What would you do?

[Abstract]

Therefore you can not say that when dealing with morals money can not be included because I may use the perceived damage (in moentry terms) to be a deciding factor in whether or not something is right or wrong (i.e moral or immoral)

So petty theft is OK?

This seems like an odd scenario. I can't imagine this actually happening. But since some have said it has, well then I guess I'll believe it. Here's how I see it: If the fact you were not charged for it was because the employee decided to give it to you as a gift or it was understood that payment was not required, then you're fine. No need to pay. However if the employee made a mistake and somehow forgot to charge you for the item (pretty freakin' stupid employee, but anyway...) then I believe you are morally obligated to return to the store and pay for the item. Whatever you decide to do, someone has to pay for the item. If you don't pay for it then it will come out of the employee's check or will get absorbed into the store and passed on to other customers in the form of higher prices. Nothing is really free in this world...

Agreed. If everyone agrees it's a store gift to you, then it's obviously free. If an employee made a mistake, or this is due to a lack of communication between the two stores, then I say you pay for it. Everyone makes mistakes. If I make a mistake (ie: lose my wallet, leave my car door unlocked, etc), I don't expect everyone who notices to take advantage. I also wouldn't be surprised if someone did, and wouldn't blame anyone but myself. It is my fault, after all. However, morally speaking, if I found someone's wallet sitting on a bus seat, or in the Library, I would try to return it. It's not mine, and again, everyone makes mistakes and needs a little help.

I have done that plenty of times, and people have done tried to return things to me when I lost something.


I don't understand this Western world mentality of "You made a mistake, and I'm going to pounce on it. It's every man for themselves."

 

[takao]

well it depends morally it might be better to get back of course on the other side i have to laugh hard just thinking how they are loading it into your car without bothering about payment ... sometimes somebody who is stupid has to pay for it

i would say go back and be nice about it perhaps you might get something (extra) out of it ... and be it only the faces of the sales staff


that said for me it very likely depends on the amount of value... if it was like forgetting to ring up something worth <50 bucks i would very likely grin a bit on the way home and congratulate myself for my victory


my most memorable thing in that direction was when a friend and I went for buying a "palette" of beer (24 cans) and the very young store girl (perhaps 17) pulls out 1 can out of package, scans it and then multiplies by 12 ... my friend and I looked at each other and grinned all the way out of the store

instead of 35 cent per 0,5 liter can (which is dirt cheap anyway) we paid like 17,5 cent ... needless to say the beer tasted twice as good

 

[c-Row]

Morally different, with a small store I know that it is directly effecting the owners pay. For a large chain store it is taking a small amount from a corporation.

Not to mention that large chain stores usually don't give a damn about morals themselves...

 

[MACDRIVE]

Since we're talking about a big store or major corporation and not a private individual, I wouldn't think twice about it. But that's me; I'm crooked as all hell and I'll admit it.

 

[xUKHCx]

I replied before your edit so didn't see it

EDIT:
I think that's fair. So to clarify, for my sense of morality, at least in a case like this, relative financial impact does not play a factor. So maybe the more even question is would it be better/same/worse to accidentally take a $5 item from a "mom & pop" store vs. a $150 item from a megachain (or whatever the relative equivalent proportional impact is)?

Financial damage is only one facet of moral dilemma. Given the example of the relative equivalence I would say it is morally wrong to take from the "mum and dad" store but morally acceptable to take from the megachain.

No worries.

A refinement of the question might help, I was just trying to avoid the typical obvious comparison of killing one person vs. genocide, for instance. It's late here too and my mind was wandering to a conversation I had over lunch about countries killing people via execution and/or war, and defending within your home/country vs. "defending" proactively outside your home/country by preemptively attacking a country or taking other action. It just got me thinking about degrees of "badness" attached to killing depending on its intent and impact when I was making the statement about the financial impact.

Does that make any sense? I might be too tired to be coherent at this point.

Makes perfect sense, this is a whole new topic and I would gladly explore my moral boundaries however it will take a long time as each situation has its own set of morals attached to them.

