What's your take on unintended free lunches?

[NoahAddle]

I saw this article today about an atm in London that was deducting from their account the amount of money bank customers requested, yet released twice as much money by accident. By the end of the day, the atm had run out of money because people caught on and told their friends and family to come take advantage of the mistake.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This reminded me of a few news stories where gas station prices at one pump were accidentally set at something like $0.39/gallon instead of $3.39/gallon and pretty much the same thing happened. People would form a long line for that pump and only that pump until the problem was noticed and corrected by the gas station manager.

And then earlier today, I was at the coffee shop and the clerk forgot to add one item to the bill which resulted in her under charging me. So, I let her know about it and she corrected the bill. Before anyone starts wondering, though, I'm certainly no saint. I only feel this way for things that physically deprive someone else of functional use such as cash or gas. For things that can be easily copied like software or music, I feel much less moral compulsion to treat not paying for it as theft. Instead, software and music get categorized as 'ideas' and for me ideas are free if you are clever enough to acquire them without paying.

So, I was wondering if there was an INTJ take on this subject. Where do you draw the line?

For me, I think my INTJness comes out in the form of high standards when it comes to physical things that deprives others of use, but those standards get trumped by the desire for knowledge and ideas especially since they are easily copyable and don't deprive the original author of use. Probably just a silly rationalization... but anyways...

[Nausved]

In the example you linked, it's not theft if it is not on purpose; theft implies intent.

However, for those who withdrew cash for the soul purpose of obtaining money that was not theirs, that is theft. It's no different, really, than taking someone's car because they accidentally left their key in the ignition. Try telling the jury otherwise!

[eMachine]

In that case, it is knowingly exploiting the machine malfunction and caused others who needed their cash to be unable to recieve it, which is selfish, inconsiderate, and... well, quite clearly dishonest. I do think that it shows the sad state of ethics and maybe the current financial situation of the average person (if the UK is anything like the US at this point). The majority of Americans atleast, are almost living on debt, on credit, on loans with a pretty marginal possibility of repayment. Free money? Yeah, at this point I would even be tempted to take it.

I'd never steal from another human being, or knowingly deprive them of anything. I'll be having Easter dinner with my family tomorrow and I never take more than a reasonably small portion of each dish that I enjoy, to ensure that everyone can have some of what they enjoy, ad hope for some leftovers of my favorites. Even at a buffet resturant I try not to take the very last of anything, even though chances are they'll promptly re-fill it.

Some of those involved in the incident that you provided as an example probably couldn't "see beyond their own nose" if you know what I mean. They heard of the opportunity and, under significant financial stress, chose to take advantage of it, I can't really say that I blame them. It's not likely that those people would've been able to withdraw much, from my understanding, they could only request the amount available in their account and no more. So if they had $50, they'd receive $100... If they had more than a couple hundred dollars available, they probably shouldn't have exploited it. But I don't blame significantly poor people for taking advantage of getting an extra $20-$50, It's getting increasingly difficult for the average family to survive, as the already-rich are effortlessly getting richer (like the owner of a bank, for instance), but sadly I'm sure the banker has multiple options to solve the problem and correct things without taking any personal loss.

Yes, taking it knowing it was not theirs is indeed theft, but I wouldn't put a bum in the stocks for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. (Obviously a metaphor, because a bum wouldn't likely have a debit card... then again in a manner of speaking many people today are worse off than bums of the past... they had nothing, but now we have less than nothing, for instance $100,000 less than nothing.)

[Zilal]

I usually tend to do the "right" thing not just because I have an overbearing conscience because I like the potential benefits of it. People can be very grateful when you point out an abusable aspect of their system, and it sounds silly until you experience it but their reaction can put a lot more spring in your step than making off with some extra money.

[Uytuun]

I am all for paying the right price, not more, not less. Though yeah, downloading stuff...

[zibber]

Theoretically, exploiting an ATM error doesn't seem very terrible to me, but I think I know myself well enough to say that I'd most likely stay away when alerted to the opportunity. Experience tells me that there's usually some sort of mental block to do that, perhaps out of fear of possible consequences, no matter how unlikely. Whether I'd actually go out of my way to alert the bank in question is highly doubtful.

