Is this wrong?

MungBean

I recently had an issue with a money card I brought up in consumer issues and got a strong reaction with a lot of people questioning my moral character. So I thought I'd open it up to questioning here. I'm not (or at least think I'm not) trying to weasel out of any responsibility in relation to it and regardless of the end result I dont see what I did as wrong per se.

I put €50 onto a pre paid credit card. I made a purchase for €50 and the stuff arrived a week later and all was well. Two weeks after the stuff arrived (three weeks from the date of purchase) I checked the card and found the money had not been taken and was no longer held for any pending transactions. My money which I paid onto the card had not been debited. So I spent it again on another purchase. Then recently I checked my balance and found it -€50.

Was I morally wrong to spend that money the second time ? Other peoples argument seem to focus on defining the money as not belonging to me. They use the words "You spent what wasnt yours". It was also described as deceptive. I see it as my money, its money I paid onto the card, was never taken off the card and as such it is still my money and up to that point was not claimed as anyone else’s money. The second transaction was completed before the first using the money I had paid onto the card with over drawn amount arising from the first transaction. Bear in mind this is all well within the terms and conditions of the card. I did nothing illegal or fraudulent. There is a system in place to deal with circumstances just as this and the end result is an over drawn card.

So regardless of the end result whether it be a bill or summons to recover the balance on the card the actions themselves are not wrong as far as I see.

18AD

Shouldn't you simply not be able to do that with a pre-paid credit card?

You didn't put that much money on the card but were allowed to spend it. That is the fault of the card company.

MungBean

18AD wrote: »

Shouldn't you simply not be able to do that with a pre-paid credit card?

You didn't put that much money on the card but were allowed to spend it. That is the fault of the card company.

You shouldnt but when you make a purchase the money is not sent straight away. The money is held for 10 days for the company to complete the transaction. If they dont do that the money is released back onto the card. I think thats what happened here.

At the time all I knew was my money had not been taken, whether the card company or the retailer had messed up I didnt know. All I knew was my money was still there and I used it to make another purchase. Both of my purchases were backed up my money on the card that I put there so the resulting overdrawn amount is the fault of either the retailer who failed to complete the transaction in time or the card company who allowed a payment to be made with no credit on the card.

Either way there was a system in place to deal with this and the result is a negative balance.

P. Breathnach

MungBean wrote: »

...
Either way there was a system in place to deal with this and the result is a negative balance.

Do you intend to clear the balance?

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you intend to clear the balance?

My intentions to do with the balance doesnt change whether or not the action is morally right or wrong though which is what I'm asking.

But yes I do intend on clearing it.

P. Breathnach

I think your attitude to dealing with the balance does matter, and gives us information on how you actually see things.

I am taking it that you intend to pay off the debt because it is the right thing to do rather than because you fear repercussions. I read that as telling me that you acted opportunistically, putting yourself in debt without the express consent of the money card operator. In my book, that is wrong. The fact that the money was temporarily available to you is a weak justification: you knew that it was assigned to somebody else, even if the money card operator's system did not show it at the time.

If at all times you accepted that you would have to make up the shortfall, I would see it as a minor wrong, slightly more serious than incurring an overdraft with your bank without prior authorisation.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think your attitude to dealing with the balance does matter, and gives us information on how you actually see things. I am taking it that you intend to pay off the debt because it is the right thing to do rather than because you fear repercussions.

I wont be paying solely because its morally right to do so. Or because I fear repercussions. I will be paying it because I will need to use the card in future and to do so the negative balance will have to be cleared. I wont be contesting it on the grounds that I know I did incur the debt. The negative balance is there because of what I did. But that doesnt mean what I did was wrong especially when I broke no terms of the card.

I read that as telling me that you acted opportunistically, putting yourself in debt without the express consent of the money card operator. In my book, that is wrong. The fact that the money was temporarily available to you is a weak justification: you knew that it was assigned to somebody else, even if the money card operator's system did not show it at the time.

