Case LXI: Errors in Changing Money

Flavia, a servant, is in the habit of buying supplies in the store of Emporius. One day she hands to Emporius, who has waited upon her personally, a ten-dollar bill to be changed; he gives her three dollars too much, which fact Flavia only notices on arriving home, when she counts her money. She returns immediately to the store and informs Emporius: “In making change you have made a mistake of three dollars.” The store-keeper, in the belief that Flavia meant that he had not given her enough change, and that she would ask for the difference, replied brusquely: “Such things do not happen here; and, what is more, you cannot prove your assertion.” Flavia tries to explain, but Emporius proceeds with waiting on other customers and pays no further attention to her beyond dismissing her with the words: “It is my rule not to consider such claims unless made during the transaction; if there was anything wrong you should have mentioned it when I gave you the change.” Whereupon he went about his business. Flavia, angered by this treatment, left the store and made up her mind to keep the money for herself. Upon another occasion Flavia bought supplies in another store, where she was not a regular customer. There she was not waited on by the proprietor, but by the clerk. It so happened that he, too, made an error in making change and gave her fifty cents too much. Later on Flavia noticed the error, but she reasoned that she would not be well received if attempting to tell the clerk of his mistake; and she supposed the same principle would hold good here as in Emporius’s store. Thus she soothed her conscience and kept the money for herself without mentioning the matter. The questions are asked: 1. May Flavia, in the first case, keep the money with good conscience? 2, What is to be said about Flavia’s proceeding in the second case?

Answering the first question: Flavia may in this case keep the money for herself, not because Emporius refused to listen, for she would have had occasion to bring the matter up some other time. The actual reason why Flavia is not obliged to take further steps, and why she may retain the money with good conscience, is found in the circumstance that Emporius stated that in his store prevailed the rule not to consider such claims unless made during the transaction. For, if he applies this rule in his own favor, justice requires that he let it prevail also in cases where he might sustain a loss; it would be manifestly an injustice if he demanded restitution in such cases without being willing to make restitution. This applies all the more in our case as Flavia regularly made her purchases at this place and it might easily happen now and again that a mistake happened to her disadvantage. In such cases Flavia would have no hope of indemnification if Emporius’s principle had only a one-sided application; if applied mutually, matters would adjust themselves. It is, of course, understood that a principle of this kind cannot apply if the error is immediately noticed and can easily be proved.

Answer to the second question: This case is, in several respects, different from the preceding one. 1. Flavia does not know at all whether this other store-keeper in such cases acts on the same principle as Emporius. 2. As Flavia does not otherwise trade at this store, there is no opportunity that, by an occasional mistake to her disadvantage, the matter might right itself; there would be no reciprocity. 3. In this case it is a question not of the proprietor, but of a clerk, who may perhaps have to make good the deficit out of his own pocket. Therefore Flavia did wrong by keeping the money for herself, and she is obliged to report the error that took place and return the excess change received. In order not to cause trouble to the clerk, she should, if possible, return it to him privately.

Dr. J. Niglutsch.