[rwyatt365]

OK, let's look at this from the "other side". Let's say that you had $100 on deposit at a bank, and they had an explicitly stated policy that any errors on their part will be reconciled within 30 days of notification. So, one day you withdrew $50 from your account and the bank mistakenly debited your account $55. Now, you're not very observant of your balance until one day, several weeks later you get notification that you've bounced a check (and that your account was debited a $30 NSF fee).

Of course, indignant, you pour over your statements and find the $5 error that sent your account into a tailspin. So you rush to the bank and identify the mistake and the bank lets you know that they will place a temporary credit to your account in the amount of $35 (the original $5 mistake, plus the $30 fee), and that they will investigate the problem. Sounds fair, right?

Well, what happened to your $35 during that several week period when the bank had your account screwed up? Believe me, it wasn't just sitting around doing noting. No, it was out there, in the marketplace, earning interest for the bank. Now, when the bank reconciles their error will you be the beneficiary of that accumulated interest? Not on your life Bucko! Your loss was their gain, their "free lunch" that you will never see. Add to that all of the little fees and charges that many (not all, but many) banks tack on and you can see why I have no remorse when they screw up and give ME a free lunch.

It's happened to me once in 40 years of banking - I think that they have more than broken even with me.

[acyckowski]

Reading the above posts, I wonder if you guys really think that "need" leads to the greed? I suspect that most of the people taking advantage of the error either 1) didn't really need the benefit, or 2) didn't apply the benefit to the supposed need.

I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that the rich are evil and greedy but poor people are good and true. I've known plenty of "working poor" who had absolutely nothing, and it was more than they had earned. This kind of class-warfare nonsense only serves to excuse and rationalize greed and dishonesty.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but it seems to me that if you give The Little Guy a chance to get over on The Man with no or little risk of being caught, he'll do it in a heartbeat.

I make no personal claim to sainthood, but like Nausved, I base my judgment on intent. Taking something I know is not mine is theft. It doesn't really matter whether I "need" it more than the other fellow, I have no claim over his possessions.

[Noehelia]

I have read the same article 1-2 weeks ago and it made me started thinking what I would do in this occasion. It's plain simple. If I went to an atm to withdraw money and it gave more I would notify the bank immediately and ask them to fix it. Why? Because it is the right thing to do and I want to be ok with myself. If I start thinking it over and find excuses like "the bank is exploiting us anyway for profit and no human being is actually going to lose money from it" then this stretches my morality and I am afraid how I am going to use these excuses in another situation. So the whole matter has to do of how I want to feel and think about myself.

[Ferd Berfel]

I would probably call the bank and straighten it out. It just seems like the right thing to do.

I just asked my friend (he's sitting next to me, I'm in school right now).

My friend says that if he were to get twice as much money from an ATM then the amount that he withdrew, that extra money would qualify as "lost money" that he found, because it doesn't take away from anyone's account. Therefore, he'd keep the money.
However, he wouldn't tell anyone about the error, so no-one else could intentionally take advantage of it.

[ElstonGunn]

I'd like to say that I'd alert the proper authorities, but people kinda bug me sometimes. So one thing that might happen is that I'd go against the flow, regardless of which way the flow was going. I mean, it might be either:

Person: "Hey, this pump's only charging 39 cents a gallon! Check it out!"
Me: "That's probably not right." (Goes inside and points it out to an employee.)

Or:

Person: "Huh, this ATM is giving me twice what I asked for. This can't be right."
Me: "Bah, they probably know what they're doing. Maybe it's a special promotion. Now excuse me, I'd like to make a withdrawal."


Of course, I'm probably most likely to go with Jarno on this.
I'd most likely stay away when alerted to the opportunity. [...] Whether I'd actually go out of my way to alert the bank in question is highly doubtful.

[Motor Jax]

it's the gas station's mistake, but if i go in and pay and they told me that it was, i would pay

now, the ATM, well it's the Bank's responsibilty to make sure those ATMs don't make mistakes like that

but then again, the Banks could also realize their mistake and view the log that was made that day and compare it to the camera image that was taken

and they would also know what accounts were accessed that day

[thod]

The ATM mistake is different form the gas pump.