Here's where your argument gets cloudy to me, same as the "it wasnt your money" argument. I did have the express consent of the company to make both purchases. Both purchases were made with money I paid onto the card. The money was not temporarily available to me it was temporarily held for the company and when released was nothing other than credit on the card. It wasnt assigned to anyone and the fact that the card operators system showed that validates my position. The credit card company put themselves in debt by allowing both purchases to go through without the money to back them up.

If at all times you accepted that you would have to make up the shortfall, I would see it as a minor wrong, slightly more serious than incurring an overdraft with your bank without prior authorisation.

I didnt know for certain if I would have to make up the shortfall as I wasnt sure whether the transaction was delayed or cancelled.

P. Breathnach

MungBean wrote: »

... Here's where your argument gets cloudy to me, same as the "it wasnt your money" argument.

So money that you have assigned to somebody remains yours until the person to whom it has been assigned actually takes it? You need to clear those clouds.

I did have the express consent of the company to make both purchases.

Express? I doubt it.

Both purchases were made with money I paid onto the card.

The same money!

The money was not temporarily available to me it was temporarily held for the company and when released was nothing other than credit on the card. It wasnt assigned to anyone and the fact that the card operators system showed that validates my position. The credit card company put themselves in debt by allowing both purchases to go through without the money to back them up.

I didnt know for certain if I would have to make up the shortfall as I wasnt sure whether the transaction was delayed or cancelled.

And you think what I say is cloudy?

You asked for opinions. You got mine. Take it or leave it.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So money that you have assigned to somebody remains yours until the person to whom it has been assigned actually takes it? You need to clear those clouds.



Express? I doubt it.



The same money!



And you think what I say is cloudy?

You asked for opinions. You got mine. Take it or leave it.

You seem to have taken the word cloudy as an insult and proceeded to have some sort of fit. I wasnt aware your opinion couldnt be challenged or discussed.

If you want to discuss it then explain your argument in a rational manner and dont just dismiss everything with a childish attitude. If you dont want to discuss it then dont post. Its that simple.

newmug

Yep. What you did was 100% morally wrong. It was your money until you exchanged it for the goods you bought. Ie, you converted it into those goods, which you then gained possession of.

Therefore the money still left on the card was not yours. The real owner of that money just hadn't collected it at the time you made the second purchase. You should not have used it.

I assume you are an intelligent person. You knew that that money just hadnt been collected. Thats what makes it morally wrong. If however, you just forgot or made a mistake, it would still be wrong to spend someone elses money, but not to the same degree.

MungBean

newmug wrote: »

Yep. What you did was 100% morally wrong. It was your money until you exchanged it for the goods you bought. Ie, you converted it into those goods, which you then gained possession of.

Therefore the money still left on the card was not yours. The real owner of that money just hadn't collected it at the time you made the second purchase. You should not have used it.

I assume you are an intelligent person. You knew that that money just hadnt been collected. Thats what makes it morally wrong. If however, you just forgot or made a mistake, it would still be wrong to spend someone elses money, but not to the same degree.

Can you explain though how it was not my money ?. I didnt convert the money to goods I made a purchase backed by credit on the card. The money on the card was then reserved for a period for the retailer to collect (transfer the credit from me to them by completing the transaction). But when it wasnt collected it was released back to me as credit on the card. The state of the card was the exact same for both purchases.

I knew that the card would probably be debited for the due amount but that doesnt make spending credit that was on it wrong to me. I havent abused the system or done anything that the card company didnt allow me to do or that I was obliged by T&C not to do. I have not used the card for anything that was not within my power to do or that was in breach of the terms of the card.

I'd agree that it would be morally wrong to refuse to pay the debt owed but I dont understand how its morally wrong to use a service without breaching the terms. I was under no obligation to leave that credit on the card. So in the eyes of the retailer (looking for credit from the card company) I paid on time and I did not interfere with the transaction. In the eyes of the card company I did not stray from the terms of use, I did nothing wrong by making transactions using credit that was on the card. There was a mix up with the retailers which delayed the transaction and the end result is an overdrawn card as the system allows for which I am obliged to pay but was never obliged not to incur as far as I can see.

newmug

MungBean wrote: »

Can you explain though how it was not my money ?. I didnt convert the money to goods I made a purchase backed by credit on the card. The money on the card was then reserved for a period for the retailer to collect (transfer the credit from me to them by completing the transaction). But when it wasnt collected it was released back to me as credit on the card. The state of the card was the exact same for both purchases.

