# Different definitions and interpretations of "rip-off"



## sherib (1 Sep 2005)

Just as I had assembled my case (!), I found the ROR thread closed so hope it's OK to post a few definitions here in the interest of pouring a drop of oil on troubled waters. Dictionary definitions of "rip-off" (for example) do, invariably, refer to scams, cheating and that kind of thing. Referring to a thesaurus I found this:

rip-off (n)
Synonyms: *swindle*, con, cheat, swizz, diddle
Rip-off (v)
Synonyms: *overcharge*, cheat, swindle, do, fleece, diddle, dupe, deceive
overcharge
verb
Definitions:
*charge somebody* *too much*: to charge somebody too much money for something

There is no definition for “rip-off” in my 1983 Oxford Dictionary – it must not have existed then. If the meaning of a word can be defined and interpreted so differently and subjectively, it’s hardly a surprise there is little agreement. It would be interesting to have a legal opinion. Based on the synonyms quoted above, there is no single precise definition, which suggests, paradoxically, that opposing interpretations maybe be equally correct. Falling back on _legalese_ (I imagine) it comes down to meaning “what any ordinary reasonable person means" when using a particular phrase or words. 

Back to square one! I give up. Time to ask a Judge.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Semantics - different definitions and interpretations*

Regardless of the precise definition, what I don't understand is what do people who point the finger at alleged "rip-offs" expect to be done about them and by whom? For example, the relatively trivial case of the €15 mixed grill mentioned elsewhere - some people thought that this was a rip-off, others did not and others thought that it depended on other surrounding circumstances. For those that do think that it's a rip-off what do expect to be done and by whom? Price caps on mixed grills imposed by the Government and supervised by some statutory agency? That just doesn't make sense because things like that (and many others like it) are patently not rip-offs. High price and not value for money - maybe. Rip-off - no. So what would somebody who thinks that a €15 mixed grill is a rip-off suggest as a solution - apart from the obvious one of the consumer exercising discretion, shopping around and making a purchase that better suits their needs, budget, tastes etc.


----------



## Humpback (1 Sep 2005)

Taking the definitions above regarding rip-offs, this is an article I've seen which I think illustrates that we are living in a "Ripoff Ireland", even under the definitions of ripoff sponsored by clubman and brendan.


Summary of Overcharging in Ireland


----------



## podgerodge (1 Sep 2005)

*Re: Semantics - different definitions and interpretations*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> So what would somebody who thinks that a €15 mixed grill is a rip-off suggest as a solution - apart from the obvious one of the consumer exercising discretion, shopping around and making a purchase that better suits their needs, budget, tastes etc.



I agree, nothing should be done by anyone other than the consumer voting with his/her feet.  There is no other solution other than that which you suggest.




			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> things like that (and many others like it) are patently not rip-offs. High price and not value for money - maybe. Rip-off - no.



I disagree, you state the definition of rip-off again as fact as opposed to your personal opinion. I could just as easily state "things like that are patently rip-off's.  High price and not value for money - maybe. Rip-off - Yes."

But I'm not looking up any more dictionaries!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Sep 2005)

I have attempted to split off the pure definition posts to this thread as I think its very important.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Sep 2005)

I have suggested the following which got lost in another thread. I have updated it a bit.

Cheap - low in price but may or may not be good value

Expensive - high in price, but may or may not be good value

Rip-off - a price involving some act of fraud or theft or deceit

 Overcharging - charging more than the agreed price

   Good value - A higher than average standard of product or service for the price you pay which may be cheap or expensive. 


 Bad value - a lower than average standard of product or service fo the price you pay which may be cheap or expensive


 Eddie, Fine Gael and the media have equated  Rip-off with expensive. I think that this is a big mistake. From looking at dictionary definitions, the main definitions do include swindle, overcharge and deceit. Although, some dictionaries seem to recognize that the word is has a secondary meaning of expensive. 


 I think language should be precise. If we use Rip-off to mean expensive, then we will need a new word to identify the expensive items which involve deceit and overcharging. 


 This is not just semantics. I have campaigned against rip-offs for many years. Endowment mortgages, the charging structure on savings policies, the failure of the Irish Nationwide to pass on interest rate cuts to customers who can't move, the misleading labelling of products, misleading advertising.  Lumping all these in with  being charged €120 for going first class on the train to Cork and paying €15 for breakfast obscures the real rip-offs. 


 Brendan


----------



## avantarklu (6 Sep 2005)

Eddie finally gave us the deifinition of Rip-Off last night.  He stated it was where there was a "win-lose" situation (as opposed to a "win-win").


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Sep 2005)

That's a very simplistic definition. Take the example of a petrol retailing business that increase the price of a litre of petrol by 5c because they realise that recent wholesale price increases have eaten into their margins. The price increase has no effect on trade as their competitors did likewise. 