The gas pump made an offer to sell at 0.39, you accepted that offer and both parties are bound. Its standard contract law.

The ATM made no such offer, you requested a sum, the machine consented and gave a different amount. The difference was not consented to. That was an error. If had given less you could also request the difference. Since it has given more they can request it back.

It would be hard to make a case for fraud if the person had simply not looked and put the money into their wallet. It requires intent for their to be any wrongdoing. Yet if the person had taken their due and left the remainder at the ATM it would likely have been stolen. In taking the full amount, with intent to return it, they are offering a service to the bank. The bank has not agreed to any service fee for this so you couldn't charge them a holding fee.

The bank could not charge it to you. This may put you into overdraft. Nor can they expect you to post it or return it in person. This would require you to take action and you have no obligations to go out of your way for the banks mistake. Similarly you could argue that informing the bank of the mistake requires an action on your part. Even if they showed up at your door to collect the cash, you would have to move to hand it over.

The bank would argue that your lack of informing them means you intended to keep it, defrauding them. In previous cases courts have ruled with the bank. Its OK to take the extra cash so long as you return it or inform them.

[acyckowski]

This kind of legal parsing is what leads to ridiculous statements such as, "It depends on what you mean by 'is.'"

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think you're skirting the real issue. Laws are, and always will be, inadequate to cover all possible circumstances. Underlying the law is the understanding that if you take what is not yours with full knowledge and intent, you are committing theft.

Returning to the gas pump example: gas stations post their prices publicly, in plain view, not just the pump. Customers know (or can know) what the price of gas is before they enter the station. If the pump price does not match the posted price, a reasonable person would understand that they were not being charged properly, assuming they noticed the discrepancy. If a customer was over-charged at the pump, they would rightfully expect a refund for the difference from the posted price. If neither gas station nor customer realized the error, it would simply be a mistake. If the gas station realized the error and allowed the overcharge to continue, it would be fraudulent in fact if not in law.

[thod]

Returning to the gas pump example: gas stations post their prices publicly, in plain view, not just the pump. Customers know (or can know) what the price of gas is before they enter the station. If the pump price does not match the posted price, a reasonable person would understand that they were not being charged properly, assuming they noticed the discrepancy. If a customer was over-charged at the pump, they would rightfully expect a refund for the difference from the posted price. If neither gas station nor customer realized the error, it would simply be a mistake. If the gas station realized the error and allowed the overcharge to continue, it would be fraudulent in fact if not in law.

Not at all. You can offer to sell something at a very cheap price if you wish, you can sell at a loss if you wish.

A shop may advertise TV sets at $1. This is however is not a contractual offer but an invitation to treat. You could take your TV set to the checkout and they refuse to sell. It is an invitation to bargain and the price tag is simply an indication of what they will accept. You are free to bargain this price down too. If you offer them the money, you have made an offer if they take it they have accepted your offer and a contract is made. They could advertise gas at $4 but sell it to you at $1 if they wish to do so.

If you said to someone "Mow my lawn and I will give you $10" that is an offer, having mown your lawn the other party has accepted your offer and the contract is complete.

The person in the gas station was under no obligation to accept their cash. In doing so he is bound.

Consider if you advertise your car for sale in the local newspaper. You are not offering to sell such a car to all people that may reply. You have a single vehicle. The reverse would mean you would have to go out and buy identical cars to meet your contractual obligations.

The TV example is something I experienced in a company I once worked for. They advertised wide screen TV's for $99 on the web. People bought them on their cards. Now when you do that the money is not taken out of your account straight away, the bank allocates it though, so it not available for other purchases. Even that is enough to constitute acceptance. Their action has taken something from the buyer even though the funds haven't been transfered.

You should do more reading on contract law. It comes up all through life, very much so if you run a company. Its actual a really interesting subject and not dry at all.

Here is a famous case where the advert was held to be an offer. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[bubbles]

.My friend says that if he were to get twice as much money from an ATM then the amount that he withdrew, that extra money would qualify as "lost money" that he found, because it doesn't take away from anyone's account. Therefore, he'd keep the money.
However, he wouldn't tell anyone about the error, so no-one else could intentionally take advantage of it.

I know it's dishonest, but I will probably do what your friend will do in this situation.

