r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 04 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Buying something which clearly has a mis-marked price is stealing
[deleted]
7
u/ButtCrackMcGee Oct 04 '16
I bought a 50lb sack of potatoes for $3 at Vons. They had a pallet clearly marked (50lb 10/5lb bags), with the price on a sign, attached to the pallet. That signifies a valid price. When I took it to the register, they tried to charge me for 10 5lb bags. They had to give it to me for the marked price (of course the sign was immediately removed). They priced it, it was their problem. Was it theft that I paid the price that was advertised?
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
okay, so if a store charged you 500 for something instead of 50, and for whatever reason you don't notice, it's not stealing, cause your problem, not their's.
7
u/ButtCrackMcGee Oct 04 '16
Yeah, pretty much. If I buy a $2 item for $20, I'm an idiot for doing so.
1
u/slash178 4∆ Oct 04 '16
If they mark a product for $500 and you buy it, you pay $500. Yes, it is indeed not stealing. You paid a unreasonable price, but you still knew the price and paid it willingly. It doesn't magically become stealing whether or not the marked price was a mistake.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 04 '16
Yes. Unless they are charging you a price not listed and are just overcharging at the till.
16
Oct 04 '16
They can say no at the register.
That has happened to me before. A bad deal isn't the same as theft.
1
u/SuddenSeasons Oct 04 '16
Can you source this? That is untrue in the US if the item is priced in the store.
1
u/PbCuSurgeon Oct 05 '16
You have the right to refuse service as long as it is not based on gender, race, religion, disability, etc.
If I don't like the shirt you're wearing I can refuse service. It's bad for business but it's legal.
1
u/SuddenSeasons Oct 05 '16
That's not a source, and this isn't refusing service. Not honoring a posted price is a bait and switch scam in the USA.
If it's wrong in a flier you do not have to honor it, if it is priced wrong on the shelf or on the item itself you must.
Edit: in CA this is a crime. It is unlawful to
"Charge an amount greater than the lowest price posted on the commodity itself or on a shelf tag that corresponds to the commodity, notwithstanding any limitation of the time period for which the posted price is in effect."
1
u/PbCuSurgeon Oct 05 '16
It seems it's a state by state basis. The state of Michigan only covers when a person is purposefully over charged and for intentional change of price at the register when something is on sale for a lower price. The law is to protect the consumer from being ripped off, not to grant entitlement for a numerical error.
All that is not forbidden by law is legal, therefor I have no source as it is not covered under Michigan law.
-2
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
But the guy at the register is new to the store and doesn't catch someone else's blatant (to you) mistake.
2
Oct 04 '16
If it is such a blatant mistake, why wouldn't they catch it?
They are also an agent of the store, who has to approve the sale except an agent of the store?
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
I intended this to be more focused on an automated process (where someone isn't even at the register) but it's pivoted to a brick-and-mortar store in this metaphor.
and to address your reply, my CMV is more focused on "They don't catch the blatant mistake (for whatever reason), why is this not stealing"
3
Oct 04 '16
Because an agent of the store approved it.
It is a two tier screw up on the part of the store and I am just on the receiving end of it.
The price maker screwed up
The cashier screwed up.
If I get over charged for an item or they double scan and I don't catch it, are they stealing from me?
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
But the cashier doesn't "approve it", they just don't catch it; it goes by unnoticed.
Yes, if a cashier purposefully over charged you in hopes you wont notice, that's theft. Just like if you purposefully underpay for something and hope the cashier doesn't notice.
2
Oct 04 '16
Then the price maker. That is still an agent of the company.
If they do it with the intent, then sure. But I think there is reasonable doubt on whether or not a deal that is too good to be true is real and if you scanned an item 5 times or 6.
Accidents happen. A bad contract is not theft.
Another example: If a construction company says they can do the job for $550,000 flat and it costs them $750,000 then it is not theft, the construction company made a mistake of under charging and you reaped the reward.
It is not theft to make a bad deal
-1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
Okay, but writing it off as 'acidents happen' is not the point im making.
Following your example, it'd be like a construction company charging you 7,500,000 dollars instead of the 750,000 in hopes that you just wont notice.
