The fine was only that big because skeletons are expensive items to begin with. Had they gotten a rotting, expired kosher chicken from that Jewish butchers for free - since I'm pretty sure the brief said nothing about the chicken being edible - they'd also have gotten fined, but probably not by more than a tenner or so.

you are right in that there was nothing in the brief about the quality.

in my opinion, i think LS was just annoyed that felipe, a lawyer, outsmarted him!!

Fair comment, and nice imagery!

Delete

Unlike the disabled children.

I don't think it's ever been stated explicitly, but I believe the fine for not obtaining an item (or getting it wrong) is the guide price of the item (as defined in the task rules) plus £50.

Summit incurred £161 in fines. It's not broken down in the episode, but it's likely that it was £100 for being late back to the boardroom and £61 for failing to buy the chicken (£50 fine on top of £11 guide price?)

But common sense dictates that the customer could just cut the rope themselves, if all it takes is a pair of scissors. The problem is that Sugar applied common sense with one item, and ignored it with another.

It actually got me riled up, completely out of order.

The fine is the same for both teams £50, what the losing team got the other fine, or rather charged for was list price, according to LS was not buying the item.

Felipe showed some initiative and outsmarted Lord Sugar, he wasn't happy about it and stuck an unreasonable fine on so that the other team would win.

I don't see it that way. The instructions asked for 1 metre of old rope, not "1 metre or more" or "at least 1 metre". Solomon interpreted this correctly and got the rope cut on the spot. Mark and Katie refused the garden centre lady's offer of scissors - they had either not fully read or simply not correctly interpreted the instructions.

I know it's a trivial and petty thing, but given that it was written in black and white why didn't they just have it cut when they had the chance? It was an unnecessary risk to take, in my view.

Why are people saying Felipe outsmarted Sugar? It's not like Sugar writes the task instructions himself ...

So should both teams have plumbed in the sink then to show it was in full working order ?
Same principle don't you think ?

Actually, I thought he'd have been applauded and maybe he'd possibly twigged on something that had been missed before.

I'm more interested in the 'fines' from a business point of view and how they're supposed to be relevant (if they're not just used for effect). First up, they're not fines, they're penalty charges (like what your credit card company do if you miss payment or something). Only a court can impose a fine. Secondly, for the large part they're also unenforceable in the court room.

Say for instance I ask you to get me the items and then tried to impose a penalty charge for each item you didn't get, then took you to court I'd end up with problems. Even if the possibility of a penalty charge was mentioned in the contract, it could be shot down as an unfair term or condition. Then there's also the issue of whether I suffered any loss due to your failure to get them. I can't just say buy me a skeleton and if you don't you owe me a million quid because I say so. I have to show that I've suffered a loss due to your failure to fulfil a contract. I also can't use things such as general day to day business expenses as an excuse either, as they'd have to be paid regardless.

Is this an example of shady business practices?

I never thought for a minute he would accept it. I think they had taken leave of their senses. They totally misjudged the nature of the task, which was entirely round sourcing and then negotiating for things, not round trying to find a clever way round the rules. There is always a big slice of luck in Apprentice: no one could have predicted that a diamond dealer would turn to mush just because a pretty blonde fluttered her eyelashes at him. But if I had been team leader I would not have listened to the paper skeleton kit idea for and instant. Who honestly thought LS was the kind of person who enjoys his tasks being turned into a kind of amusing prank?

Well exactly. Of the kosher butcher who couldn't supply a chicken probably had plenty of chicken parts and some sellotape.

Again, you are confusing an Apprentice task with real life. In real life, of course you could give people a bit of extra rope. But the task was specific: he wanted them to find a piece of old rope, exactly a meter long. It was quite funny hearing Felipe's anguished, "I would have cut it with my teeth!"

I really wondered what would have happened if Daniel had ONLY brought felipe back into the boardroom, on the very reasonable grounds that the task was lost by two people and no more. Would LS have admired a certain courage and ethics, or would he have seen it as just rule-breaking?

Eh? I don't follow. They're just artificial rules that are set around determining the winner of a competitive (but artificial) task. You might as well say that the rules of Monopoly constitute shady business practicies.

Do let me know when you find a Kosher butcher that would give a member of the public a known rotting out of date chicken for free.

I agree with you 100%. It's an artificial tasks with artificial rules intended to decide which team is the winner. And it's a game that isn't always played on a level playing field, as no two negotiations are ever identical (or, in the case of the diamonds, even remotely comparable!)

As I've said elsewhere, I suspect there wouldn't be half the uproar if it had been Daniel or Mark rather than Felipe who had pulled this stunt and gotten themselves fired.

I know Sugar wouldn't have allowed it, but it would have made sense for Daniel to either bring back Felipe only or bring in the entire team. (Felipe only makes more sense, though!)

Which in itself is odd because £100 for both sub teams being late is an incentive to carry on and on if you are mssing a big item. It needs to be a sliding scale, more money and per subteam.

There is a lot of truth in that. If Daniel had got fired for it I think a fair few would see it differently. I do wish sometimes people would say, yes it was a mistake but we backed him up on it. I would have so much respect for them if they did this.

Think that allowing the skeleton would have created a loophole for future series, as why not just buy a poster with the item on it?

Personally, I am a bit shocked that people are making such a big issue out of it. Surely, if you are asked to buy a skeleton, you would know what that means?? The Nigella seeds and the oud oil are obviously misleading, but a skeleton? Honestly?

I know what you mean, but I suspect there's something in the rules that limits how long the teams can stay out. Probably the producers have final say on calling teams in if they're taking the mickey on timing, as they have to actually film the boardroom at some point.

Yep, I've said much the same thing. Allowing Felipe to get away with this loophole would have been the thin end of the wedge - it would have been open season for everyone to try it on in future tasks/series.

Sure. And the task was equally specific that they were to find an "anatomically correct skeleton" - not one that was assembled, or one that was made of a particular material.

This is the crux of it - Sugar should either treat this as a simulation of real life or he shouldn't. If the point of the task is "sourcing and negotiating things", as you say, then that was entirely fulfilled with the rope. The fact that they didn't cut it - which, in real life, the customer could just as easily do themselves - should be neither here nor there.

I just can't see a consistent way for them to be penalised for both the rope and the skeleton.

They got the item for the lowest price. They compromised quality, a little, to get the price down - as Bianca did with the sink - but... it's exactly the item he asked for.