Posted on 02/18/2008 11:02:07 AM PST by Cagey
Jimmy Deignan's first time was with a $500 portable DVD player.
He bought it a few years ago at Best Buy for a Boston-to-Los Angeles flight, knowing he would return it for a full refund when he got back. More recently, in November, rather than spending $600 to rent a LCD projector for a business presentation, the Holden resident purchased one at Staples, then returned it a few days later and got his money back.
The way Deignan sees it, he is just a smart shopper: He gets the things he needs, uses them for as long as he wants, and saves money. But to retailers, this is wardrobing, a practice they say is unethical, damaging to their bottom line, and increasingly common.
Nearly two-thirds of merchants had items wardrobed in 2007, up from 56 percent the year before, the first year the National Retail Federation started tracking the trend. Merchants blame tough economic times and a "customer-is-always right" mentality gone too far. They say a growing number of shoppers feel entitled to return used items they no longer want, and probably could not afford in the first place - from costly cocktail dresses for big events to pricey plasma televisions bought exclusively to watch the Super Bowl. So, they are striking back, instituting more restrictive return policies, imposing restocking fees, and keeping a blacklist of serial wardrobers.
"The economy drives people into this behavior - going through their closets and looking for things they can return, regardless of when they bought it or how many times they've worn it," said Dan Doyle, vice president of loss prevention at Bealls Department Stores, a retailer based in Florida with stores across the Sun Belt.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I’m with Tammy8. This is despicable and symptomatic of the lack of self-responsibility of many Americans. This issue can be directly compared to politics.
Serial returners like Democrats believe “the man” or government or big business owes them something and feel no guilt in cheating the system.
Republicans belive that you get what you deserve by honestly working and striving within the free enterprise system. They don’t believe that corporations are inherently evil so should be stolen from.
For me the definition of honesty includes NOT taking money or goods when it is morally wrong to do so even if legally ok.
If you know in advance you will definitely return something then it’s not right to buy it in the first place.
Your intent is what determines whether it’s dishonest or not. Saying there’s no inexpensive rentals has nothing to do with it. This electronics “borrowing” scam sounds not much differnt than teenagers “Joyriding” somebody’s car
I hope the stores do exhange lists of these abuser people so that legitimate returns do not have to pay restocking fees.
If there’s any justice in this world, this loser’s relatives put him in a coffin for the funeral then dumped him out into the grave and returned the coffin to the funeral home for a refund (what a cheapskate!)
So next day I went back to best buy. This time they refused to let me exchange it or get my money back. They insisted on sending it out for repairs. And told me that I would have to wait for 4-6 weeks. I waited. Took it home, and it worked. For about 9 or 10 months. Then it broke down. Instead of bringing it back to Best Buy, I went out to a different store and bought a combo single disc DVD player and VHS tape player (so that I could still watch my VHS tape collection). It was only about 60 bucks. Worked for me for about a couple years before the DVD player breaking down. Went out and bought a new one which is what I'm using now.
(I've never bought anything ever again from Best Buy)
Not the right guy. Doesn’t live in Boston.
Not the right guy. Doesn’t live in Boston.
Someone achieved something somewhere? And your point is...
“I hope that doesn’t make me a criminal.”
I think that’s a perfectly legitimate use of these return policies, and is not the sort of thing that this article is about. It’s about people who buy stuff with the intention of returning it after they get the use they need out of it, like the camcorder for the big vacation, or the big-screen TV for the superbowl. Often these policies are called “satisfaction gurantees”, or something like that - if you’re not satisfied, you can return it.
It’s really a mixed bag of things. There are patently dishonest people who “game” the whole thing and they disgust me. There are people who get a defective product right out of the box and the manufacturer expects them to wait 7-10 days for a replacement part. Often they’ve hired someone to install it who can’t do their job until the part arrives. Often, the part required does not call for the whole fixture (a kitchen faucet to be removed and reinstalled, for example) to be replaced. Why should the installer do the work and why should the homeowner pay to have that extra work done because the manufacturer sent out a defective product? So the homeowner just buys another one just like it, the required part is swapped out and the thing is returned. Often, I’ve had to go back to a person’s house the next day to finish a job that would have been complete but for a defective faucet. Naturally, nobody wants to pay me for that. In that respect, “corporatists” have only themselves to blame.