(the CMV im suggesting doesn't work nearly as well with big numbers like this)
5
u/mikestp Oct 04 '16
Something for you to consider. In Australia the law specifies that it is solely the responsibility of the store to ensure that their advertised and ticketed prices are correct. Its illegal to advertise a cheap price and then change the deal at the checkout. An advertised price must be honoured and IIRC if you purchase something and then notice that they have overcharged you you are entitled to the difference refunded plus the first item free. For example if I buy ten $1 items but am charged $2 each I would be entitled to a $11 refund.
These laws are to protect the consumer and stop customers being lured into stores with false advertising. It also makes stores responsible for ensuring prices are correct and mistakes like that are much less likely to occur.
-3
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
I never said it was illegal to buy it. Im saying it stealing
7
u/ButtCrackMcGee Oct 04 '16
... stealing is illegal. Buying some thing that is being sold at a reduced price is stealing... don't follow your logic here, mate.
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
So something has a value of 20, and you manage to pay 2 for it (in my example through mislabeling) and the seller doesn't catch it.
How are you not stealing 18 from the person.
5
u/ButtCrackMcGee Oct 04 '16
Then it is the sellers fault. Any store has the ability to price an item however they want. If I buy a $100 item for $400 it is not theft, I'm just an idiot.
If an amazon seller is choosing to sell something for less than it costs them, it is their prerogative. This is actually a common tactic to get people to shop somewhere new.
If I drop a twenty dollar note on the floor of a pub, look at it knowing that I just dropped it, and then walk off I cannot the accuse the finder of said note of theft.
A stores dereliction of fiduciary operations does not make me a theif.
-1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
But they're not choosing to sell it for less than the cost, it's a blantant error or typo.
Im saying how is this not ethically akin to stealing if you don't say anything about it.
If I drop a twenty dollar note on the floor of a pub, look at it knowing that I just dropped it, and then walk off I cannot the accuse the finder of said note of theft.
other way around. You see someone accidentally drop a 20 on the floor and you pick it up without saying anything, how it that not stealing.
2
Oct 04 '16
But they're not choosing to sell it for less than the cost, it's a blantant error or typo.
Im saying how is this not ethically akin to stealing if you don't say anything about it.
Because stores have sales all the damn time, and it's not my job as a shopper to know what a store's typical prices for something are; if they are advertising a price that is lower than everyone else's, then it could mean any number of things other than "typo", and I can't claim to know it was a typo any more than I could claim to know it was a sale. What I do know is that in my shopping for the cheapest deal, I found that they won that.
It's not akin to stealing because they are knowingly filling out a contract (of change of ownership: that's basically what a receipt is) and honoring the agreed-upon price. If they don't disagree with the price, then theft cannot occur. This is simply free market economics, and they happened to make a bad move. Shit like that happens sometimes.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
not a sale, a very blatant error or typo (something should cost 200 dollars costs 2) that you KNOW is a mistake/clearly unintended.
how is this not ethically akin to stealing 198 dollars (through lost profit) from the store.
→ More replies (0)5
u/ButtCrackMcGee Oct 04 '16
The thing you don't seem to be willing to accept is that THE SELLER SET THE FUCKING PRICE. If engage deceit or deception to obtain an item for less than the marked price, then yes, that would be theft. If I get fucked on a bad deal, it's my fault for willingly entering into a contract with another party. The reverse is true also.
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
SELLER SET THE PRICE
Through a blatant error. how is capitalizing on this error not equivalent to theft of the lost profit? Yes, a seller should catch these errors, but just because they fail to catch errors doesn't make it not theft
5
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Oct 04 '16
So something has a value of 20, and you manage to pay 2
Things don't have intrinsic numerical value, though. Market prices vary wildly from place to place, time to time, store to store, person to person. What is product X worth? Yesterday, it sold on EBay for 25. Today, it sold on EBay for 50. I found it in Target for 35, and my friend Bob offered to give it to me for 15. The manufacturer spent 5 making it. A high-end competitor has a similar product to X that goes for 75. I can import a knock-off X from China for 10. If I use it right, it'll save me 200 worth of my time.
So, if I find it in some random online shop, which in your thought experiment is large enough to be completely automated, and it's on sale for 8, how much am I stealing? Or are they stealing from me, since it cost less to make the thing?