I knew that the card would probably be debited for the due amount but that doesnt make spending credit that was on it wrong to me. I havent abused the system or done anything that the card company didnt allow me to do or that I was obliged by T&C not to do. I have not used the card for anything that was not within my power to do or that was in breach of the terms of the card.

I'd agree that it would be morally wrong to refuse to pay the debt owed but I dont understand how its morally wrong to use a service without breaching the terms. I was under no obligation to leave that credit on the card. So in the eyes of the retailer (looking for credit from the card company) I paid on time and I did not interfere with the transaction. In the eyes of the card company I did not stray from the terms of use, I did nothing wrong by making transactions using credit that was on the card. There was a mix up with the retailers which delayed the transaction and the end result is an overdrawn card as the system allows for which I am obliged to pay but was never obliged not to incur as far as I can see.

You knew that. Thats why your actions were morally wrong. Not legally wrong, not fiscally wrong, but morally wrong.

MungBean

Blowing up quotes and repeating yourself isnt explaining. Yes I knew the transaction had not gone through. So did the card company who had been holding the money until the transaction is finalised. When it wasnt the money was no longer linked to the transaction, it was nothing else other than usable credit on my card.

This is heading back to the fact that people keep throwing out statements like "It wasnt your money" with absolutely no argument as to why it was not my money. There is no way to legally define that money as belonging to anyone other than the owner of the card as it was nothing more than credit on that card.

newmug

MungBean wrote: »

Blowing up quotes and repeating yourself isnt explaining. Yes I knew the transaction had not gone through. So did the card company who had been holding the money until the transaction is finalised. When it wasnt the money was no longer linked to the transaction, it was nothing else other than usable credit on my card.

This is heading back to the fact that people keep throwing out statements like "It wasnt your money" with absolutely no argument as to why it was not my money. There is no way to legally define that money as belonging to anyone other than the owner of the card as it was nothing more than credit on that card.

You keep referring back to the legalities of the situation. You didnt do anything illegal, thats not in dispute. You asked if what you did was morally wrong. You cannot legislate morality, its just right and wrong from a human point of view.

What if the shoe was on the other foot. I dont know what you bought, but lets just say it was a car, and lets pretend YOU were the retailer. If a customer agreed to buy your car, left a cheque on your desk, took the car and drove off but the cheque bounced (or some other problem arose which caused you to NOT get paid), you'd be pretty p1ssed off wouldn't you? Then, say the customer went and bought something else in the meantime with your money, you'd be raging!

What can I say. Your opinion that the "it wasnt your money" arguement is rubbish says it all. From a moral point of view, it actually wasnt your money.

MungBean

newmug wrote: »

You keep referring back to the legalities of the situation. You didnt do anything illegal, thats not in dispute. You asked if what you did was morally wrong. You cannot legislate morality, its just right and wrong from a human point of view.

What if the shoe was on the other foot. I dont know what you bought, but lets just say it was a car, and lets pretend YOU were the retailer. If a customer agreed to buy your car, left a cheque on your desk, took the car and drove off but the cheque bounced (or some other problem arose which caused you to NOT get paid), you'd be pretty p1ssed off wouldn't you? Then, say the customer went and bought something else in the meantime with your money, you'd be raging!

What can I say. Your opinion that the "it wasnt your money" arguement is rubbish says it all. From a moral point of view, it actually wasnt your money.

I'm not saying your opinion is rubbish I'm just struggling to understand it. I cant get my head around how the money wasnt mine. I know the fact that it was legal doesnt make it morally right but the fact that I did not breach any terms shows my actions are not deemed wrong in a consumer sense. But to me the "it wasnt your money" argument implies I have taken something which isnt mine, against the the will of the other parties involved. Which isnt true.

In your example your saying the retailer did not get paid. The retailer did get paid and nothing I did interfered with it.

