Confusing question

[Mr Blue Moon]

A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register
He then carries on round the store and picks up £70 worth of goods
He goes to the checkout , pays for the goods with the stolen money and leaves the store with £70 worth of goods and £30 in cash

How much has the store lost?

If the combined cost was £70, what’s the price of butter?

 

[Coatigan]

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.

Those goods would have sold and they would have got £70 for them, with or without him. They'll never get the £100 back. For me the rest, value of goods, profit margin, tax, rent, power bills etc, are just a distraction. The shop has lost £100. They haven't gained anything nornal trading wouldn't have given them.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

They didn't lose any stock, ot have I misread.

If the question was 'how much did he gain', I'd get the debate. How much did they lose though, they lost what he took, £100.

 

[Coatigan]

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!)

No goods were stolen though.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They didn't lose any stock, ot have I misread.

If the question was 'how much did he gain', I'd get the debate. How much did they lose though, they lost what he took, £100.

They have lost £70 of stock because they have not received any extraneous funds to cover it, just as if a member of staff had given it away to a mate.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

You probably think he overpaid tbf mate so you might be best piping down on this one.

;)

 

[Coatigan]

If the combined cost was £70, what’s the price of butter?

Ooh, I know this one!

 

[Coatigan]

You probably think he overpaid tbf mate so you might be best piping down on this one.

;)

Aye, really, the shop stole from him!

 

[chris85mcfc]

No goods were stolen though.

Yes they were, effectively.

Someone has done away with stock that the owner thought was worth £70, and has paid for it with the owners money.

Whether it's stolen or not, it's been bought with the owners money!

 

[yeseye]

Is he from Liverpool?

No, because he would have nicked the £70 worth of goods also if he was.