Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. You're a 0.3%-er. When stores--especially large businesses like Borders, B&N, Walmart, etc. do their return policy calculations, they take into account the fact that 0.3% (or however many) of the population will take advantage of their "generous" terms, and that those self-same terms will attract an additional 1% extra business.
When you purchase any item, you are essentially entering a contract with the seller that each party will abide by the terms of sale. Small or discount stores can't afford generous return policies, so they don't have them. Simple as that.
The OP is simply taking advantage of the generous terms of large stores. It's not surprising that it makes 99.7% of the population feel morally superior enough to call him a theif and a scammer when he is no such thing. Stores take advantage of this attitude in order to attract more business. There's no reason the 0.3%-ers out there shouldn't take advantage of it to save a good deal of money, even if it annoys the 99%-ers.
There are plenty of return policies out there which specify exact terms (such as on your vehicle or computer) and require that there be a manufacturing defect or some other circumstance which puts the manufacturer at fault. Most bookstores and big-box stores have open return policies which allow you to return your purchased item for any reason. There's nothing dishonest about asking the store to abide by the contract it voluntarily enters. What a ridiculous notion.
Of course, they wouldn't have to have those policies (and the rest of us wouldn't have to pay the additional price, which means that perhaps the reason the 99.7% object to thievery is that we are being asked to pay for the thief's self-indulgence and lack of personal responsibility, and we're NOT their parents) if people would simply be honest. But I suppose that's too much to ask.
Of course, they wouldn't have to have those policies (and the rest of us wouldn't have to pay the additional price, which means that perhaps the reason the 99.7% object to thievery is that we are being asked to pay for the thief's self-indulgence and lack of personal responsibility, and we're NOT their parents) if people would simply be honest. But I suppose that's too much to ask.
Would the next person who wants to disparage the OP please take the time to explain how abiding by a store's stated return policy is "self-indulgence," "theivery," or "dishonest."
This is simply an extreme of frugality that most people are not willing to go to. In many other countries, you will not find such generous return policies because people are much more clever about being thrifty than Americans, and the labor pool is better trained.
It used to be that your local small-town book/hardware/electronics store would offer only a defective product return policy. Even then, the owner or manager would ask you what was wrong with your product that you needed to return it. Then they'd often offer to fix the problem, give you store credit, or find some other acceptable solution. Since they've mostly been driven out of business nowadays, new return policy dynamics have taken hold.
These return policies are really a new construct of big-box stores and their untrained minimum-wage employees and management. You can't expect disposable labor, like someone making $7.25 an hour with no benefits, to be able to handle complexities like distinguishing between repairable hardware and defects, so the stores take customer surveys, do complex calculations, and roll out a one-size-fits-all policy to make up for lack of ability to deliver meaningful customer relations. People who take advantage of these policies are different from the norm, but certainly acting within the law, their rights, and ethics.
Would the next person who wants to disparage the OP please take the time to explain how abiding by a store's stated return policy is "self-indulgence," "theivery," or "dishonest."
This is simply an extreme of frugality that most people are not willing to go to. In many other countries, you will not find such generous return policies because people are much more clever about being thrifty than Americans, and the labor pool is better trained.
It used to be that your local small-town book/hardware/electronics store would offer only a defective product return policy. Even then, the owner or manager would ask you what was wrong with your product that you needed to return it. Then they'd often offer to fix the problem, give you store credit, or find some other acceptable solution. Since they've mostly been driven out of business nowadays, new return policy dynamics have taken hold.
These return policies are really a new construct of big-box stores and their untrained minimum-wage employees and management. You can't expect disposable labor, like someone making $7.25 an hour with no benefits, to be able to handle complexities like distinguishing between repairable hardware and defects, so the stores take customer surveys, do complex calculations, and roll out a one-size-fits-all policy to make up for lack of ability to deliver meaningful customer relations. People who take advantage of these policies are different from the norm, but certainly acting within the law, their rights, and ethics.
I like Midpack's answer (post #48) "... and then be surprised at being criticized for deliberately cheating the author, publisher, distributor, bookseller, etc...."
The OP is an irresponsible user kind of person with an "I'm for me and the hell with eveybody else" attitude.
Buy the damn book. Then sell it to someone who might like might to read it. At a used book price.
Better yet, give it to someone or donate to a nursing home. Some of those folks can still read and that is about all some of them can do. Do something good for someone other than yourself once in awhile. It builds character. Which the OP seems to lack.
I still think the fact that he makes an effort to hide his "frugality" by purchasing from one store and returning to another means he understands that what he's doing is wrong. Furthermore, if he was really okay with his actions, he wouldn't come to C-D looking to ease his conscience.
For all those defending this type of behavior: I guess you think it's okay for people to take advantage of the welfare system or housing assistance when they do not need it, thereby taking the slot of a person who trully needs it and leaving them out in the street. The policy is there to avoid greater losses and to attract more business, yes, but that doesn't stop the abuse of the policy from being unethical.
As far as libraries go; I believe they are only allowed to have books with the agreement of the publishers which, when you think about it, is an old form of viral marketing since, if you like an author, you will buy their books if the library doesn't carry all of them (and believe me, I've tried to read whole series from the library and you can never find EVERY book).
For all those defending this type of behavior: I guess you think it's okay for people to take advantage of the welfare system or housing assistance when they do not need it, thereby taking the slot of a person who trully needs it and leaving them out in the street. The policy is there to avoid greater losses and to attract more business, yes, but that doesn't stop the abuse of the policy from being unethical.
Don't project. I said nothing of the sort. The OP is asking the bookstore to honor their return policy. The bookstore voluntarily offers the policy and the OP probably isn't going to litigate against them if they decide not to honor their stated policy. It's a voluntary process all around. There is nothing illegal or dishonest going on.
Comparing taking advantage of a return policy to Welfare Fraud is nonsense. Try coming up with a legitimate argument. I still haven't heard a logical statement from those who disparage the OP. Just lots of "I don't like what you're doing so I decree it immoral/illegal/unethical" emoting. Yes the bookstore makes less money on the OP than on the majority of customers, but--again--that is figured into their business calculations. Yes, if EVERYBODY did it, the store would change their return policy. These hypothetical musings don't change facts.
If a store offers a service such as an unlimited return policy, it is foolish not to take advantage of it if you so desire. Again, most people wish to purchase books to have, re-gift, or whatever. A small number simply wish to read them and return them. Perhaps someday they'll find one they like enough to keep, perhaps not. Any store that can't afford to allow customers to return books at will will not have a policy that allows it.
Divorcing emotion from business is one of the rules of true thrift, as emotional purchases/behaviours are usually the worst and most costly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
