Who gets the money?

[Stupot]

Strange question, and the answer is probably obvious, but I'll explain the reason for this post after enough people have replied.

Thanks guys.

Hypothetically:

There are 3 parties: Mr. A, Mr. B and Shoe Company (SC)

Mr A. wants a new pair of shoes worth 100 pounds.
He doesn't have a credit card, so he asks Mr. B to buy them using his credit card.
Mr. B spends 100 on his credit card buying the shoes for Mr. A.
Mr. A pays Mr. B back 100 pounds.

The shoes arrive.

Mr. A has 1 x pair of shoes worth 100 pounds and has spent 100 pounds.
Mr. B has spent 100 pounds and has been given 100 pounds back by Mr. A.

At this point All is square.

Unexplainedly, perhaps accidentally, the Shoe Company (SC) refunds the 100 pounds onto Mr. B's credit card.

Mr. B now has 100 pounds of free money.

What is the most reasonable outcome out of 1, 2 and 3?

1.  Mr. B Keeps the all money:
       (Mr. A has no free money)
       (Mr. B has 100 pounds of free money)
       (SC is 100 pounds down)

2.  Mr. B gives the all money to Mr. A:
       (Mr. A has 100 of free money - or [depending how you look at it] a free pair of shoes worth 100 pounds)
       (Mr. B has no free money)
       (SC is 100 pounds down)

3.  Mr. B offers Mr. A half of the money:
       (Mr. A has 50 pounds of free money)
       (Mr. B has 50 pounds of free money)
       (SC is 100 pounds down)

Of course there is the 4th (and fairest option):
       
4.  Mr. B returns 100 pounds back to the Shoe Company:
       (Mr. A has made no free money - neither has he lost anything)
       (Mr. B has Made no free money - neither has he lost anything)
       (SC has its 100 pounds back - all is square

However, this is not a question about morals and we can assume that SC has lost the 100 pounds
to Mr. B (1), Mr. A (2) or to both men (3).  This question is asking which man should get to keep
the money, or should they share it?

Does either man have more of a claim for the money than the other?

[added notes]
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the shoes, indeed Mr. A was thoroughly happy with his shoes.
Mr. B is not a frequent flyer, and gets no other benefits from using his credit card.

[ddq]

Haven't thought about it too much, but 2 seems the most logical to me. If I borrow $5 from my friend to buy a sandwich, immediately pay him back, then discover there's a toe in my sandwich, I'd be the one who gets the refund. It'd be the same if, instead of my friend, it was my seeing eye monkey.
That's assuming credit has nothing to do with it. If Mr. B gets frequent flyer miles or something, he will have slightly profited from all situations.
Unless this is some sort of logic puzzle, 1 and 3 seem clearly unfair and 4 seems like the "simple" approach.
Just my two cents.

EDIT: Though this would be assuming that the refund had a reason. If it were purely accidental, then Mr. A would also have a free pair of perfectly functional shoes. I say the best option in that case would be to give each man one shoe and use the money to buy sandwiches.

[Calin Leafshade]

Well really the money is neither of theirs... so they have equal claim (i.e no claim at all)

If we can assume that the SC will never notice the mistake (this is very rare, they *always* notice) then i suppose they should split it 50/50.

[Bror_Jon]

I think Mr B. has the right to the money, since he was the one that spent it, in the first place.
On the other hand he could be a good chap and give Mr B. 50 pounds.

[Stupot]

Haven't thought about it too much, but 2 seems the most logical to me. If I borrow $5 from my friend to buy a sandwich, immediately pay him back, then discover there's a toe in my sandwich, I'd be the one who gets the refund. It be the same if, instead of my friend, it was my seeing eye monkey.
That's assuming credit has nothing to do with it. If Mr. B gets frequent flyer miles or something, he will have slightly profited from all situations.
Unless this is some sort of logic puzzle, 1 and 3 seem clearly unfair and 4 seems like the "simple" approach.
Just my two cents.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the shoes, indeed Mr. A was thoroughly happy with his shoes.
Mr. B is not a frequent flier, and gets no other benefits from using his credit card.

[Calin Leafshade]

I think ddqs point was that Mr A bore the risk of the purchase and so he should reap the rewards if there were any

[Anian]

What is the most reasonable outcome out of 1, 2 and 3?

Define "reasonable".  

By your example, it seems to me like it's a variation of the Prisoner Experiment (link). So I'd say that B would probably keep the money (anwser 1). Although that's not an optimum solution (and there might not even be one if we look at realisitc situations), but some things are still uncertain - like would SC notice the money missing and if so what actions would be taken etc.

How good of friends are A and B? Like would the split 50:50 seem fair to both of them (cause if it does, then taking the money, but also both paying the company back if it asks for it), would be the closest to "realisticly fair" in my mind, other than actually discussing it and then deciding (which would then be a product of their personallities and morals).