The net effect of this is that the retailer has increased his margin by 5c for every litre they sell. If the retailer sells a million gallons a year, they have increased their profits by €50k over and above what would have been achieved were a price increase not possible. In that sense they have "won". On the other hand, their customers have "lost" in that they are paying say 105 cents for petrol that they could buy yesterday for 100 cents. 

There is clearly no ripoff here but there is a "win-lose" situation.


----------



## CCOVICH (6 Sep 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> If we use Rip-off to mean expensive, then we will need a new word to identify the expensive items which involve deceit and overcharging.


 
Fraud/fraudulent pricing?


----------



## avantarklu (6 Sep 2005)

Ubiquitous, I appreciate it might be simplistic but who am I to question Mr Hobbs!

I don't think your petrol price example is accurate.  If a retail (of petrol or any other product) increases his selling price because his cost base is increasing then he is not necessarily, as per your example, increasing his profits but is merely increasing his revenues.  The increase is more likely to maintain his profit level.  The increase may make the product more expensive than yesterday but, as you point out, that does that make it a rip-off.? I don;t believe the consumer is losing as they are still receiving the same product as before, albeit at a higher price. The market has dictated the price (& in the case of your example, I believe it is a largely free market with plenty of competition, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I believe it would be a rip-off if, using your example, retail petrol prices were rising while the wholesale price was falling.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Sep 2005)

I would equate the word "fraud" with financial crime. I don't think the term lends itself easily to a scenario where a pub hikes up the price of a pint by 30 or 50 cent on match days. There is a world of difference between this and spammers conning little old ladies out of their nest-eggs by pretending to be son of the late President of Nigeria, or the likes of what John Rusnak did to AIB. If a newspaper accused a city centre publican of being a fraudster on the basis of a ripoff pricing allegation, the resulting libel action would shut them down.


----------



## CCOVICH (6 Sep 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> I would equate the word "fraud" with financial crime. I don't think the term lends itself easily to a scenario where a pub hikes up the price of a pint by 30 or 50 cent on match days. There is a world of difference between this and spammers conning little old ladies out of their nest-eggs by pretending to be son of the late President of Nigeria, or the likes of what John Rusnak did to AIB. If a newspaper accused a city centre publican of being a fraudster on the basis of a ripoff pricing allegation, the resulting libel action would shut them down.


 
Well yes, but I suggested fraud to describe either deceit or overcharging (i.e. charging a higher price than advertised).  I wouldn't describe those who charge 'high' prices as fraudsters.  Anyway, it was only a suggestion, maybe I'll come up with something a little more accurate when I get a chance to think about it.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Sep 2005)

> I don't think your petrol price example is accurate. If a retail (of petrol or any other product) increases his selling price because his cost base is increasing then he is not necessarily, as per your example, increasing his profits but is merely increasing his revenues.



The example I gave is a typical win-lose situation. The trader wins by protecting his margin. The consumer loses because their fuel cost goes up. So you can have a win-lose situation without any element of ripoff.

Take another example. A vendor places a property for sale at a price of €300k. Two bidders bid against each other and push the price up to €350k. The successful bidder buys at €350k. There is clearly a win-lose situation situation here as the vendor has gained an extra €50k at the expense of the eventual purchaser. However unless the bidding was rigged, there is no ripoff.


----------



## avantarklu (6 Sep 2005)

Again, and IMHO, I don't agree that the consumer has lost.  They have received a product for a price that they were willing to pay.  Market forces (2 bidding parties) have decided the true price. The market has decided that the original price was effetively understated and the "winning" party has decided that the final price represents the true position.  The other party disagrees and isn't prepared to go higher.  Either party is free to walk away at any stage.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Sep 2005)

> They have received a product for a price that they were willing to pay.



So does the guy to pays an extra 50 cent on the advertised price of his pint in a pub near Croke Park next Sunday. And the other guy who pays a tout €200 for a €40 ticket. Both of these are ripoffs, in my opinion. However they are not frauds.


----------



## Humpback (6 Sep 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> I would equate the word "fraud" with financial crime. I don't think the term lends itself easily to a scenario where a pub hikes up the price of a pint by 30 or 50 cent on match days. There is a world of difference between this and spammers conning little old ladies out of their nest-eggs by pretending to be son of the late President of Nigeria, or the likes of what John Rusnak did to AIB. If a newspaper accused a city centre publican of being a fraudster on the basis of a ripoff pricing allegation, the resulting libel action would shut them down.


 
But is it the case that increasing prices on match day is neither fraudulent nor a ripoff?

And it would only be overcharging if the price list (if you can find it) had the older price on it, rather than what's charged at the till.

This practice, while it may be described as "sharp", and possibly "profiteering", is not wrong in any way, and in my opinion is not a ripoff.


----------

