Test your college education while you wait..
- Thread starter mt85
- Start date
Shouldn't store owner A, go to the bank for change instead of Store owner B?
Therein, lies the problem. This question has no answer.
Therein, lies the problem. This question has no answer.
- Mar 23, 2006
- 15,945
- 1,158
- 113
I have seen the light...Store A is out $90.
$80 in change $15 in product for a total $95, but he made a $5 profit when he sold it for $20..so $90. the $100 he exchanged for the 5twenties canceled them selves out.
$80 in change $15 in product for a total $95, but he made a $5 profit when he sold it for $20..so $90. the $100 he exchanged for the 5twenties canceled them selves out.
yeah, but didn't the fake $100 come from the customer?? so, really there was no $5 profit?
Ok. Let's try this. Let's assume he starts with $100 in his pocket. Pays $15 for item. He has $85 left. Receives fake $100 bill, passes it on to neighbor, gets $100 cash back. He now has $185. Gives $80 in change which leaves him with $105. Has to give neighbor $100 and has $5 left. Loss of $95. No arguments.
I think it is a 95 dollar loss to store owner A. Reason is on the sale of the gadget, he made $5 (he kept one $20 from the changed $100 and gave $80 back to the buyer. that covers the $15 costs and nets him $5). But then the Store owner B wants a real $100 which comes directly out of A's pocket. So the $100-$5 - $95. My final answer, Regis.
He didn't make a profit because he didn't actually sell it. He didn't get anything for it. It was basically stolen. If anything, he lost the $5 in profit he would have made by selling it to a legit customer.
- Mar 23, 2006
- 15,945
- 1,158
- 113
But to complete the original transaction, store A had to place a$20 bill into the register...a bill that remains there as we debate...
Correct, see my post above. Store A for sure made $5 on the sale since real $20 went into the register from the sale. The buyer walked away with real $80 in change and the gadget. So up until now, Store A is up $5. But then Store B guys comes back and want $100 new dollars. Viola, $95 loss.
What about the lost opportunity cost of seling the product to another customer? Shouldn't that also be considered a loss?
Take owner B out of it for now.
Crook gives owner A a fake $100. Owner A gives him 5 $20 bills back. Owner A is now out $100.
Now crook pays $20 for the product A spent $15 on. $5 profit, but down a total of $95.
Crook leaves. Owner A now goes over to Owner B and trades the fake $100 for a real $100. Owner B notices it's monopoly money and gets his $100 back. No change to Owner A's balance.
He is out $95.
Crook gives owner A a fake $100. Owner A gives him 5 $20 bills back. Owner A is now out $100.
Now crook pays $20 for the product A spent $15 on. $5 profit, but down a total of $95.
Crook leaves. Owner A now goes over to Owner B and trades the fake $100 for a real $100. Owner B notices it's monopoly money and gets his $100 back. No change to Owner A's balance.
He is out $95.
Another way to think of it. Owner B basically gave $100 to owner A, and owner A gave $80 of that away. That's not A's money. So he isn't out that $80 until he pays owner B back. Then add in the $15 he spent on the product to get to $95.
