Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What would you do?
I'd always own up, no matter what the price 43 68.25%
I'd own up if I though they'd be lenient/if the item was cheap, if expensive i would not 8 12.70%
I wouldn't own up either way if I could get away with it 12 19.05%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2013, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,563,570 times
Reputation: 4262

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
The original post#1:



A better question would be when did this become about electronics and clothing? The thread is about whether or not to pay for items that were accidentally and innocently broken. It's pretty hard for me to envision how one accidentally breaks electronics or damages clothing. It's easy to answer this question when it's an issue of negligence. The difference of opinion seems to be centered around accidental breakage.
The issue is honesty and responsibility - doesn't matter what the item is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:06 PM
 
35 posts, read 63,030 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
More of an ethical question, I suppose, but related to relationships...

Today I was at a store buying a can of juice, and I dropped it on accident and it made a small slash/hole in the side. Probably a quarter of the drink spilled out. For a split second, I contemplated just putting the can back and quietly leaving, but then the little angel on my shoulder got the better of me and I informed the store-owner. I told her straight off I'd pay for it. Honestly paid off, in a way, because she charged me less for it. If I had accidentally damaged say something much more expensive, however, I do wonder if I'd be so honest. Especially if I couldn't afford it.

Would you at least own up? If you went to say a store selling expensive things or antiques and they had a 'if damaged considered sold' policy would you own up, if your act went unnoticed, or would you quietly pretend as if nothing happened? Would it depend on the cost or would that make no difference? Be honest now, this poll will be anonymous .
In a place like a supermarket I never have nor have I ever been asked to. But if you walked into say Ethan Allen furniture and forgot to take a pencil out of your back pocket and punctured a hole in a 2g leather sofa I would think they might ask u to pay. However truth is most retail stores have insurance for situations like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:11 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,475,357 times
Reputation: 29337
I would inform the store and pay for it because it's the honest thing to do. I find it disturbing that such a large percentage would only do so conditionally or not at all. No wonder crime statistics are as high as they are. On the other hand I'm encouraged by the large percentage that has ethics and values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,710,703 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by DellNay View Post
In a place like a supermarket I never have nor have I ever been asked to. But if you walked into say Ethan Allen furniture and forgot to take a pencil out of your back pocket and punctured a hole in a 2g leather sofa I would think they might ask u to pay. However truth is most retail stores have insurance for situations like that.
Exactly. Because by leaving the pencil in your pocket you behaved in a negligent manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,710,703 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
The issue is honesty and responsibility - doesn't matter what the item is.
Correct. And if it's an honest mistake without any negligent behavior then the consumer bears no responsibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,710,703 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
I find it disturbing that such a large percentage would only do so conditionally or not at all. No wonder crime statistics are as high as they are.
And no wonder zero tolerance rules are so popular. Clearly some people seem to be unable to discern between accidents and intentional acts. Zero tolerance helps those who are unable to see anything except black and white. Everyone must pay no matter what the circumstances because circumstances don't matter. That's why we must also suspend the kid with the gun shaped pop tart. Looks like a gun, doesn't matter if it's really a toaster pastry. Must. Have. Clear. Rules. No thinking please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Central Virginia
6,560 posts, read 8,391,660 times
Reputation: 18794
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
When did this become about groceries? Think about clothing, someone tries something on and rips it, puts it back on the rack, or somebody is eating something that smears on the clothes. Or, you break something electronic, and put it back on the shelf for somebody else to buy.
All these things raise the price of goods for all of us, raise insurance prices, that gets passed to the consumer.
If you want this world to be more fair and truthful, be that person, and take responsibility for your own actions.
It was about groceries when the OP began the thread with dropping and breaking a container of juice. And then in post #3, OP said "I guess putting it back wouldn't have been that bad, would it?" I was clearly stating my low opinion of someone who would put it on the shelf broken and leaking, and not take responsibility for it.

Regarding your last sentence, there is no need to tell me to be that person, I am someone who takes responsibility for my actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:40 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,475,357 times
Reputation: 29337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
And no wonder zero tolerance rules are so popular. Clearly some people seem to be unable to discern between accidents and intentional acts. Zero tolerance helps those who are unable to see anything except black and white. Everyone must pay no matter what the circumstances because circumstances don't matter. That's why we must also suspend the kid with the gun shaped pop tart. Looks like a gun, doesn't matter if it's really a toaster pastry. Must. Have. Clear. Rules. No thinking please.
When it comes to another's property or belongings, it doesn't matter if the act is intentional or accidental. The owner should be held harmless.

I can just hear it now in court, "Well, I didn't mean to cause that accident, total their car and put them in the hospital for weeks. Therefore I shouldn't be liable for damages."

But I guess that a little above some people's comprehension and value system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,563,570 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
Correct. And if it's an honest mistake without any negligent behavior then the consumer bears no responsibility.
Wrong. "I didn't see the kid before I backed up officer". Doesn't matter! But for your negligence, the damage would not have been done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 11,563,570 times
Reputation: 4262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
And no wonder zero tolerance rules are so popular. Clearly some people seem to be unable to discern between accidents and intentional acts. Zero tolerance helps those who are unable to see anything except black and white. Everyone must pay no matter what the circumstances because circumstances don't matter. That's why we must also suspend the kid with the gun shaped pop tart. Looks like a gun, doesn't matter if it's really a toaster pastry. Must. Have. Clear. Rules. No thinking please.
It's not up to us to forgive and forget, it's up to the shop owner who's goods you devalued or destroyed, whether intentional or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Non-Romantic Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top