Full Disclosure
A bank in Australia made some kind of error resulting in 10 million dollars being transfered to a couple’s account. When the bank asked for the money back the coupled refused. I believe that this couple is in its full rights to keep the money. Although if this were to happen to me I doubt i would hold on to the full amount. Clearly though, to protect banks, customers interested in doing business with them should be legally obligated to inform the bank how they will behave in every single conceivable contingency, such as instances when the bank mistakenly transfers money over to that customer’s account. Perhaps customers could prepare some kind of pamphlet detailing all the potential things they might do while having an account open with that bank.
As this case proves, customers will deceive banks into thinking they are good Samaritans just so they can take advantage of clerical errors. Customers by their very nature only care about saving money. By forcing customers to fully disclose how they will behave in every conceivable contingency with that bank, banks are being given the full information needed to decide if they want to do business with this customer. Plus it prevents the customer from being able to lie and deceive to trick the bank into opening an account that in the end harms the bank.
I don’t know about you, but it seems reasonable to require customers to provide extensive information regarding their treatment of a product so that the company has what it needs to make an informed decision about whether to complete the transaction with that customer. If companies have to have onerous labeling to inform people that drinking eight red bulls in 23 seconds is harmful, then customers, prior to completion of transaction, should have to fully inform the company their intention to drink eight red bulls in 23 seconds. Fair is fair.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Thank you for exposing the flaw in your way of thinking- it’s all predicated on the idea of treating corporations as people. Thus, regulations are trampling a person’s rights, corporate greed and exploitation is just normal, every-day self interest, and etc.
Remember, your argument is that free markets help consumers, so you should be fine with unwary corporations getting screwed- that’s the invisible hand of the market telling them to be more careful. Once you start favoring any forms of protetionism for the corporations at the expense of the consumer, it’s clear where your values actually lie.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
If i were to agree with your characterization, that corporations should be treated like people than you would also be saying about my position that its okay for people to exploit other people for greed. That all comes down to how you define greed.
In response to your 2nd paragraph i wrote this in the post:
Its you that has the awkward problem of explaining why one group of people (those that make a living from the bank) should get differential treatment over another group of people (those that do business with the bank).
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
The law should protect individuals, not corporations. If a corporation does something lethally stupid, it should go out of business; if that’s not your position, then you’re not serious about free markets serving consumers through competition.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
So if an exec intentionally takes shortcuts in producing a product that he knows will lead to some consumer fatalities he should not be held accountable but the corporation should be?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I said the law should ‘protect individuals’, not ‘pardon criminals’. I guess you get confused sometimes.
To answer your question pecifically, the exec should face criminal prosecution by the state, and the corporation should be vulnerable to being sued by those hurt by the product.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Your second sentence in the previous comment is the cause of confusion.
It’s unclear why the corporation is to be held accountable for something a person did. Please explain.