illegal or just "good shopping practices"?

[PepperElf]

The practice is...

taking an item that's broken, going to the store buying the same item and then returning the broken item, pretending it's the one you just bought.


I say "illegal" because you ARE buying one item and returning something else on purpose. Plus it can easily be used to circumvent things like ... returning things outside the return policy.



I know it's often hard to prove but hard to prove doesn't mean "not illegal".


Cos hey with that practice you could end up having clothes that never wear out right? Every time they start to get old just buy new ones and return the old cos... the company should eat the cost right?

[Rageaholic]

Sounds like fraud to me.

[HYHYBT]

I haven't done it, but I can think of one circumstance where it seems to me it would be perfectly *moral*: the item is defective (not broken) and would be well within the return period if you hadn't lost the receipt or box or whatever and the store requires them. You don't mind having two so long as they're both good, buy a second one, then exchange the original for another. No harm to anybody.

(Now, on a related note... shoppers: if you are returning something *because it's no good*, let the store know so they won't put it back out for sale. Stores: if someone returns something because it doesn't work, don't put it back out there for another person to buy. At least not without testing it first. There's nothing quite like unpacking a replacement to find way more packaging than was in the one you initially bought and realizing that at least one other person had returned the same defective item.)

[Nekojin]

Sounds like fraud to me.

Yep. It's straight-up fraud. There's no waffling about it.

[Andara Bledin]

What Nekojin said.

This is actually a huge problem for eBay sellers in some categories.

I know my work has had regular customers try to return high-ticket items who suddenly no longer have any interest in doing so once they're told we're going to compare serial numbers. (note: we've actually done this with items where we have no idea what the serial numbers were or even if they had them at all - we just knew the customer was trying to pull something and bluffed them down >_< )

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

if you hadn't lost the receipt or box or whatever and the store requires them

Except that... it's the customer's responsibility to keep track of those. Not to mention the receipt is the proof that it's in the return period.

No harm to anybody.

Not to a customer perhaps but to a store... yes. The returns can hurt their profits (especially if it's returned to another store).

[NoMoreRetail]

Not sure if it is illegal or not. If it is illegal, I don't see a lot of companies pressing the issue. Legal fees and court cost are too expensive for a company to pursue these people. A lot of places don't even prosecute shoplifters, they just let them go. The only way I would see it going to court is if it is high dollar items and the "customer" has a history of doing it.

On a side note, people who pull this crap are just shitty people and in my opinion need to be banned from stores. They are abusing the return policy and causing the prices to go up for everyone else.

[HYHYBT]

Not to a customer perhaps but to a store... yes. The returns can hurt their profits (especially if it's returned to another store).

The scenario I described does not hurt the store: they've sold two of the item instead of one, and have the same one returned for exchange they would have had I dug around and found the receipt/box or done what most people would and take it in without and throw a fuss until they took it anyway.

[siead_lietrathua]

@hyhybt. they did not sell 2 items. only one went out the door with a customer in the end. the other is back in the store's inventory/ out of profits from the return.

i do consider it fraud. low-end fraud, sure, but there is still deception involved.
alot of the time when something "breaks" it's due to misuse. why should the company be out the money for that product? i know it seems like they sold one, so there isn't any loss, but there is. they often have to junk the product, since companies won't take returns on something a customer broke. so they are out not only the profit of the item from selling it, they are out the cost of purchasing that item from the warehouse. depending on markup percentage, that could be the majority of the item's cost, or sometimes more! the sale of one cancels out the loss of another due to breakage, and the store comes up with no profit.

example: sellling a cd that at store cost is $15, and retails for $20. if one is sold, the store only really makes $5 off it. if they have to junk one, they balance out to $-10 in the net profit for that day. so that's $10 that has to be made up somewhere by jacking prices. if it happens alot, that $20 cd will eventually be a $25 or higher CD.

[gremcint]

actually the store will ship it back and get a refund if defective

[bex1218]

Cos hey with that practice you could end up having clothes that never wear out right? Every time they start to get old just buy new ones and return the old cos... the company should eat the cost right?

I know of a lot of places that don't return clothes without tags on em or if they are worn, probably due to that reason. I'm sure other stores don't give a shit.

[HYHYBT]

@hyhybt. they did not sell 2 items. only one went out the door with a customer in the end. the other is back in the store's inventory/ out of profits from the return.

Nope. Go back and read my one exception again.

[siead_lietrathua]

i didnt see a clear exception. you mentioned returning something defective, but later that both items were still good. it was kinda confusing. but either way, if they are returning one item is doesn't count as a sale. the sale is negated by the return.
2 sales + 1 return = 1 sale....

even if the item can be returned to the vendor (and not all items can once the packaging has been opened, or store brand items are junked at store level at a loss sometimes) i still think it's.. i guess tacky is the word that springs to mind. i had a weedwhacker burn out this week, about 10 days past the 90 day return period. i would never dream of buying another and switching them for the return. to me, it's the same as buying a product and returning the box full of rocks. you're trading your garbage for a good product.
also, unless you talk to the manufacturer, what you assume is a defect may be caused by user error.

(all you/you're, etc are generic)

[Mytical]

The key is not returning for money, but for another item. So the company still has the money, he just now has two working/good items.

[siead_lietrathua]

but again, they are exchanging the product that wasn't purchased at that time.
the item you are returning was unreturnable. period. by purchasing a new item and using that recipt to return the old one, you are lying. you are saying "this item belongs to this receipt and i want to return it." it doesnt matter if it's an exchange or a return because you are still lying about it. it's fraud, no matter how much you want to dress it up in excuses.

exchanging for a new product isnt any diffrent because the store is out that money. they are out the money of the sale of the third, that was perfectly fine item, for a damaged item that the store WAS NOT responisble for. an item out of return policy, and that they now have to junk.

all you/youre etc are generic (i should jsut make this line my sig.... lol)