Confusing question

[blueish swede]

The thief didn't buy anything as there has to be two willing parties to make a sale, in this case a vendor and a retailer. So he stole £30 cash plus £70 of goods at retail valuation.

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.

The shop received £70 for the goods, the asking price. The source of that £70 is irrelevant to the transaction. There is nothing special about an individual currency marker, be it a coin or a note. It is fungible and is equivalent to any other coins and notes of the same face value, both individually and in combination.

If the man had had a crisis of conscience later and returned to the shop and gave them £100 back, how much would the shop have lost? Nothing, they received £70 for the goods sold and had £100 returned to the till.

So the answer is £100

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The shop received £70 for the goods, the asking price. The source of that £70 is irrelevant to the transaction. There is nothing special about an individual currency marker, be it a coin or a note. It is fungible and is equivalent to any other coins and notes of the same face value, both individually and in combination.

If the man had had a crisis of conscience later and returned to the shop and gave them £100 back, how much would the shop have lost? Nothing, they received £70 for the goods sold and had £100 returned to the till.

So the answer is £100

Except the bloke would be £70 out of pocket.

If he returned the £30 and whatever the cost price was of the goods, then they would both be equal.

 

[blueish swede]

Except the bloke would be £70 out of pocket.

If he returned the £30 and whatever the cost price was of the goods, then they would both be equal.

No he would have goods to the value of £70, which he bought.

 

[Blue Mist]

Its not what the store has lost but what it has gained. The store has learnt a valuable lesson as we all did recently on here. It will go cashless and accept card only.

 

[Stoned Rose]

My take -

He used £70 he took from the till to “pay for” the goods so he’s paid for those with the shop’s money. So that money has simply “gone back to” the shop. Nothing lost so far.

The other £30 is in his pocket and not “gone back to” the shop. £30 lost so far.

Had he not walked out with the £70 worth of goods, theoretically, someone else might have bought them for £70, or a month later in a sale at a reduced price of say £50. Or, those goods may never have sold at all and may have ended up being binned off as an unsuccessful line and sent back to a warehouse for fuck all.

So, they’ve lost £30 and a further (theoretical) maximum of £70 in sales. We’d need to know what those goods had cost, to work out the true value of any loss though.

Therefore he question can only be partially answered.

 

[urban genie]

When the till is cashed up it will be £100 down
the goods have been paid for and cashed through the till so not stock is lost as it has been paid for, albeit with the stolen money.

The till will be still £100 short at the days end

 

[Coatigan]

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!

He might have gone hungry that night too, doesn't mean his food was stolen.

Am I misreading this? The guy didnt steal the goods. He bought them. With stolen money. So the only thing stolen is the money. The shop is down the cash, not the goods. It is not 'up' any, as that is just its normal sales.

 

[Two Gun Bob]

The shop received £70 for the goods, the asking price. The source of that £70 is irrelevant to the transaction. There is nothing special about an individual currency marker, be it a coin or a note. It is fungible and is equivalent to any other coins and notes of the same face value, both individually and in combination.

If the man had had a crisis of conscience later and returned to the shop and gave them £100 back, how much would the shop have lost? Nothing, they received £70 for the goods sold and had £100 returned to the till.

So the answer is £100

How do you know the £70 returned to till was for the stock taken on the day. There was no transaction as the seller was not privy to the sale. It could be argued that the £70 paid back into the till was for previous thefts of goods that took place at an earlier time of the month that had caused the thief angst, therefore if that was the case then the loss on this day would be £100 cash and £70 of goods at retail value.

I think the question has been over simplified and does not carry enough facts for us all to make an educated decision.

 

[chris85mcfc]

He might have gone hungry that night too, doesn't mean his food was stolen.

Am I misreading this? The guy didnt steal the goods. He bought them. With stolen money. So the only thing stolen is the money. The shop is down the cash, not the goods. It is not 'up' any, as that is just its normal sales.

It's not down the £70 cash though is it, as it got that back, but its down the £70 worth of stock, as they haven't received any money for the items from a buyer?

So the stock has gone and they've no money for in the till for it, so you'd have to right the stock off, which would be valued at the amount the shop paid for it, which would be less than £70.

As someone else said, we've not got enough info and we're plugging the gaps, but ultimately the store has lost stock and hasn't got the money in the till for the items.

 

[blueish swede]

It's not down the £70 cash though is it, as it got that back, but its down the £70 worth of stock, as they haven't received any money for the items from a buyer?

So the stock has gone and they've no money for in the till for it, so you'd have to right the stock off, which would be valued at the amount the shop paid for it, which would be less than £70.

As someone else said, we've not got enough info and we're plugging the gaps, but ultimately the store has lost stock and hasn't got the money in the till for the items.

Yes, they have. They have received £70. The source of the money is irrelevant. If the man had had £70 in his pocket and paid with that and walked out with the full £100 from the till, the shop would have been paid. In the OPs case the shop was still paid.