Flagpole wrote:
Interesting stuff wrote:You're not getting this.... The website said $ amount, they wrote large checks and took pictures holding them for that same $ amount. They then sent the same $ amount to these athletes in the mail on a real check. A month later they send a letter saying that the athlete should give back half the money.
If the prize winnings said, let's say, $1000. Now let's say that the large checks said $1000, and the athlete received a $1500 check. In that situation I would totally understand giving the money back, but not in the situation that actually happened.
No...I get it. The mistake just happened at a different time than you seem to think is acceptable, but the end result is the same...a human error that led to more money being given than should have been. Unfortunate, but wrong for the runner to keep it.
I'm beginning to rethink my line about you not being dumb. That or you are just trolling now.
In your misguided analogy the customer knows EXACTLY what the price is and he agrees to pay it. If he knowingly, before the transaction is complete, accepts more change than he knows he should then you have a good case for a moral situation. The customer knew the price and agreed to the price and knowingly benefited from someone's mistake when he could have easily pointed it out at the point of the transaction.
That is nothing like this situation. The consumer (the runner), AND the RD both agreed on an amount for the prize and later the RD changed that amount AFTER the 'transaction', the race, was well over with and the money spent. And Yes, the RD did agree to the amount because he wrote 2 checks for that amount, the big fake prize check and the real one.
It is funny how this thread was about dead with the RD making a decision and things calming down and then Flagpole comes in with his 'I'm absolutely right and everyone else is wrong' attitude. The rest of this thread will only be about Flagpole. Funny how he seems to do that to threads.