I am not trying to poke holes in what you say for the hell of it. I keep referring back to the legalities because the other two individuals involves are companies operating under a set system and those companies define what they believe as immoral in terms of fraud and theft. If I dont breach the terms then in the eyes of those companies I'm just another customer and I have done nothing wrong.

vtec_vixen

Okay, Im just gonna give a little 2c, now Im not criticizing its just my take on things.
I believe that when you make a purchase, the sum of that purchase is allotted to the vendor and is no longer in your posession.
So if they happen not to take it then yes this is their own fault, However, I'm sure at some stage they were going to realise that they didn't infact recieve said sum, and come looking for it, which they did.
Your decision to make a second purchase is entirely your own. but I do have to agree that it could be construed as opportunistic.

The card shouldn't really have worked the second time so that is something the company will need to address.
However, overdrawing a card that allows to be overdrawn technically is not breaking a law because you did not do so through illegal means.

It was however a little pointless, as the card is now overdrawn and the company will seek you to rectify this.
It only proves as a temporary credit solution the funds of which will now be sought by the card company.

Thats just my oppinion and I don't mean any offence by it to you or anyone else.

MungBean

vtec_vixen wrote: »

Okay, Im just gonna give a little 2c, now Im not criticizing its just my take on things.
I believe that when you make a purchase, the sum of that purchase is allotted to the vendor and is no longer in your posession.
So if they happen not to take it then yes this is their own fault, However, I'm sure at some stage they were going to realise that they didn't infact recieve said sum, and come looking for it, which they did.
Your decision to make a second purchase is entirely your own. but I do have to agree that it could be construed as opportunistic.

The card shouldn't really have worked the second time so that is something the company will need to address.
However, overdrawing a card that allows to be overdrawn technically is not breaking a law because you did not do so through illegal means.

It was however a little pointless, as the card is now overdrawn and the company will seek you to rectify this.
It only proves as a temporary credit solution the funds of which will now be sought by the card company.

Thats just my oppinion and I don't mean any offence by it to you or anyone else.

No offence taken and thank you for your input. But just to point out a couple of things.

Firstly the money was taken from my possession for the sale and held for a period for them to finalise their transactions. When they didnt it was put back onto the card by the card company as credit to me.

In regards to it been opportunistic I can see how it would be viewed as such but I dont think I was taking unfair advantage of anyone by acting within the terms of the service. The fault was made by the retailer and they were paid as soon as they finalised the transaction. The transaction was never interfered with. The second retailer was paid with days using the credit that was on the card which was made available to me by the card company. And the resultant overdrawn amount if now on my card and is my responsibility. I didnt get anything out of this which I will not end up paying for. I breached no terms, did nothing wrong and the system in which the card operates allows for the late transactions and overspending.

To say "I know I will have to pay for this later" does not make it morally wrong when there is a framework in place to enable me to do what legally and with the consent of the company.

vtec_vixen

MungBean wrote: »

No offence taken and thank you for your input. But just to point out a couple of things.

Firstly the money was taken from my possession for the sale and held for a period for them to finalise their transactions. When they didnt it was put back onto the card by the card company as credit to me.

In regards to it been opportunistic I can see how it would be viewed as such but I dont think I was taking unfair advantage of anyone by acting within the terms of the service. The fault was made by the retailer and they were paid as soon as they finalised the transaction. The transaction was never interfered with. The second retailer was paid with days using the credit that was on the card which was made available to me by the card company. And the resultant overdrawn amount if now on my card and is my responsibility. I didnt get anything out of this which I will not end up paying for. I breached no terms, did nothing wrong and the system in which the card operates allows for the late transactions and overspending.

To say "I know I will have to pay for this later" does not make it morally wrong when there is a framework in place to enable me to do what legally and with the consent of the company.

I see your logic.... I think whether or not it is morally right or wrong comes down now to personal oppionion, as technically it was taking advantage of a situation which temporarily allowed you to have more funds at your disposal which you know have to pay back. So its the same as any other overdrawn type situation. It only becomes truly immoral when it is not paid back as far as Im concerned.

P. Breathnach

MungBean wrote: »

You seem to have taken the word cloudy as an insult and proceeded to have some sort of fit. I wasnt aware your opinion couldnt be challenged or discussed.

