1. Sabah, Malaysia
    Joined
    02 Mar '06
    Moves
    2541
    29 Jun '08 11:07
    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.
  2. Joined
    31 May '07
    Moves
    696
    29 Jun '08 11:17
    He made £15 on the sale, and lost £100 on the fake, leaving him with £85 loss, yes?
  3. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    01 Jul '08 15:24
    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.
  4. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    01 Jul '08 15:35
    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.
  5. Joined
    06 Feb '06
    Moves
    6053
    01 Jul '08 21:59
    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? ;-)
  6. Joined
    12 Sep '07
    Moves
    2668
    01 Jul '08 22:491 edit
    Remember, Shop A also originally gave shop B $100, so instead of 185, it is 85.
  7. Joined
    06 Feb '06
    Moves
    6053
    02 Jul '08 19:44
    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....
  8. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16866
    02 Jul '08 20:52
    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
  9. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    04 Jul '08 15:47
    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.
  10. Joined
    11 May '07
    Moves
    14366
    08 Jul '08 13:07
    it's $85 stop making this more complicated please
  11. Joined
    19 Dec '07
    Moves
    2482
    08 Jul '08 13:09
    shop a loses £15, it's ovius
Back to Top