What would you do?

I don't see the issue. He was given the voucher on the basis that he signed up with EE. He signed up with EE and thus got the vouchers.
There's a "cooling off" period where people can drop out of contract after signing up which OP used and got a better deal, still with EE.
There's nothing on that EE mail that states that it's void if he bails out of the contract.

What's the issue?
 
Knowing how phone companies work and what not I wouldn't have done it, there is always the chance this crops up on some list of cancelled contracts their end then they'll follow it up and ask for it back.
 
Angilion said:
He was given money as part of a contract that he cancelled. He knew that he should not have the money and he took it anyway.

Your ethical switch is set in excuse mode.

If you contracted me to (for example) fix your roof and I cancelled the contract, would you be OK if I kept any money you'd paid me for the job? I wouldn't be OK with keeping it. But hey, that's just me being extremist.
Click to expand...

That is not the same example as the OP's situation, look at the timeline, he first cancelled the contract, then after 6 months he gets the vouchers.

A secondary point is, did anyone here read the contract? For all we go there could be an exploit that would allow this.

Either way in both situations there is incompetence, either the contract is worded wrongly meaning he gets to keep the vouchers, or someone mistakenly sent them to the OP.

I do not reward incompetence, and there have been situations where i have made mistakes and have lost money or time because of it, i have only myself to blame.

As for me i do not consider ethical implications into anything i do, nor do i believe that an excuse or justification is required for any action.

What i am debating here is why you and a couple of others are so over-the-top in this situation.

A more accurate example is, OCUK puts up a new graphics card for £50, when actually it should cost £500... A person immediately buys it, and OCUK edits it to fix the mistake shortly afterwards.

The buyer knows it must have been an error, from your ideology you would pay the full £500.

Not sure what happens in that situation i did remember it must have happened on OCUK before, but if i owned the company i would simply stand by the £50 price, after all the mistake was either mine or an employee, I'll add a confirmation option to prevent that in the future.

It does not matter in either what is legal or not, as here we discuss from a moral perspective, after all there are many things you can do which are legal but immoral.
 
platinum87 said:
That is not the same example as the OP's situation, look at the timeline, he first cancelled the contract, then after 6 months he gets the vouchers.

A secondary point is, did anyone here read the contract? For all we go there could be an exploit that would allow this.
Click to expand...

An irrelevant point. I know an exploit that allows me to steal things from some cars. That doesn't make it OK for me to do it.

Either way in both situations there is incompetence, either the contract is worded wrongly meaning he gets to keep the vouchers, or someone mistakenly sent them to the OP.

I do not reward incompetence, and there have been situations where i have made mistakes and have lost money or time because of it, i have only myself to blame.
Click to expand...

Not taking money that isn't yours when you have the chance to do so isn't rewarding incompetence. If someone left their car unlocked, would you go through it to see what you could take? They were incompetent in locking their car, which is their mistake, and it created an exploit that would allow you to take their stuff.

As for me i do not consider ethical implications into anything i do, nor do i believe that an excuse or justification is required for any action.
Click to expand...

That's quite sociopathic. It answers my previous question, anyway. Since you reject the whole idea of ethics, the only reason you could have for not stealing from the car is concern about the consequences of being caught.

What i am debating here is why you and a couple of others are so over-the-top in this situation.
Click to expand...

You see it that way because you have no ethics and believe that it's fine for you to do whatever you want.

A more accurate example is, OCUK puts up a new graphics card for £50, when actually it should cost £500... A person immediately buys it, and OCUK edits it to fix the mistake shortly afterwards.

The buyer knows it must have been an error, from your ideology you would pay the full £500.
Click to expand...

That's right. More accurately, I would offer to do so while phoning OcUK and informing them of their mistake.

Not sure what happens in that situation i did remember it must have happened on OCUK before, but if i owned the company i would simply stand by the £50 price, after all the mistake was either mine or an employee, I'll add a confirmation option to prevent that in the future.

It does not matter in either what is legal or not, as here we discuss from a moral perspective, after all there are many things you can do which are legal but immoral.
Click to expand...

I would also stand by the £50 price because it would be less expensive to do so. That has nothing to do with morality - it's a purely practical thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom