counting loss

a shop keeper ( shopA ) sells an item for $31.
a man came and wanted to buy it with a $100 note.

unfortunately the shopkeeper doesn't have any change, so he went to the other shop for change.

he gave the other shopkeeper ( shopB ) $100 for $100. that makes senses.

so, he ( shopA ) finally got the change of $100 and gave back that man $69. right? simple maths...

but, shop keeper B later found out that the $100 from shop keeper A is fake. So he ( shopA ) is forced to pay back another $100.

now, find the loss of shop keeper A after paying shop keeper B $100, given the cost price of the item is $16.

He made £15 on the sale, and lost £100 on the fake, leaving him with £85 loss, yes?

Examining this from a cost-value reference, assuming the $100 counterfeit was originally in the customer's possession (knowingly or unknowingly.)

Initial values will be set to Zero.

Start - Shop A, Shop B, and Man at $0.

The man goes to purchase the item with a counterfeit $100. No value changes hands. The Item is held by Shop A still.

Shopkeeper A goes to Shopkeeper B for change. Thus getting $100 in legitimate bills, while passing the counterfeit off to the other shopkeeper.

Shopkeep Change Shop A is +$100. Shop B is -$100. Man is even.

Shopkeeper A returns to his store and gives the customer his item and $69 in change, a total value of $85. The man departs.

Purchase Completed Shop A at +$15. Shop B at -$100. Man at +$85.

Shop B discovers the counterfeit, and Shop A is forced to eat the cost.

Final Result Shop A loses $100, now at $85 loss.

Shop B is even, and, of course, the patron is the recipient of the $85 in value that he (knowingly or unknowingly) did not pay for legally.

Shop A then pays some dodgy blokes down the pub £50 to go round and beat up the customer, retrieving the money and the item.

Originally posted by ray1993
a shop keeper ( shopA ) sells an item for $31.
a man came and wanted to buy it with a $100 note.

unfortunately the shopkeeper doesn't have any change, so he went to the other shop for change.

he gave the other shopkeeper ( shopB ) $100 for $100. that makes senses.

so, he ( shopA ) finally got the change of $100 and gave back that man $69. right? s ...[text shortened]... loss of shop keeper A after paying shop keeper B $100, given the cost price of the item is $16.

the loss is 185$ (100$ given to shopB + 69$ given to client + 16$ cost price of item).
thinking about profit, it should be 200$ (add +15$ of non-profit).

maybe he can get it all on court, someday? ;-)

Remember, Shop A also originally gave shop B $100, so instead of 185, it is 85.

Originally posted by Dejection
Remember, Shop A also originally gave shop B $100, so instead of 185, it is 85.

I believe the $100 he gave were not valid currency....

Originally posted by ray1993
a shop keeper ( shopA ) sells an item for $31.
a man came and wanted to buy it with a $100 note.

unfortunately the shopkeeper doesn't have any change, so he went to the other shop for change.

he gave the other shopkeeper ( shopB ) $100 for $100. that makes senses.

so, he ( shopA ) finally got the change of $100 and gave back that man $69. right? s ...[text shortened]... loss of shop keeper A after paying shop keeper B $100, given the cost price of the item is $16.

$85.00

Originally posted by hSilva
I believe the $100 he gave were not valid currency....

Agreed. This is why I place its value at $0. It only enters into the problem because the shopkeeper ASSUMED it had $100 value.

The full and real loss came not when he gave a value-less piece of paper to another shopkeeper for change (a temporary gain for him, balanced by an equal and inevitable liability), but when he accepted it in exchange for goods and change.

it's $85 stop making this more complicated please

shop a loses £15, it's ovius