In reality, people don't forgive others for mistakes, so why should I do the same, especially for someone I don't know? Once I dropped $20 somewhere, but I noticed it a few seconds later. I walked back to look for it and it was gone. Clearly, the person who found the money knew that I had dropped it, yet he kept it. Of course, there are also time when I've lost stuff and got it back, but that's a bit rare compared to the number of times when I've made mistakes and lost stuff because of it. Did I deserve to lose $20? Maybe. Mistakes should cost something. If the bank is stupid enough to use a malfunctioning ATM machine, then they deserve a loss. The bank and/or the designer of the ATM machine should be responsible for their mistakes.

[acyckowski]

I'll concede the contract law. In fact, I thought I already did.

The issue is not the legitimacy of bargaining, it's the intent to defraud. People do not bargain for the price of gas. Not to say they couldn't, but they don't. So, using a reasonable man standard (not necessarily applicable to all legal issues), the expectation is that the displayed price is the actual price. The first time a mistake is caught, it is simply a mistake. The second time, someone is culpable.

That was the logic under the multi-million McDonald's coffee verdict: this was MickeyD's third lawsuit about the same exact thing (malfunctioning coffee urns) and they were found negligent because they decided it was cheaper to settle out of court rather than replace every coffee pot in every store in the country.

Again, just because it's legal doesn't make it ethical.





acyckowski added to this post, 5 minutes and 17 seconds later...

I know it's dishonest, but I will probably do what your friend will do in this situation.

In reality, people don't forgive others for mistakes, so why should I do the same, especially for someone I don't know? Once I dropped $20 somewhere, but I noticed it a few seconds later. I walked back to look for it and it was gone. Clearly, the person who found the money knew that I had dropped it, yet he kept it. Of course, there are also time when I've lost stuff and got it back, but that's a bit rare compared to the number of times when I've made mistakes and lost stuff because of it. Did I deserve to lose $20? Maybe. Mistakes should cost something. If the bank is stupid enough to use a malfunctioning ATM machine, then they deserve a loss. The bank and/or the designer of the ATM machine should be responsible for their mistakes.
"Do unto others before they do unto me," eh?

You're rationalizing, not reasoning. You know it's the bank's money. You assume that the person who found your sawbuck knew it was yours. All ATM's malfunction, just as all computers malfunction. If the shoe were on the other foot, and the bank was "smart enough" to use a machine that favored short-changing you, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

[bubbles]

"Do unto others before they do unto me," eh?

You're rationalizing, not reasoning. You know it's the bank's money. You assume that the person who found your sawbuck knew it was yours. All ATM's malfunction, just as all computers malfunction. If the shoe were on the other foot, and the bank was "smart enough" to use a machine that favored short-changing you, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

True, it's their money, and it is dishonest and unethical for the customer to take advantage of mistakes. In reality, I might or might not take advantage of others' mistakes (depends on mood). I don't know what I will do in reality, especially since it has been proven that hypothetical questions often lead to guesses as answers. But I stand by what I have said - mistakes should cost something. Even if you are honest, there will always be someone who is. The best thing anyone can do is to be careful and quickly correct mistakes when they are found. If mistakes don't come with consequences, people will become careless in their jobs and there will be mistakes everywhere, which would make everything very inconvenient.

[acyckowski]

True, it's their money, and it is dishonest and unethical for the customer to take advantage of mistakes. In reality, I might or might not take advantage of others' mistakes (depends on mood). I don't know what I will do in reality, especially since it has been proven that hypothetical questions often lead to guesses as answers. But I stand by what I have said - mistakes should cost something. Even if you are honest, there will always be someone who is. The best thing anyone can do is to be careful and quickly correct mistakes when they are found. If mistakes don't come with consequences, people will become careless in their jobs and there will be mistakes everywhere, which would make everything very inconvenient.

No, that's completely understandable. I'm not even saying I'd do the right thing, nor that I wouldn't find a way to rationalize it. Even though I don't know what I would do, I know what I should do.

I don't follow the deterministic relationship between lack of consequences and carelessness. Mistakes also provide an opportunity to improve. Negative reinforcement, as "consequences" implies, often have the unintended effect of stifling initiative and effort...which also leads to carelessness.