It’s really a mixed bag of things. There are patently dishonest people who “game” the whole thing and they disgust me. There are people who get a defective product right out of the box and the manufacturer expects them to wait 7-10 days for a replacement part. Often they’ve hired someone to install it who can’t do their job until the part arrives. Often, the part required does not call for the whole fixture (a kitchen faucet to be removed and reinstalled, for example) to be replaced. Why should the installer do the work and why should the homeowner pay to have that extra work done because the manufacturer sent out a defective product? So the homeowner just buys another one just like it, the required part is swapped out and the thing is returned. Often, I’ve had to go back to a person’s house the next day to finish a job that would have been complete but for a defective faucet. Naturally, nobody wants to pay me for that. In that respect, “corporatists” have only themselves to blame.
I wish ACE Hardware would do the same. LAST JUNE I bought an RCA mini-movie camera (works great) with a $30 mail in rebate, which I dutifully mailed in with all the bells and whistles required (receipt, UPC, etc.).
After three months of no response, I wrote ACE corporate headquearters. They said the company that handled rebates went bankrupt. So sorry.
I asked them to nonor the rebate and at first they said it wasn't their problem. Then they offered $15.00 if I would send in copies of the receipt, etc. I did, Twice. Four months later I am still waiting - no response - no nada.
Think I'll write RCA just for grins and see what they will do. This has become a cause celebre with me.
You think that the only legitimate reason to return something is because you "bought the wrong thing"?
First, you didn't answer my question.
Secondly, the "reason" you bought it has nothing to do with this.
The fact is that you bought it.
If you used it, the only respectable reason to return it is if it is defective, in which case they should replace it, happily.
What is wrong with accepting responsibility for ones actions?
There, now you have two questions to answer.
I guess the only other options might include selling them on e bay or at a garage sale, or maybe giving them to a charity, like a family centre at an army base. They could go to good use there.
Actually, I did. It's not my fault you lack the comprehension skills to understand it.
The fact is that you bought it.
I may not have bought it; perhaps someone else did and gave it as a gift. But suppose I had bought it, that means I should incur costs for returning it? You really are dense, aren't you? Suppose the item wasn’t as described? Supposed it was damaged? Supposed it was the wrong item a result of no fault of my own? You think that's the 'personable responsibility' of the buyer?
If you used it, the only respectable reason to return it is if it is defective, in which case they should replace it, happily.
You are wrong again...a habit of yours, I see. I never mentioned using a thing. In fact, that was the point I was making; one should be able to make a legitimate return without incurring restocking fees. Still confused? Look up the word legitimate. And I have already enumerated several circumstances which should qualify a return without cost. If that simple concept continues to escape you, do yourself a favor and avoid further embarrassment by having someone else explain it to you. You're not worth another minute of my time.
The economy made me do it! Sheesh...
The only person I ever knew who did this was a rich friend's dad. He bragged to us about buying a big TV for the Super Bowl and then returning it. He also bragged about registering his MA luxury car in NH to avoid excise tax. And have you guessed yet? He was a flaming liberal.
That's what drove Timothy Eaton out of business.
At least it does away with those pesky returns.
People who feel cornered or guilty often lash out.
I won’t take your insults personally, now that I see where they are coming from.
Maybe you did answer my question, and I didn’t see it because I didn’t want to believe it.
A so called conservative who thinks that his reason (excuse) trumps whats right, and fair.
Suppose the item wasn’t as described? Supposed it was damaged? Supposed it was the wrong item a result of no fault of my own?
If it didn’t do what the manufacturer claimed, or was damaged, the store or manufacturer should replace it if necessary or upgrade the customer to a model that does function as promised.
Supposed it was the wrong item a result of no fault of my own?
You bought the wrong thing, but it wasn’t your fault?
ROFLOL! Who’s fault was it? The store’s fault? That's where your conservatism hits the socialism wall.
Let's not. No point getting the government involved where it doesn't have to be. Private industries can take care of themselves much better than the government would manage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.