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.
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.