.

 

[chris85mcfc]

How are the two things related? They are £100 down. Whether he bought the goods first, last, or someone else got them, they are accounted for. The £100 is not. None of it really went back in the till.

Nah the stock in the shops isn't accounted for until its sold, and is worth what they paid for it until its sold.

The £30 cash is a straight £30 loss, and the £70 worth of stock is a loss of whatever they paid for it (stock is valued at lower of cost or net realisable value!).

So, a loss of £30 cash, and £70 worth of potential earnings, although not a loss of £70 cash but the loss of the value of the stock (which will be less than £70 otherwise they may as well close down!)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

How are the two things related? They are £100 down. Whether he bought the goods first, last, or someone else got them, they are accounted for. The £100 is not. None of it really went back in the till.

If you take out £100 from the till, walk round the store, purchase £70 of goods, pay the cashier in cash, then that till has £70 of that £100 put back in it.

Therefore, the till has £30 less in it than when you first took the money out.

So, as GDM said, the till is down £30 and the store is down whatever the purchase price was of the stock you’ve bought, not the retail price.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

£100 + the wholesale cost of the goods he “bought”.

 

[Stephen230]

How are the two things related? They are £100 down. Whether he bought the goods first, last, or someone else got them, they are accounted for. The £100 is not. None of it really went back in the till.

An extreme example of an extension to that argument would be if you bought something for a tenner, intending to sell it for £500 but have it stolen first and claim you’ve had £500 stolen.

 

[blueish swede]

If the man had stolen £100, left the shop and gone to another shop where he purchased £70 worth of goods, the second shop would have not lost anything and he would not have stolen from that shop. The first shop would be £100 down.

The issue that is "confusing" is the source of the £70 used to purchase the goods. In reality the source is irrelevant because money is fungible. There is actually no specific relation between the value of the stolen money and the value of the money used to buy the goods.

The shop has lost £100.

 

[bluenova]

Nah the stock in the shops isn't accounted for until its sold, and is worth what they paid for it until its sold.

The £30 cash is a straight £30 loss, and the £70 worth of stock is a loss of whatever they paid for it (stock is valued at lower of cost or net realisable value!).

So, a loss of £30 cash, and £70 worth of potential earnings, although not a loss of £70 cash but the loss of the value of the stock (which will be less than £70 otherwise they may as well close down!)

You really need to take into account whether the thief was really thirsty, and, had the scam failed, he would have bought a refreshing can of cider with his own money.

Or what if the scam worked, and he then bought the last 3 bottles of £22.99 whisky in the shop, along with a packet of chewing gum. Then the next customer comes in for his weekly bottle of £22.99 whisky, that is now no longer available. He umms and ahs about the £37.99 whisky, and in one scenario, decided to splash out, perhaps even moving up to the superior product on a weekly basis, but in another decides it's just too pricey, and goes next door. Discovers they sell the £22.99 whiskey for just £21.99, so transfers his custom for ever more.