Ethics provide a guideline for what conduct is right and wrong on a general level for a group of people, a society, or possibly the world. General things would be not stealing, preserving life, taking care of the environment, etc. Morals would be an interpretation of ethics by a smaller group of people or individuals. They would be compromises of ethics or specific bends to ethical conduct based on a given situation. The situations with the furniture and beer would be based on moral reasoning. They are specific situations that are unethical, stealing, but they are reasoned to be morally correct or morally incorrect based on various factors that each individual values.

Ethics are again up for definition based on what you define as the scope. Therefore it is only unethical if you define it as such, just like morals. You can not claim that stealing something is unethical. Also we are yet to determine if it is stealing as the store did not request payment.

Regardless of ethics or morals, both situations are ultimately illegal based on laws created by the US government and its citizens. No court would ever see the beer or the furniture as a gift, especially since they are goods that were on sale and you have no proof of purchase or ownership. That alone should be enough to convince you to go back and pay for the item regardless of your moral reasoning. As US citizens you have agreed to the laws of country and are expected to abide by them. If you think the legality of the situation is in question you have the power to try and change the law through appropriate action, but since this is a democracy, it is governed by the people and not you alone, you may find it difficult to change the law. If you are unhappy not being a dictator then maybe you should go to a country with laws that you can abide by or you should go start your own country somewhere else.

For a start laws are up for interpretation and a good way to challenge the law is to directly debate it in a court of law.

So petty theft is OK?

But is it theft? That is a question that like morals is down to interpretation. This would fall under the same characterisation of bank error in your favour.

Agreed. If everyone agrees it's a store gift to you, then it's obviously free. If an employee made a mistake, or this is due to a lack of communication between the two stores, then I say you pay for it. Everyone makes mistakes. If I make a mistake (ie: lose my wallet, leave my car door unlocked, etc), I don't expect everyone who notices to take advantage. I also wouldn't be surprised if someone did, and wouldn't blame anyone but myself. It is my fault, after all. However, morally speaking, if I found someone's wallet sitting on a bus seat, or in the Library, I would try to return it. It's not mine, and again, everyone makes mistakes and needs a little help.

I have done that plenty of times, and people have done tried to return things to me when I lost something.

This is a different situation with different morality associated with it. Give the same circumstances I would return the item and have done on multiple occasions.

 

[c-Row]

This would fall under the same characterisation of bank error in your favour.

Yeah, I mean, who would refuse money in a good game of Monopoly?

 

[Abstract]

So petty theft is OK?

But is it theft? That is a question that like morals is down to interpretation. This would fall under the same characterisation of bank error in your favour.

Ah ok, so taking a chocolate bar or magazine from convenient stores without paying for it isn't considered stealing. Stupidly, I have actually been handing them cash for the stuff I take. I've been doing it wrong all my life!


Or maybe you and I have much different definitions of the word "stealing".

 

[xUKHCx]

Ah ok, so taking a chocolate bar or magazine from convenient stores without paying for it isn't considered stealing. Stupidly, I have actually been handing them cash for the stuff I take. I've been doing it wrong all my life!
Or maybe you and I have much different definitions of the word "stealing".

There is a difference between taking and them not charging, this difference is considered to be morals. And again the word stealing is also up for debate and probably comes under morals. I never said that outright taking something was morally acceptable/unacceptable.

 

[iBlue]

I don't think it is 'stealing'. It was an oversight on their part, not you deliberately thieving something. It's a little "wrong" in my opinion but everyone's got one of those.

If it's some big chain (like the evils of Walmart) then I half think: "screw 'em" but in order to preserve your karma, maybe you should go give the $150 to charity or something. That's what I'd do... probably.

 

[PlaceofDis]

all this talk about morals is fine and dandy. thats cool. morals depend on the person. some people are going to see a problem with this and some aren't.
who was in error? well both sides technically. but the store didn't collect payment.

my question, and perhaps no one knows or has an answer is, what is the legality here? the goods were moved out of the store without payment. and the store/employee did not collect payment. thus imo, its on the store, and afaik its not legally required to pay unless the store comes collecting.

 

[JNB]

Actually, from a criminal standpoint, the OP posited two crimes, theft and fraud.

The theft occurred in the unlawful taking of property not theirs (by not paying), and the fraud in knowingly allowing the store (through its employee) to deliver the goods through deceit or deception. "Who knew or assumed what" is immaterial.