If you want to discuss it then explain your argument in a rational manner and dont just dismiss everything with a childish attitude. If you dont want to discuss it then dont post. Its that simple.

That was a really nasty post, and dishonest in how it represents what I said.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That was a really nasty post, and dishonest in how it represents what I said.

In regard to the post it was in response to it was neither nasty or dishonest.

You seem to have taken offence to something I said (I'm assuming it was the word cloudy as you brought it up twice in your reply) and dismissed everything I said with rather curt responses followed by a statement informing me I asked for opinions and shouldnt question them when given.

You asked for opinions. You got mine. Take it or leave it.

Given that I said nothing offensive nor did I diminish your opinion in any way I dont think there was any need for the response I got.

MrPudding

MungBean wrote: »

Firstly the money was taken from my possession for the sale and held for a period for them to finalise their transactions. When they didnt it was put back onto the card by the card company as credit to me.

To say "I know I will have to pay for this later" does not make it morally wrong when there is a framework in place to enable me to do what legally and with the consent of the company.

I personally think the rightness or wrongness of your act, both legally and morally, depends on the terms and conditions for the use of the card and your intention at the time you made the second transaction.

I think the money coming back onto your card is somewhat analogous to a bank or your employer transferring too much money into your account. The money is not yours. They may have made a mistake, but that does not entitle you to keep the money. Unless there are specific terms which state they retailer only has a specific period to collect the funds and after that they lose claim, then irrespective of what they do or fail to do the money is theirs irrespective of where it lies. I know you are interested in the moral side of things, but legally (at least in the UK which is probably similar to Ireland in this respect) whether or not it was theft would depend, almost entirely, on what your intentions were. If you intended to not pay it back then it might be theft, if you intended to pay it back then theft would be highly unlikely.

From a morality point of view I think you were morally wrong, though it is a tricky one. Even if you intended to pay the money back you have caused someone to be down €50. You had €50 available but spent €100. Someone is down €50, presumably the card service provider. Of course, if this is something they allow in the terms and conditions, and perhaps charge a fee for, then perhaps it is ok. But if you are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the system then I think it is morally questionable.

MrP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

MungBean wrote: »

I recently had an issue with a money card I brought up in consumer issues and got a strong reaction with a lot of people questioning my moral character. So I thought I'd open it up to questioning here. I'm not (or at least think I'm not) trying to weasel out of any responsibility in relation to it and regardless of the end result I dont see what I did as wrong per se.

I put €50 onto a pre paid credit card. I made a purchase for €50 and the stuff arrived a week later and all was well. Two weeks after the stuff arrived (three weeks from the date of purchase) I checked the card and found the money had not been taken and was no longer held for any pending transactions. My money which I paid onto the card had not been debited. So I spent it again on another purchase. Then recently I checked my balance and found it -€50.

Was I morally wrong to spend that money the second time ? Other peoples argument seem to focus on defining the money as not belonging to me. They use the words "You spent what wasnt yours". It was also described as deceptive. I see it as my money, its money I paid onto the card, was never taken off the card and as such it is still my money and up to that point was not claimed as anyone else’s money. The second transaction was completed before the first using the money I had paid onto the card with over drawn amount arising from the first transaction. Bear in mind this is all well within the terms and conditions of the card. I did nothing illegal or fraudulent. There is a system in place to deal with circumstances just as this and the end result is an over drawn card.

So regardless of the end result whether it be a bill or summons to recover the balance on the card the actions themselves are not wrong as far as I see.

The bolded section is where the problem lies. You have decided that it is your money, so therefore that aspect of the discussion is settled in your mind. Most people's view is that once you have spent the money, what is on the credit card is no longer yours. Or the goods you bought are no longer yours. All the stuff about the circumstances of the credit card is irrelevant, we can't usefully discuss the issue while accepting it is your money.

Say you ask a friend to lend you €10 and promise to pay him back on Friday. He agrees and gives you €10 and you buy goods with it. Friday comes, you have the €10 you owe, and you see your friend but he doesn't ask for the €10 back. You assume he doesn't want it and spend it on other goods. Does that mean you no longer owe him €10? 'If he wanted it he should have asked for it'. 'Its was my money, I just got it from my account so it was mine, so I was entitled to spend it'. These seem to be your arguments which prove that you are morally justified in hanging on to the tenner. You have just lost a friend though, and you can bet he will not lend you any more money.