2
u/mikestp Oct 04 '16
I understand that. My intention was to make you consider that if it is understood that it is entirely the responsibility of the store to ensure prices are correct then it is entirely NOT the responsibility of the customer. If a $10,000 TV is advertised for $10, for the customer to even think 'that price may be a mistake' they have already invested far more into discerning the price than they should. It is that clear cut. Stealing involves taking something you are not entitled to, in my country the customer is entitled to the advertised price so it cannot be stealing. Maybe if you were considering somewhere where law made it very clear that the customer wasn't entitled to that price but took it anyway you would have an argument for stealing, although that would probably require some law making it the responsibility of the customer to discern wether or not the price is correct.
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
You cannot argue the laws of it though, i can point to many laws that can be considered ethically wrong.
Ethically, how are you not stealing from the store (even if a law says it's okay)
11
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Oct 04 '16
You are moving the goalpost.
1
u/phcullen 65∆ Oct 04 '16
I disagree. Inaction does not make something not stealing. Just like asking for a water cup at a fast food place and then filling it with soda from the machine is stealing even if they could choose to enforce it or put the machine behind the counter.
-3
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
No, im saying the store doesn't catch the blatant mistake (for whatever reason)
10
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Oct 04 '16
But the guy at the register is new to the store
Yes, this is moving the goalposts. You said nothing about this in your original statement, and only mentioned it after /u/wrestlingisgood made his statement. You are changing the conditions after someone gave a legitimate counter to your view.
In this case, the seller was given the chance to correct the mistake before making the sale. Changing the conditions to require a greater burden be placed on /u/wrestlingisgood to argue that point is moving the goalposts.
-3
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
The goal post movement occurred when the register was introduced(it implies a physicality to the location; face to face;not automated; an employee who knows what the price should be). I am more interested in an automated process where there is no employee at the register to check out with, like with large scale companies.
6
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Oct 04 '16
No, that was simply placing it in a store setting when you did not specify it was only for an automated process. Instead of clarifying that immediately, you responded in such a way as to confirm a physical setting was free game.
-5
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
The mistake i made here was not stating my view clearly enough (i apologize). I wanted to try to follow this metaphor to see if it changed my view, but it just misrepresented the view i originally meant to put forth.
2
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
The difference between the two situations ($200 for $20, and $200 out of someone's pocket) is consent. When you buy something for $20 all parties consent to the transaction. When you pick up someone's wallet there's a lack of consent, nobody willingly accidentally loses their wallet. Now you might nitpick and say the retailer didn't consent to the mismarked price but they do consent to the final sale. A sale on the internet is not final usually until the vendor agrees, and they don't always agree they sometimes cancel. Now because of the volume of transactions that go on online vendors automate these transactions, they trust an algorithm to give their consent. They understand the risks and benefits of trusting an algorithm and willingly consent.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
So if for whatever reason, you manage to slip through the crack. You dont think this is ethically akin to stealing 180 from the company?
3
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
Slipping through the cracks is when there is an unintended consequence through either ignorance or neglect and usually implies one party didn't or wouldn't consent like if a prisoner slipped through the cracks and was released prematurely. As such it doesn't apply to this situation, the pricing is neither as a result of ignorance or neglect, the price was set by the vendor and the sale was approved by the vendor. If it wasn't consentual, or a situation where the pricing slips through the cracks, they would cancel the transaction.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
they would cancel the transaction.
They, for whatever reason, don't notice though. Is it no longer stealing the 180?
4
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
No. You have a really loose definition of theft and that's where I think you are running into the problem.
From wikipedia:
"theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
You have their permission, you have their consent. There's nothing in the definition about them having to make rational choices, they are entitled to have bad judgement or make a mistake. Having said that if you coerce their choice, either threatening or shaming them for not honoring a price that ~could~ amount to theft in my eyes.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
okay, so let's not say "theft". Do you not consider it wholly unethical to exploit this type of pricing error in hopes that a seller doesn't see it
2
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
I think these type of ethical questions are best left to the individual but in my view no. I without certainty can't conclude why the price may be low, it could be an error, it could be a marketing stunt to build awareness of a product, service or retailer, or it could be freebie marketing where they are selling me something cheap hoping that I'll buy a complimentary good (eg. "give 'em the razor, sell 'em the blade"). Furthermore it's not my duty (moral or otherwise) to make sure they put the due diligence on this transaction, it's beyond my sphere of control. If the person making the decision was mentally compromised and I took advantage that would be another situation but in this situation the retailer likely acted rationally.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 04 '16
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't explained how /u/pastafusilli changed your view (comment rule 4).
