Women Buys All The Indecent T-Shirts In Orem Store Mall.

[Analytics]

So you know what the stores return policy is? Please post it if possible because that would add greatly to the discussion.

So far all we've had are people calling her dishonest and other names without having any clue what the return policy actually was.

Also, does it make it less malevolent abuse of the policy (which will be great to see finally) if the store knew why she was buying them, and also knew she was going to return them, and sold them to her anyway without a problem with her plans?

 

You make a fair point about the manager being aware of the nature of the purchase up front and not objecting then.  If I were PacSun, the truth is I'd gladly accept the return this one time, and would thank her for the free advertising.  I'd also make it clear that if she--or any other community standards vigelantes tried to do this again, that time the sale would be final.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Analytics

[bluebell]

We offer a "Satisfaction Guarantee" policy on all purchases. Just ship your purchase back in the condition you received it, in the original bag/box and with the tags on it anytime within 60 days from the purchase.

Buy One Get One Promotions Return & Exchange Policy: You may exchange any BOGO item that was charged $0.00 for items of equal or lesser value of the original value. BOGO item(s) that were charged at $0.00 will not be refunded. Qualifying item Refund/Exchange requests will be processed referencing the dollar value originally charged.

Return Options

Choose from 3 different options to return merchandise purchased from PacSun.com:

Option 1

Smart Label:

Complete the Return/Exchange Section on the pacing slip from your order.

Enclose the return / exchange section in your return package.

Remove or cover any previous labels, barcodes or tape on the exterior of the package being used.

Bring your package to any authorized U.S. Postal Service facility (at home, work, or a Post Office).

You pay nothing upfront. $5.95 will be deducted from your refund / exchange.

Don't have a return label? Don't worry, just click Create a Return Label and follow the same easy steps! Make sure to write down the return number for future tracking. If you have more than one package, you will need to create and pay for an additional label. Each label is unique and can only be used once.

Track your return package: Just click on Track a Smart Return Label to track your return/exchange package. Please have the return number ready. The return number is located on the front of the packing slip included with your order. If you created a return label, please enter the complete tracking number provided. If you've already attempted to track your package and continue to have questions or concerns regarding your shipment, please contact us.

Option 2: Return to a PacSun Store. Bring the return item along with the packing slip and credit card used for payment to any PacSun store. Amazon and PayPal orders may not be returned to a PacSun store.

Option 3: Return on your own. Ship return item(s) to the address listed below. Upon receipt we will process your return. Shipping fees are non- refundable. We recommend insuring your package.

PacSun Returns Dept.

21800 West 167th Street

Olathe, KS 66062

AMAZON, PAYPAL & V.me RETURNS

Amazon, Paypal & V.me purchases cannot be returned to your local PacSun store. Mail your items to the address below.

PacSun Returns Dept.

21800 West 167th Street

Olathe, KS 66062

From the day you shipped your return package to us, please allow 10-14 business days to process your return. Your refund will be processed via the Payment Method on your original order.

http://www.pacsun.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-pacsun-Site/default/mPage-Show?cid=uCustomerService-ReturnsExchanges

It doesn't seem like she broke any of the return policy rules.

Thanks cal for providing this.

Edited February 21, 2014 by bluebell

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not impressed. Good for her having her convictions and good for her for wasting money on materialism. I guess it would have been a much bigger waste to give the same money to charity or organizations that help the marginal.

[Calm]

That was the online policy, actual store policy is the same...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So you know what the stores return policy is? Please post it if possible because that would add greatly to the discussion.

The return policy is found here: http://www.pacsun.com/customer-service/frequently-asked-questions.html#.

So far all we've had are people calling her dishonest and other names without having any clue what the return policy actually was.

Also, does it make it less malevolent abuse of the policy (which will be great to see finally) if the store knew why she was buying them, and also knew she was going to return them, and sold them to her anyway without a problem with her plans?

Why do you think that return policies exist bluebell? Do you think that Pacsun intended for their return policy to be used this way? If something is not against the letter of the law, might it be against the spirit of the law? Please note, I'm not condemning the woman as sometimes different moral imperatives can be in conflict with each other. I will say, however, that she is abusing the return policy of the store.

What if the church paid Barnes and Nobles to prominently display one of President Monson's books for one month. Would it be ethical for evangelicals to go into each store, buy all the books on display with the intent to return them after the promotion ended?

