- Mon Apr 21, 2025 6:16 pm
#112670
Hi saiffshaikhh,
Answer D states that "Retailers are morally obligated to meet expectations about prices that they have intentionally encouraged their customers to hold."
This can be reworded into the following conditional statement:
If retailers have intentionally encouraged their customers to hold certain expectations about prices, then the retailers are morally obligated to meet those expectations.
Here, there is no indication that the retailer intentionally encouraged its customers to hold certain expectations about the mismarked price of the item. In fact, since the mismarked price appears to have been a mistake, it appears that it was unintended. However, this does not prove that the retailers are not morally obligated to meet expectations. That would be a Mistaken Negation of Answer D.
Answer E states that "Retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price only if that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking" (my emphasis).
This is a conditional statement that can be reworded:
If retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price, then that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking.
The contrapositive would be:
If a customer was not genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking, then retailers are not morally obligated to sell an item to that customer at a mismarked price.
This matches the facts in the stimulus. Gerrit was not genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking. He noticed that it "had been mistakenly priced" Given this fact, the retailer was not morally obligated to sell Gerrit the recording at the mismarked price, which is Saskia's position.