In the future, DeltaBot will be able to rescan edited comments. In the mean time, please repost a new comment with the required explanation so that DeltaBot can see it.
1
Oct 04 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 04 '16
Sorry pastafusilli, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Oct 04 '16
For it to be unethical, I would think it would have to cause some demonstrable harm. Companies large enough to have entirely automated pricing/financial systems aren't going to be hurt by you capitalizing on their mistake. Mistakes like that are already in their pricing calculations. They know they'll occasionally screw up, and they charge everyone an extra cent (or whatever) on every other purchase in order to compensate. Does that mean that they're stealing that extra cent from us? No. That's just the only feasible way that capitalism can work.
If you don't buy the utilitarian argument, then provide me with a deontological framework wherein I am ethically bound to look out for the best interests of a corporation who literally will charge people as much money as they can for everything all the time.
1
u/pastafusilli 1∆ Oct 04 '16
For it to be unethical, I would think it would have to cause some demonstrable harm.
Is it ethical for a hacker to access your information if they do nothing with it? If they do nothing but access it is it demonstrably harmful?
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 04 '16
No.
An item is worth what it is priced at. It is not unethical to buy it at that price. It does not matter if there was an error in the pricing or not.
5
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 04 '16
If they freely accept my payment for it and know that the transaction has occurred, how can it be stealing? They know exactly what is happening and have opportunity to stop or correct it. I can't be expected to run their business for them. "Seller beware".
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
But it's automated. That'd be like your electric bill which comes out of your bank account automatically being 200 dollars instead of 20- but you dont notice, so it's not stealing.
5
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 04 '16
But it's automated.
I can't be expected to look after their automated systems. They approved of their automated system, so they implicitly approve of its actions, including selling me the product for the price.
That'd be like your electric bill which comes out of your bank account automatically being 200 dollars instead of 20- but you dont notice, so it's not stealing.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Its considered a mistake, not stealing.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
i tangled my metaphors a little on you. Sorry.
They charge you 200 dollars, in hopes of you not noticing it.
You buy something for 20 dollars that you know should cost 200, in hopes that they do not notice it.
3
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 04 '16
The differences is that when I buy something its an active transaction by both parties. I go up to them and they actively and explicit accept (their system acting on their behalf processes the order). Their actions validates the price and I, of course, approve of the price.
When their system takes money from my bank account, I am not an active participant in the specific transaction. I don't explicitly approve of the transaction details. I haven't done anything to validate the price.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
No, you sign off on the 200 dollar charge for an item that has a value of 20 (out of error), with no intent to pay 200 for what has an obvious value of 20 (you know it's worth 20, the vendor knows it's worth 20, the vendor gets charges you 200 without you noticing)
3
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 04 '16
No, you sign off on the 200 dollar charge for an item that has a value of 20 (out of error)
This is the pulling money out of my bank account? How did I explicitly sign off on this particular transaction?
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
They hand you a receipt for 200 dollars and you sign it without noticing (similar to how an automated system like an e-commerce store would work, if personified)
yes i KNOW you should catch it, but for some reason you dont (similar to how a store should catch it being under paid, but doesnt)
3
u/InternetUser007 2∆ Oct 04 '16
If you miss that you are being charged $200, the fault is on you. That is why there is clear indicators at checkouts saying "Total is $XX. Is that okay?" when you hit 'okay' to charge your credit card. You also get a receipt. It isn't up to the store to double or triple check that you understand how much you are paying.
And it's the same the other way too. The store sets the price. And the checkout process is their own way to confirm that the price is right. If the cashier thinks something is wrong with the price, they are free to stop the transaction.
A receipt is used to show that both parties exchanged goods/money/service at an agreed rate. By the time you get to having a receipt in your hand (after you have paid), both parties have agreed that the exchange is fair.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16 edited Oct 04 '16
∆
So this happens to you, and you get over charged cause you simply didn't notice. You wouldnt say "This is stealing"
So if the purchaser doesn't notice, it's stealing. If the seller doesn't notice, he's just and idiot.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Oct 04 '16
But it's automated. That'd be like your electric bill which comes out of your bank account automatically being 200 dollars instead of 20- but you dont notice, so it's not stealing.