On the one hand you are asking about morality, but on the other you are expecting people to argue from as morally flexible point of view as you choose to hold yourself.

MungBean

looksee wrote: »

The bolded section is where the problem lies. You have decided that it is your money, so therefore that aspect of the discussion is settled in your mind. Most people's view is that once you have spent the money, what is on the credit card is no longer yours. Or the goods you bought are no longer yours. All the stuff about the circumstances of the credit card is irrelevant, we can't usefully discuss the issue while accepting it is your money.

The problem lies with the fact that it cannot (I dont think) legally be defined as anything other than credit in my name. So I will see it as "my money" until someone else proposed a valid argument as to why it isnt "my money". I cant just discard a view for the sake of a discussion, because that would make the discussion itself rather pointless.

Say you ask a friend to lend you €10 and promise to pay him back on Friday. He agrees and gives you €10 and you buy goods with it. Friday comes, you have the €10 you owe, and you see your friend but he doesn't ask for the €10 back. You assume he doesn't want it and spend it on other goods. Does that mean you no longer owe him €10? 'If he wanted it he should have asked for it'. 'Its was my money, I just got it from my account so it was mine, so I was entitled to spend it'. These seem to be your arguments which prove that you are morally justified in hanging on to the tenner. You have just lost a friend though, and you can bet he will not lend you any more money.

I'm not contesting the fact that I owe the money. I have since cleared the balance. I believe I was morally justified in using the credit available to me. The analogy of borrowing from a friend doesnt work. I didnt borrow from a friend, I didnt borrow from anyone I paid for a service and did nothing that the service did not allow me to do or have a system in place to deal with. I'm still friends with the card company and still using their services.

On the one hand you are asking about morality, but on the other you are expecting people to argue from as morally flexible point of view as you choose to hold yourself.

I'm asking for people to take account of the entire situation including the contractual and legal stipulations upon me when I used that money in defining the money. I'm not expecting anyone to be morally flexible whatever way I'm coming across. I'm just asking for a little elaboration on the "its not your money" argument.

looksee

I don't really think this argument can go any further. Other people think that 'it wasn't your money to spend' is sufficient argument, you don't agree. What can we say? It was an unusual situation and you took advantage of it.

If I were to offer an honest view of your actions the word 'stupid' would have to apply to your rationalising, and I am not interested enough to get into throwing insults around. It doesn't matter what we think. You did it, you feel ok about it, you paid off the debt. You dismiss the only argument that anyone can reasonably put forward so what else is there to discuss? Angels on pinheads anyone?

MungBean

looksee wrote: »

I don't really think this argument can go any further. Other people think that 'it wasn't your money to spend' is sufficient argument, you don't agree. What can we say? It was an unusual situation and you took advantage of it.

Stating something without being able to back it up isnt a valid argument no matter how true you think it is. You can say "Here's why it wasnt your money.........ergo you spent what wasnt yours and that is morally reprehensible". But you didnt, you just said "Your wrong" and expected that to stand as a valid argument which it doesnt.

If I were to offer an honest view of your actions the word 'stupid' would have to apply to your rationalising, and I am not interested enough to get into throwing insults around. It doesn't matter what we think. You did it, you feel ok about it, you paid off the debt. You dismiss the only argument that anyone can reasonably put forward so what else is there to discuss? Angels on pinheads anyone?

So your argument is the following ?

Your wrong.
How?
Just are.
Explain it.
Dont have to.
I dont accept it.
Your stupid.

Great contribution.

Paco Rodriguez

You say you added 50 euro to the card. And now its at -50?
Then does not mean the money is paid or billed to pay?
The first spending would bring it to zero and the 2nd to -50..

MungBean

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

You say you added 50 euro to the card. And now its at -50?
Then does not mean the money is paid or billed to pay?
The first spending would bring it to zero and the 2nd to -50..

No the first transaction didnt finalise until after the second one. So it was the late payment of the first transaction that brought the card into a negative balance. The second transaction brought the balance to zero.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.