As a practical matter, if the OP chose to just keep the product and never make good on it, I seriously doubt any harm would come to them, but from a purely ethical standpoint, payment is still due, and by all rights should be covered.

The whole "evil corporation" nonsense is just rationalization, functionally equivalent to "everybody else does it" or any other equally childish reasoning. Either it was or wasn't paid for. From whom has no bearing on the argument.

Me? Oh, I'd really want to just keep it, but I look at it this way. If I had already committed to the purchase, there's no real reason for me to renege on that. I'd more than likely go back and pay. Or at least mean to...

 

[TBi]

Unless it was something really cheap, i would pay for it. It was an honest mistake on their part and you should be honest enough to do the right thing.

 

[mpw]

I've had plenty of opportunities like this, and most times I've gone and paid.

...Financial damage is only one facet of moral dilemma. Given the example of the relative equivalence I would say it is morally wrong to take from the "mum and dad" store but morally acceptable to take from the megachain...

The beauty of morals is you make them up for yourself, and many people will happily hold others to higher moral standards than they hold themselves, even to the point of changing those standards they hold themselves to to suit the situation.

"Today my limit for morally acceptable theft will be £5, and only if I don't know the person."

Why do you think it's okay to take from the 'megachain' and not the 'mom & pop' store? I don't get it, is it because you can put a face to the mom & pop and you can't with the 'megachain'?

Next time you visit a 'megastore' take a look into the eyes of the store manager. When his stock comes up short the owner will make up the shortfall in their profits by reducing his bonus. Mom & pop still make as much as they would've regardless, so by taking from the 'megastore' you're taking from a wage earner's pocket not from corporate profits, take from a mom & pop they still pay themselves a wage and then take the profit too.

 

[abijnk]

I may have missed it in this whole thing, but what did the OP finally decide to do?

I don't know if I would term it stealing or not, but I personally would go back. But hey, that's me, and I am not your mommy

I would, however, be curious to see the OP go back to the store, ask for the manager, explain the situation and see what they say...

 

[imac/cheese]

But is it theft? That is a question that like morals is down to interpretation. This would fall under the same characterisation of bank error in your favour.

Bank error in your favor typically results in bank corrective action not in your favor.

They have a legal right to go back into your account and take the money they accidentally deposited because it is their money. In my opinion the store still owns the furniture since the OP never purchased it. Just because an employee of the store put it in the OP's car doesn't mean that it belongs to the OP.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I completely disagree that it is not stealing. Just because you had no intent to steal you figured it out and did not take corrective measure. To me it is similar to knowingly buying stolen goods, which is also wrong.

 

[theyoda3]

For a start laws are up for interpretation and a good way to challenge the law is to directly debate it in a court of law.



But is it theft? That is a question that like morals is down to interpretation. This would fall under the same characterisation of bank error in your favour.

This is a pretty clear cut case. This is fraud and theft by law. I would love to see you debate this in court because it would be satisfying to see you lose. When it comes right down to it the facts are what matter, not your rationalizations.

Below are excerpts I got for the UK law on theft and fraud, they have links included so you can read the full versions of each act if you want.

1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in
subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12
months were a reference to 6 months.



3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance
with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things
in action and other intangible property).
(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting
what one does not have.
(4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by
parting with what one has.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/007/2006007.htm

Making off
without
payment.
3.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, know-
ing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service
done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off
without having paid as required or expected and with intent to
avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) For purposes of this section "payment on the spot"
includes payment at the time of collecting goods on which work
has been done or in respect of which service has been provided.
(3) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the supply of
the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or
where the service done is such that payment is not legally
enforceable.
(4) Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is,
or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing
or attempting to commit an offence under this section.

Punishments.
4.—(1) Offences under this Act shall be punishable either on
conviction on indictment or on summary conviction.
(2) A person convicted on indictment shall be liable.—
(a) for an offence under section 1 or section 2 of this Act,
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years;
and
(b) for an offence under section 3 of this Act, to imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding two years.
Theft Act 1978 C. 31 3
(3) A person convicted summarily of any offence under this
Act shall be liable—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;
or
(b) to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum for the
purposes of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 1977 C. 45.
(punishment on summary conviction of offences triable
either way: £1,000 or other sum substituted by order
under that Act),
or to both.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1978/pdf/ukpga_19780031_en.pdf