[flameburns623]

I have a problem with this lady’s ethics.  She purchased the t-shirts with the full intention of returning them.  This was done to deplete the merchant’s inventory so that it couldn’t display or sell the merchandise to people who might be interested.  This is a malevolent abuse of the merchant’s return policy.

 

She reminds me of anti-Mormons who go to Temple Square to argue with the missionaries in order to prevent the missionaries from having the time to talk with people who might be interested in hearing what they have to say. 

 

When malevolent guests visit Temple Square, the Church should be free to make exceptions to its “Visitor’s Welcome” policy and kick out the malevolent guests.  When a malevolent shopper buy a merchant’s inventory with the sole purpose of disrupting its sales, the merchant should be free to make exceptions to its return policy and not give the money back to the malevolent guest.

She bought the merchandise in the display window in the belief that it was in violation of local decency ordinances, when the local retail manager indicated he was bound by the policies of his upper management to display it.

She was attempting to abate a nuisance. In the interim she clearly expects the local manager to investigate her allegation that his display was in violation of law and to consult with his superiors about the matter. Meanwhile, this woman presumably entered a complaint and--as we know--went to the press to make known her act of protest.

If overzealous LDS Missionaries on Temple Square impede my way and refuse to allow me lawful use of the public sidewalk, I can warn them they are in violation of law and I can call law enforcement to compel them to move. Under certain circumstances I can abate the nuisance by using limited and necessary force, or the threat of it, to cause them to move.

Also: although anti-LDS who engage Missionaries in order to deter them from making contact with genuinely interested prospects are behaving distastefully but not immorally. Actually they are acting in service of morality, as they see it. (I don't share their sense that this is appropriate: on the other hand, I do support the behavior of pro-life activists who attempt to engage women at abortuaries, in order to persuade them not to go forward with murdering their babies).

Point is--nothing illegal took place, this was a lawful retail exchange which other retailer could have refused, and in all likelihood the merchandise remained available to order even if it was not available to display.

[bluebell]

You make a fair point about the manager being aware of the nature of the purchase up front and not objecting then. If I were PacSun, the truth is I'd gladly accept the return this one time, and would thank her for the free advertising. I'd also make it clear that if she--or any other community standards vigelantes tried to do this again, that time the sale would be final.

Probably the best course of action for pacsun in the future (if what this lady is going to do truly bothers them) is to write this kind of situation into their return policy so the are legally covered.

Otherwise any verbal refusal to honor their policy could be challenged in court. They could definitely still win the case but it would cost time and money they'd probably rather not spend.

I wonder if this situation will cause other retailers to think about adding their own 'anti protest' clauses in their return policies just to nip this kind of thing in the bud?

That's probably what is be doing.

[Analytics]

I am not a lawyer.  With that out of the way, sure, the parties are free to agree to a "malevolent shopper" exception (the store, by offering its items for sale and posting its return policy, including the "malevolent shopper" exception, conspicuously; the customer, by making a purchase).  However, contract law generally doesn't make inquiry into the "worthiness" of a contracting party's reasons for entering into a contract.  All it cares about is whether each party fulfills his end of the bargain (which essentially is payment by the agreed-upon terms in this case).  If part of the bargain allows me to return merchandise without penalty within a certain period of time (or for a partial refund, say, less a restocking fee [perhaps, at least in part, to discourage me from purchasing for "non-consumer" or "malevolent" reasons, which the store is perfectly free to do]) then the other party should honor its part of the bargain, as well.  If there is no contract provision allowing it to do so (or if such a provision is not a generally-accepted part of the way the industry usually does business), then the store has no right to dishonor its contract or to renege on its end of the bargain because the shopper was "malevolent."

 

I'd argue that the malevolent shopper isn't legally entitled to a refund because of the central concept of consideration in contract law.  For a contract to be valid, both parties of the deal must receive something of value.  If somebody purchases something with the full intention of returning it for a refund, and does it for the explicit purpose of harming the other party, I don't think there is a valid contract to begin with. There was no "meeting of the minds."  The return is made not because the customer didn't end up being satisfied with a legitimate purchase--the return was made for the same purpose the original purchase was made: to harm the seller.

 

 

 

Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise...

In order to meet consideration's requirements, a contract must fulfill three elements. First, there must be a bargain regarding terms of an exchange. Second, there must be a mutual exchange. In other words, both parties must get something out of the contract. Third, the exchange must be something of value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law

Edited February 21, 2014 by Analytics

[bluebell]

I'm not impressed. Good for her having her convictions and good for her for wasting money on materialism. I guess it would have been a much bigger waste to give the same money to charity or organizations that help the marginal.