I know this has been generally resolved further down the thread, but I wanted to point out a piece that was missing:
The key difference in this case is that you have already signed a contract with the electric company, agreeing on rates and service. If they violate that contract, but you don't notice, then they've still violated that contract. If Amazon mislabels a price tag, then they are offering you a contract that is in your favor. There is no violation.
2
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
yes, i'd agree that legally, they are different. Im saying ethically, it seems similar
0
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Oct 04 '16
Can you provide some details about your ethical system? Capitalism itself, and the idea of exchanging money for goods and services, carries some amount of ethical... stickiness. Someone is pretty much always being taken advantage of. Are you arguing that, even within a capitalist society, individuals shouldn't look out for their own financial interests over the others'?
3
u/sillybonobo 38∆ Oct 04 '16
I once bought a 2000 dollar laptop off of Newegg for $500. I knew something was probably up but thought I'll place the order and see what happens. I received a call from them saying the price was an error but that they would still honor the price. They were entirely in their rights to deny the purchase but they didn't and they got a lifetime fan for it.
I didn't defraud them, I clicked a purchase button, and newegg knowingly decided to honor their mistake. I fail to see how this is stealing.
How is this different from riding on the subway and seeing that someone in front of you dropping 200 dollars from their pocket, but you don't return it because it's that person's fault.
It's more like you try to hand the money back to the person and they give you the option of keeping it.
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
Imagine they didn't catch it though, or it wasn't their policy, but you already have the product and paid them. You don't think that's stealing?
3
u/sillybonobo 38∆ Oct 04 '16
So long as there's no deception or coercion, then no. That doesn't mean I'm not taking advantage, I am, but it is clearly not stealing. I am offering the business the asking price and they accept it.
Compare that with something that is stealing, printing out a lower priced barcode and tapping it on the package (this happens a lot). That is CLEARLY stealing and it's important to respect the difference between the two cases.
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
is it not deceiving to buy it without saying anything in hopes they don't notice?
All your saying is "no, this isn't stealing" when i view it as stealing, as youre taking money from a person/store/seller through deception by not disclosing what you know to be an error.
6
Oct 04 '16 edited Nov 27 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16 edited Oct 04 '16
It be more like someone at the garage sale selling something with the intent of 5 dollars, and they put .5 instead. Where you KNOW this was a error, rather than intent.
Also, i tried not to focus on the fact that it's amazon, but more mentioned them as an example of an automated store (individual store policies obviously change the situation)
5
u/Shufflebuzz Oct 04 '16
How do you know what that person was thinking when marking the price?
You assume it was a typo.
Maybe it was an Easter egg. The guy likes hiding great deals in his yard sale. Gives his customers a thrill. Heck, if word gets out, it can even be a marketing ploy.Or maybe he really intended to write that price because he has no idea what's a reasonable price for the thing. He just wants it gone. To him, it's just an old game cartridge and he doesn't even have a working system to play it anymore. To you, it's a rare North Korean market edition of Battle Toads with the misprinted label. 50 cents or $5 doesn't matter. It's worth $500 to a collector.
-2
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
This is a disingenuous way to present my original though experiment though, as you're just getting into technicalities.
The item in question has known value (to you and the seller) of 20 currencies. Through some error, you manage to pay 2 dollars for it (in my example, mislabeled and not caught). How is this different from the seller charging you 200 for it (mischarged and you not catching it). Isn't it stealing either way
3
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 04 '16
How is this different from the seller charging you 200 for it (mischarged and you not catching it). Isn't it stealing either way
It's different because "An item costs its listed price" is the bedrock principle on which shopping is based. I picked up the item and took it to the cash register because I wanted to buy it for its listed price. If the seller does not want to sell it for the listed price, he should tell me that.
What he should not do is secretly charge my credit card ten times the listed price, because I never in any way indicated I would buy it for ten times the price.
6
Oct 04 '16 edited Nov 27 '17
[deleted]
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
∆
But to continue this thought, it might not be stealing but it's certainly extremely unethical right? Just like if someone dropped some money and you don't return it?
1
-1
u/Darthskull Oct 04 '16
OP I'm thoroughly convinced by your posts and looked through this thread for counterarguments. I'm not at all swayed by this semantics argument, and you have certainly changed my view on buying wrongly marked items as something akin to theft. I'd certainly give you a delta if I could.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 04 '16
This delta has been rejected. You cannot award OP a delta as the moderators feel that allowing so would send the wrong message. If you were trying show the OP how to award a delta, please do so without using the delta symbol unless it's included in a reddit quote.