[GarageGothic]

If you've already ruled out the shoe company getting the money back, as far as I'm concerned Mr. B keeps whatever was returned to him. His deal with Mr. A is closed, Mr. B fulfilled his part and whatever the gains from the clerical error is simply good karma from helping his friend out. Mr. A got his shoes and is no longer part of the equation.

[Radiant]

Mr. C then wins $10000 in the lottery. Which is the most reasonable outcome?

(1) Mr. C shares this money with Mr. A and Mr.B
(2) Mr. C goes on a nice long holiday
(3) Mr. C donates all the money to charity
(4) Mr. C opens a competing shoe store.

[Khris]

Assuming that SC is never going to notice the missing money, I'd say B gets to keep it. It's entirely his choice if he offers A half of it or something.
IMO, the best way to solve these types of dilemmas is splitting them up into discrete parts where each part has as less people involved as possible.

A has no credit card. He asks B to make a purchase. B purchasing the shoes with his credit card is the first transaction. Then A buys the shoes off of B. That's the second transaction. The mistake only occurred with the first one, and the only relevant party involved is B. Thus, if B doesn't care about a guilty conscience, he gets to keep whatever profit the transaction generates.

What about this:
A is insane but with his medication, he stays calm.
B, who cares for A, notices that the pills have run out and drives to the pharmacy.
C is on his way to work in his car.
D runs across the street without looking, C swerves and crashes into B, A doesn't get his pills and goes onto a killing spree because E didn't lock his gun cabinet.
Who is responsible for the deaths?

[GarageGothic]

What about this:
A is insane but with his medication, he stays calm.
B, who cares for A, notices that the pills have run out and drives to the pharmacy.
C is on his way to work in his car.
D runs across the street without looking, C swerves and crashes into B, A doesn't get his pills and goes onto a killing spree because E didn't lock his gun cabinet.
Who is responsible for the deaths?

D is responsible for any deaths directly resulting from the car crash, A's psychiatrist is partly responsible for the killing spree - and if A is a minor and E his parent, E carries part of the blame too.

Or if you're Michael Moore, the NRA gun lobby did it.

[Andail]

and if A is a minor and E his parent, E carries part of the blame too.

If A is a minor it contains all of A, C and E.

[Calin Leafshade]

Guns dont kill people, A did.

The gun helped.

[LRH]

I think the "nice" option would be to return the money, but I think many people wouldn't. Hell, if it's truly free money, why not? The SC should have paid more attention, after all 

Also, screw Mr. A. If Mr. B does keep the money, why should he give 50 pounds to a man he was doing a fairly substantial favor for in the first place? Buying something on credit for a friend is no joke! (See Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice...heheh.)

These of course, are my personal opinions. Don't take it all too seriously

[LimpingFish]

What kind of shoes?

[Igor Hardy]

I'd say the situation doesn't create any new obligations between A and B. B should return the money to the company (especially if they ask him to do that), otherwise he can do with it whatever he wants.

[RickJ]

B keeps the money until the mistake is corrected by the SC or credit card company and they ask him to return it, which he is both legally and morally obligated to do.   

One could argue that he is morally obligated to inform SC of the mistake.  It shouldn't take more than few minute phone call to explain the nature of the billing error and the details of the cc transaction.   I personally would not be willing to spend more time than that and that's where my morale obligation would end.

Mr. B took all the risks and burdens to help Mr A acquire the shoes.  Mr. A has no standing (business) with SC or the credit card company period.   I can't see any reason or circumstance where Mr A gets any of the extra money?   

[Ali]

I'm not sure I see the ethical quandary. Surely it's equally wrong for either A or B to have the money.

[Igor Hardy]

Maybe B needs to give A 50% to keep his mouth shut about the whole event.

[MillsJROSS]

Difficult question. I will set the scene as I see it.

I think since Mr. A is using Mr. B's credit card, we can assume a pretty strong friendly relationship. I'm also assuming they're friends because they happen to be shoe shopping together. They even may be having a casual affair. Regardless of how intimate their relationship, though, it's apparent one exists.

So then Mr. B gets his credit statement, and notices that the Shoe Company refunded the 100 dollars. Since I'm assuming a friendly relationship, a call would ensue between Mr. A and Mr. B, where Mr. B, would be like "Hey, did you return those shoes you bought?". Mr A, "No...I'm wearing them now."

It's most reasonable to assume that Mr. B would tell him about the $100. Mostly, because everyone likes to tell and hear a story of how we somehow got free money or some awesome discount.

This is where I would try to return the money to the shoe company. We're assuming though, that both parties are OK with not paying the company. I think it would then be most reasonable to split it in half, since they're friends/lovers.

-MillsJROSS