Wee Brain teaser.....

[scotlass]

I could be settin maself up as a right dafty and youse all get it right away ( I argued with maself for 20mins....) but here goes.

A woman goes into a shoe shop for a £30 pair of shoes and pays with a £50 note. Salesman doesn't have enough change so he goes to the shop next door to break the £50. He returns to the shop and gives her the £20 change. A while later the shopkeeper from next door storms into the shoe shop, it turns out the note he gave her was a fake, the mortified shoekeeper gives the shopkeeper £50 from the till to apologise. Neither the customer or the shoes she took are found. In total, how much did the shoe shop lose ?

 

[BethEJo]

I'm thinking around £100 or £130.

can't quite figure it out...

 

[disney_princess_85]

£100?

 

[tony64]

£70 in cash and £30 worth of shoes.

 

[mandymouse]

£30 for the shoes + £40 cash

 

[scotlass]

no correct answers but Im actually strugglin to find a way to write it down and explain....its a doozzy !! lol

 

[jamjar84]

I've seen this before somewhere, was it in Professor Layton?

I think the confusing bit is the other shop's involvment is in there to trip us up. The other shop gave the shoe shop £50 and the shoe shop gave £50 back, thus that £50 is cancelled out.

So the shoe shop lost the £20 change it gave the customer and a £30 pair of shoes.... I think?

 

[tony64]

£50 Straight swap with shop next door no cost.

£20 change cost

give next door £50 as original was a fake £50 cost
loss of shoes as payment was made with fake is a cost.

Total cost is £70 cash and one pair of shoes to the value of £30

 

[disney_princess_85]

£50 Straight swap with shop next door no cost.

£20 change cost

give next door £50 as original was a fake £50 cost
loss of shoes as payment was made with fake is a cost.

Total cost is £70 cash and one pair of shoes to the value of £30

My exact logic!

ETA: Ok, I'm thinking about it too much now! The first £50 is irrelevant as it was fake. £20 was given as change, our of next door's legitimate £50. Then, if £50 was given to the shop next door to cover her loss, wouldn't the shopkeeper only be out of pocket £30, plus the cost of the shoes, i.e. £60? Argh! Tell us!!!!

 

[BethEJo]

Gee, this is a tricky one - hardly anyone has agreed on an answer!!

 

[Dimplenose]

£50 Straight swap with shop next door no cost.

£20 change cost

give next door £50 as original was a fake £50 cost
loss of shoes as payment was made with fake is a cost.

Total cost is £70 cash and one pair of shoes to the value of £30

No - I agree with Jamjar84

The shop gives next door fake £50.
Next door gives shop real £50.
Shop refunds real £50 to next door.
Therefore no cost between shop and next door.

Lady buys £30 shoes with fake £50 and receives real £20 change.

Therefore total cost to the shop £30 shoes plus £20 real money.

 

[disney_princess_85]

Just posting my latest theory in a new post:

The first £50 is irrelevant as it was fake. £20 was given as change, our of next door's legitimate £50. Then, if £50 was given to the shop next door to cover her loss, wouldn't the shopkeeper only be out of pocket £30, plus the cost of the shoes, i.e. £60?

 

[Dimplenose]

The fake £50 is worth nothing.

So the shop give next door £0 and £50 (for the refund)
And next door give them £50.
Therefore the two sums are cancelled out.

 

[disney_princess_85]

The fake £50 is worth nothing.

So the shop give next door £0 and £50 (for the refund)
And next door give them £50.
Therefore the two sums are cancelled out.

The fact that the £20 change came out of the shop next door's £50 makes a difference though (well, it does in my head! ). I'm sticking by £60.

 

[Dimplenose]

The fact that the £20 change came out of the shop next door's £50 makes a difference though (well, it does in my head! ). I'm sticking by £60.

I'll try one last time to convince you.

There are two things going on.

One between the lady and shop1.

And a second between shop1 and shop2.

The lady pays nothing (i.e. fake note) and get £30 of shoes and £20 cash. So shop1 loses £50.

Shop2 pays shop1 £50. Then shop 1 pays shop2 £50. And they are even.

The fact it is not physically the same notes that are paid back is irrellevant.

 

[disney_princess_85]

I'll try one last time to convince you.

There are two things going on.

One between the lady and shop1.

And a second between shop1 and shop2.

The lady pays nothing (i.e. fake note) and get £30 of shoes and £20 cash. So shop1 loses £50.

Shop2 pays shop1 £50. Then shop 1 pays shop2 £50. And they are even.

The fact it is not physically the same notes that are paid back is irrellevant.

I don't need to be convinced- we have different theories and that's fine! We could both be wrong.

Anyway, you're missing my point I think. The £20 change given to the customer was taken out of the £50 change the shopkeeper swapped the fake note for. Therefore, the shopkeeper is only down by £30 when he gives the shop next door £50 out of his own till, as the £20 change technically belonged to the other shop. Added to the £30 value of the shoes, that's £60. That's my theory anyway.

ETA: If the £20 change had been taken out of the shopkeeper's till then I would think the answer was £50 too.

ETA: I've just been thinking about it and I see what you mean. I think I'm making it more complicated than it actually is!!

 

[jamjar84]

OK, well say that before shop1 gave her the change they put the £50 from next door in their till. So they take £20 out of their till for the change. They then take £50 out for shop2 therefore having already put £50 in from next door they are down £20 in cash and £30 cost of the shoes. Does that make sense?

 

[mandymouse]

£30 for the shoes + £40 cash

The way I saw it was that shopkeeper 1 gets £50 from shopkeeper 2, and gives the customer £20 change (now has £30 left), then has to give shopkeeper 2 £50 (the £30 left + another £20)

So that's £30 for the shoes + £20 change to the customer + £20 to shopkeeper 2

I'll be so glad when the real answer is posted

 

[jamjar84]

The way I saw it was that shopkeeper 1 gets £50 from shopkeeper 2, and gives the customer £20 change (now has £30 left), then has to give shopkeeper 2 £50 (the £30 left + another £20)

So that's £30 for the shoes + £20 change to the customer + £20 to shopkeeper 2

I'll be so glad when the real answer is posted

But if he took the £20 change for the customer out of shop2's money it wont be a loss to him i.e. out of his till.

Effectively the £50 he got from the other shop and then gave back can be cancelled out, as the shop next door's till will be correct, the £50 is forgotten about. So the £20 change is the surplus which was a loss to the shoe shop as nobody else incurred costs.

 

[disney_princess_85]

OK, well say that before shop1 gave her the change they put the £50 from next door in their till. So they take £20 out of their till for the change. They then take £50 out for shop2 therefore having already put £50 in from next door they are down £20 in cash and £30 cost of the shoes. Does that make sense?

Yes.