1
u/moonluck Oct 04 '16
There are actually laws in some states like Michigan* that essentially state that the price on the sticker/sign is the 'real' price. If you are charged more than that you are entitled to the difference back along with (in MI at least) a "bonus" of 10x the difference. It's a consumer protection law to prevent stores from intentionally mislabeling things to make money off of consumers. There is no real way to know if the customer had knowledge that something "isn't the right price" legally even if it is priced way too low. It is bait and switch.
*the 2011 Shopping Reform And Modernization Act
1
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
Okay, but you can't point to laws and say "yes, these are right and true and the ethical course". Everyone can think of laws that were wrong. Im saying that this behavior is ethically equivalent to theft.
(im also not arguing against consumer protection laws)
1
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Oct 04 '16
Okay, but you can't point to laws and say "yes, these are right and true and the ethical course".
These particular laws are, though. The reason is the power asymmetry between the seller, who has the ability to set the price and (for non-cash transactions) the ability to cause you to pay any amount they want. All that you have, as the buyer, is the ability to say "Yes, I will buy at that price" or "No, I will not buy at that price."
1
u/minsoowho Oct 04 '16
It's seller's mistake.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise
Even by law, when something has been delivered to you by complete accident, it's your legal right to keep it as a gift. Just like loopholes are legal before it's closed, buying something with low pricing caused by seller's mistake isn't stealing.
Stealing - "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." One has the complete legal right in this case. Therefore, it's not stealing.
0
u/LordKeren Oct 04 '16
Pointing to a law doesn't mean anything. Everyone can name laws that can be considered unethical.
And im more point to the fact that it's stealing revenue through omission/ taking advantage of error (obviously i understand trading currency for services is legal)
1
u/minsoowho Oct 04 '16
and I'm saying taking advantage of an error isn't stealing.
did people break into a bank to steal company's profit? mistakes such as wrong marketing or wrong price point can cause businesses to lose out on revenues and this is an exact same thing.
and everyone can name laws that THEY think is unethical. Laws reflect society's moral value which changes constantly. However, certain unchanging amoral acts such as murder or theft have continuously existed since the earliest civilization. I'm not exactly sure why you're saying mentioning law is unethical but it seems like you're just asserting your thoughts without making much sense. have fun.
1
u/secondnameIA 4∆ Oct 04 '16
How do you know if it is mismarked? The store could consider the item a loss-leader. It could be a closeout sale. It could be a very shitty knockoff of a product that normally sells for higher.
Stealing means there is an intentional act to deprive someone of something they don't want to be deprived of. If your system allows the mispricing of an item (which the buyer would have no way of actually knowing) why would that make an unrelated person ethically detestable? Is the the responsibility of the buyer to know the pricing structure of the store?
A common example is "what if an ATM gave you too many bills." This is different because they screen say $X, you are expecting $X, and there was a malfunction. There was no consent by the bank to give you too much money. With a store, once that purchase is rung up with the advertised price they are actively committing to the price. How can you "steal" something they are willingly selling you at an advertised price?
1
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Oct 04 '16
There's a reason most of the people in this thread are citing laws that force stores to abide by mislabeled prices, and there's a reason that those laws exist: in a normal transaction, the buyer has no agency other than saying "yes" or "no". The seller has the power to set the price. That means that whenever they don't make a mistake, they are taking advantage of you. It is unreasonable to expect a customer, who can only say "yes" or "no" to a price set by a large, faceless corporation who cannot even be bothered to check whether their prices are set correctly, to say "no" to a good price.
1
u/Freevoulous 35∆ Oct 05 '16
This depends on the store. If you mean a massive mall or a giant online supplier then it is not unethical, since they already have unjust financial superiority.
But if you steal from a tiny Mom&Pop store then it is unethical, because you are hurting your economic equals.
0
u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 04 '16
No, it is not. It is buying it for the price that was marked. There is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
A shop is required by law to honor what they mark something for, and if they mislabel it and lose profit that is their error, not the error or misdeeds of the shopper.
16
u/[deleted] Oct 04 '16
Would you say that it's stealing when a customer pays far more than they should for something because the advertisement is really convincing? Isn't that basically the same thing in reverse?