 

Since she's returning them, she's not wasting any money.

[bluebell]

The return policy is found here: http://www.pacsun.com/customer-service/frequently-asked-questions.html#.

Why do you think that return policies exist bluebell? Do you think that Pacsun intended for their return policy to be used this way? If something is not against the letter of the law, might it be against the spirit of the law? Please note, I'm not condemning the woman as sometimes different moral imperatives can be in conflict with each other. I will say, however, that she is abusing the return policy of the store.

How can she be abusing the store's return policy, if the store knows what she's doing and is alright with it?

 

What if the church paid Barnes and Nobles to prominently display one of President Monson's books for one month. Would it be ethical for evangelicals to go into each store, buy all the books on display with the intent to return them after the promotion ended?

It would depend on the store's return policy.  I wouldn't really have a problem with it personally and wouldn't find it unethical.  The store would lose nothing, the church would lose nothing, and the free publicity would benefit Monson's book.

[BlueDreams]

Dictionary police.  If women were "literally" being sold, it would be literally be slavery.

 

All that is literally being sold is a t-shirt that features an artistic image of sexyness. 

 

You know sometimes it's ok to be grammatically incorrect. Ain't gonna kill nuthin. But for you, it now says the image of women. Although if I wanted to be even more correct I could say, they literally put image of almost solely women's bodies on a shirt to sell, because the T's I found online were largely close ups of their butts provocatively pushed out or focused on their bods with little to nothing of their faces showing.....making the images entirely about their figure to suggest cheap sex for teen boys to purchase and hang on themselves.

 

And artistic is not a word I'd ever use for those crappily done T's. That's a definite misuse of words. There's artistic nudity. There's artistic sexuality. This ain't it.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 21, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Analytics]

Probably the best course of action for pacsun in the future (if what this lady is going to do truly bothers them) is to write this kind of situation into their return policy so the are legally covered.

Otherwise any verbal refusal to honor their policy could be challenged in court. They could definitely still win the case but it would cost time and money they'd probably rather not spend.

I wonder if this situation will cause other retailers to think about adding their own 'anti protest' clauses in their return policies just to nip this kind of thing in the bud?

That's probably what is be doing.

 

How can she be abusing the store's return policy, if the store knows what she's doing and is alright with it?

 

It would depend on the store's return policy.  I wouldn't really have a problem with it personally and wouldn't find it unethical.  The store would lose nothing, the church would lose nothing, and the free publicity would benefit Monson's book.

 

The store certainly loses--the reason it goes through the considerable expense of carrying and displaying an inventory is to make sales.  When somebody makes the store go through a considerable hassle that is designed to prevent them from making sales, the store loses quite a bit.

 

Engaging in this type of activity might be considered cute once to make a point.  But if people start coppying this strategy, there is no reason retailers should be expected to play along.  They can clarify that in their return policy just to cover all their bases, but I don't think they should have to.

[Damien the Leper]

Since she's returning them, she's not wasting any money.

 

If she did this to make a point then her efforts fall flat. She wasted money in the first place which in turn has wasted her time and the time of PacSun. Maybe she should just stay home and come up with her own clothing line and leave businesses alone.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

How can she be abusing the store's return policy, if the store knows what she's doing and is alright with it?

While the manager of the store may been okay with it (it is not clear to me, but perhaps this has been covered in a post somewhere thus far), that does not mean the store is okay with it. The manager in question didn't even have authority to take the shirts out of the display window right? The manager does not equal owner or the store. Again, why do you think return policies exist? Do you think any business owner intends for their return policy to be used this way?

 

It would depend on the store's return policy.  I wouldn't really have a problem with it personally and wouldn't find it unethical.  The store would lose nothing, the church would lose nothing, and the free publicity would benefit Monson's book.

You are assuming they would publicize their actions similar to this women. Why would they do that? Let's assume that they did it in secret with no media involvement. Still okay with it?

[bluebell]

The store certainly loses--the reason it goes through the considerable expense of carrying and displaying an inventory is to make sales.  When somebody makes the store go through a considerable hassle that is designed to prevent them from making sales, the store loses quite a bit.

