When is there a moral obligation to support implicit or unenforceable contracts in a business model?

[jack]

Some people claim the answer is "always" or "never" although this approach seems bizarre when presented with one of the obvious extremes. For instance:

Example #1. You visit a small book shop. You ponder what you might like, and a clerk gives you some excellent advice. You thank them, look at the price, and go and buy it somewhere else. I think most people agree you should avoid doing that -- certainly not set out to do it.

I think it doesn't matter whether the shop has a sign saying "please don't do this" and doesn't matter that if they did it would be unenforceable. I think the shop is implicitly providing a service in the hope that you will be grateful. (I think it's fine to take the advice even if you're only browsing, especially if you make that clear, so long as if you suddenly decide you do do it there.)

Example #2. Conversely, I think Ryanair's business plan isn't just to sell flights at supposedly and deceptively low prices. They do do that, but I think they also hope to make a lot of money out of people who are tricked into thinking it's cheaper, but forgetting that if they want to check a suitcase, or pay by debit or credit card, or forget to pack a sandwich for the flight, they'll pay an exorbitant fee.

However, if the fare is cheaper (which now is often not the case by very much if at all, but sometimes is), I don't feel obliged to follow their expectation and buy lots of overpriced extras. I feel sorry for people who do, but I don't think that if the deal is marginally good for me refusing to participate will help anyone else, so I'll take it, and Ryanair will presumably make their money back from the people who DO buy extras, and if they don't, well, they deserve it.

Further examples: If you're eating in a restaurant, do you feel obligated to buy a drink? If you get a lot of use out of a free version of a program, do you feel compelled to buy the upgrade even if have most of the functionality you need already? If there's a special offer and you assume it's intended to benefit the business somehow, do you mind taking advantage of it?

I think these examples do have something in common, but you should judge whether it's a case of "follow the implied contract" or "Caveat venditor" based on:

(A) Is the vendor setting up an expectation on you, or providing a pricing model and inviting you to partake or not as you choose?
(B) Do you feel the vendor is genuinely helping you and deserves genuine reciprocation, or solely screwing you the maximum amount permissible under law?

Comments

[ptc24]

Tax is the other thing I found strange. In the UK prices generally include VAT if it applies (this is less true for big-ticket items like computers), and the with-VAT price is often a round number, or number ending in 99 or 95. In the USA I found I never knew whether sales tax was to be charged or not and how much it would come to and things like that - also the round numbers were often pre-tax. It made paying with exact change difficult so you ended up with far too much loose change.

Not listing the price - over here, this makes me think of "if Sir has to ask how much it is, Sir can't afford it", so it's strange to think of it as something that applies everywhere.

While I'm here I'll mention how typically in American hotels breakfast isn't included in the price, whereas elsewhere it is.

I found America to be a place where it was quite hard for me to control how much money I was spending, part of the culture shock I experience when over there.

[seryn]

There are more hotels offering breakfast included now, but you have to check. And it's often a "special" deal on hotel websites where if you mention it when booking, you'll get free breakfast just for asking.

I don't order things that do not list the price. Because of exactly that feeling. If I have to ask, it's too dear.

It's rare for tax to be included in the price because most prices for big chain stores are set at the corporate level and tax is done locally. That actually means if you live near a border with a different locality, you can pay less by shopping there.

Very few people pay in cash because it's extremely inconvenient to do so. You can usually pay with a credit card for even a $3 coffee at Starbucks. So when I eat in independently owned tiny restaurants (the majority of my dining out) and they only take cash, I usually have to buy lunch for any friends who accompany me because they don't have any real money in their wallets.

I think restaurants should pay their employees, raise the price of the food as necessary, and leave me out of it. I shouldn't be paying their employees. I also think everything should be priced with the tax included, it's not like paying the tax is optional. I don't care that the store wants to blame the government, I just want to know what it is going to cost.

My international travelling experience was different in that I got an idea what a low-priced lunch usually cost in the local currency and set that price in my head as a basic quanta for expenses. "Would I spend three lunches on a pair of jeans? Yes, absolutely, that's an excellent deal."

Breakfast wasn't included when I visited Canada.