[cooledcannon]

This whole thread is facepalm.

Quick backstory.

OP made a mistake buying candles from a store. He wants to return them, but store doesnt want to, and shouldnt be obligated to because its not the stores fault. It was OP's. Store allows OP to take store credit. OP abuses the law to cash out the gift cards as Cali mandates stores to cash them out if under $10, and OP asked for gift cards with low value so he can do just that.

http://np.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comme...ly/chw1695

http://np.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comme...ly/chw17bp

http://np.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comme...?context=3

Some interesting comments(paraphrased):

Its a big business so they can handle the loss, more than OP.

Its not morally wrong because they get the item back.(despite the fact that the item is worth less than the money to the store, the reason why the store is selling the item. Plus its more difficult to plan for margins without knowing your inventory/cash. Most importantly, the store owner doesnt want to return)

You are defending the 1% (I dont even want to respond to this, but many investors in the company are nowhere near 1%ers, plus theres no reason why rich people should be targets for theft)



Sorry if this is a Junk thread, just thought you guys might be interested. Also I lean more libertarian than most, so you may disagree with me.

[Dr. Howard]

The guy should be strung up just for buying candles...just kidding, it just sounds like a dick move in general and it sounds like a bunch of people commenting/supporting who don't own businesses themselves.

[Slick Shimmer]

This is similar to what I used to do with specialized electronic devices and the like.
I'd buy them with store credit, and return them on the 29th day.

I'd also replace items I already owned with brand new versions, and return the old ones in the box. Unlike the government, I don't consider corporations to be "people" and therefore have no moral obligation to play fair.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

That's low, not to mention a whole lot of strategy and effort just to "get his due" for a few dollars. This guy is probably a white knight in real life.

If I buy something by mistake or just don't like it (and the product is completely fine otherwise), I'll just take it to the store, apologize for the mistake and take what they offer. Usually they give cash because they see that I'm not dicking them around like this one.

[polymath]

lol Reddit.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Can't the store just put the items back on the shelf and sell them again? Why is it bad for him to be able to get a cash refund?

[cooledcannon]

(06-02-2014 01:45 AM)polymath Wrote:  

lol Reddit.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Can't the store just put the items back on the shelf and sell them again? Why is it bad for him to be able to get a cash refund?

Just explaining(Its hard to convey tone on the internet, but this is an explanatory tone not an angry/mad one), I said this many times in the threads, and probably in the original post:

The store wants to sell items. The items are far less valuable to the store than the money its charging for it. If people could force the store to buy items for that price, stores everywhere would go bankrupt.

Also, margins. When people dont do lame returns, the store has a more accurate figure of how much inventory, and how much cash they have. Keeping an optimal amount of inventory helps because too much and you are wasting space, and it may spoil if its perishable. Too little and you can run it out.

Also, if you dont have to keep as much money on hand to return to customers, you can actually directly cash it out and use it right away, instead of having to keep a fund for it. Both of these increase profit, which can be used to make the store better, products cheaper and w/e.

Arguably customer satisfaction from "no questions asked" return policy is likely greater than the above, but obviously this store disagrees and the customer doesnt really have a right(morally, anyway, but obv in Cali they have the legal right) to take money back.

[polymath]

(06-02-2014 01:53 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 01:45 AM)polymath Wrote:  

lol Reddit.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Can't the store just put the items back on the shelf and sell them again? Why is it bad for him to be able to get a cash refund?

Just explaining(Its hard to convey tone on the internet, but this is an explanatory tone not an angry/mad one), I said this many times in the threads, and probably in the original post:

The store wants to sell items. The items are far less valuable to the store than the money its charging for it. If people could force the store to buy items for that price, stores everywhere would go bankrupt.

Also, margins. When people dont do lame returns, the store has a more accurate figure of how much inventory, and how much cash they have. Keeping an optimal amount of inventory helps because too much and you are wasting space, and it may spoil if its perishable. Too little and you can run it out.

Also, if you dont have to keep as much money on hand to return to customers, you can actually directly cash it out and use it right away, instead of having to keep a fund for it. Both of these increase profit, which can be used to make the store better, products cheaper and w/e.

Arguably customer satisfaction from "no questions asked" return policy is likely greater than the above, but obviously this store disagrees and the customer doesnt really have a right(morally, anyway, but obv in Cali they have the legal right) to take money back.

No offense taken my good dude.