 

Engaging in this type of activity might be considered cute once to make a point.  But if people start coppying this strategy, there is no reason retailers should be expected to play along.  They can clarify that in their return policy just to cover all their bases, but I don't think they should have to.

 

The store makes money on the sale of the protested item, and on the people who come in to support the store against the perceived 'injustice of the protest'.  If the item is returned, the store can sell it again.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a hassle, which is why i said in an earlier post that if owned a retail store, i'd be writing this kind of thing into my return policy right now.  I agree that I don't think any retailer should HAVE to deal with this kind of thing, unless they don't protect themselves from it.  

 

But in the long run the store doesn't really lose anything.  It's free advertising, which could be worth millions in today's market if the news goes national.

 

PacSun is probably loving that woman right now.  

[strappinglad]

The woman did what a citizen could do. She even put her money to back up her concerns. The store was sympathetic but greedy, self-serving, amoral 'corporate' has a 'policy'. So , the woman took advantage of another one of corporates policies. What's good for the goose...

Some here would defend a company's desire to put Amsterdam style window displays in a daycare.

[Analytics]

Without commenting on the incident in the report, as a journalist, I would give this news story a grade of C minus.

 

The reason I grade it down is the use of the term "ultraconservative" in characterizing Utah county.  Calling Utah County "ultraconservative" (a subjective determination and a potentially inflammatory or prejudicial label) without attribution amounts to editorializing in straight news reporting, a practice that is frowned upon in the profession.

 

 

The fact that there is a serious conversation going on about whether or not this violates Orem's community standards proves that it is ultra-conservative.

 

 

Calling her a "vigilante" is ridiculous. She has violated no laws. Neither has she taken the law into her own hands which, by definition, is what a vigilante does.

 

You may not like or approve of her behavior. But she has acted within the law just as surely as did the store when it put merchandise on display which, arguably, is inconsistent with prevailing community standards.

 

Calling her a vigilante is precicely correct.  The mall owner and police refused to enforce "community standards," so she took the law into her own hands to do what she perceived them as not doing.

[bluebell]

While the manager of the store may been okay with it (it is not clear to me, but perhaps this has been covered in a post somewhere thus far), that does not mean the store is okay with it. The manager in question didn't even have authority to take the shirts out of the display window right? The manager does not equal owner or the store. Again, why do you think return policies exist? Do you think any business owner intends for their return policy to be used this way?

The manager should know the store's return policy.  If the manage knows that what the woman is doing is allowed under the store's return policy, then the owner of the store should be aware of the same thing (you'd hope, anyway).

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens when the woman goes back to return the items though.  There is still time for corporate PacSun to stop the store from honoring their return policy, and if that happens, then we'll know better what the owner actually thinks of the situation.

 

All this hypothetical stuff is just made up angst until it can be compared to the actual reactions of the company in question.

You are assuming they would publicize their actions similar to this women. Why would they do that? Let's assume that they did it in secret with no media involvement. Still okay with it?

 

 

They would have to publicize it in order to organize such a protest. And they would have to publicize in order for their protest to have any meaning.

 

If a group of people were secretly buying bulk items because they felt they were harmful, but didn't tell anyone that, what is the point of buying the items?  The store isn't going to know what's going on and will continue business as usual and the books will be restocked before the group has a chance to return any of them, and no one else will know what's going on so when they go in to buy a book that's not available, they will think it's because the book is so popular and awesome, and if they wanted to buy it in the first place, will probably want to buy it even more.

 

Your pretend scenario doesn't work without the publicity.  What if's shouldn't require us to suspend logic to make a point.

 

I get that you think what the woman did was bad.  I disagree.  I think it was dumb, but i don't think it was unethical.

[bluebell]

Calling her a vigilante is precicely correct.  The mall owner and police refused to enforce "community standards," so she took the law into her own hands to do what she perceived them as not doing.

 

When did the mall owner and the police refuse to enforce 'community standards'?  I've followed this pretty closely so far and i haven't read anything about the mall owner or the police even being involved yet.  What did i miss?

[Analytics]

The store makes money on the sale of the protested item, and on the people who come in to support the store against the perceived 'injustice of the protest'.  If the item is returned, the store can sell it again.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a hassle, which is why i said in an earlier post that if owned a retail store, i'd be writing this kind of thing into my return policy right now.  I agree that I don't think any retailer should HAVE to deal with this kind of thing, unless they don't protect themselves from it.  

 

But in the long run the store doesn't really lose anything.  It's free advertising, which could be worth millions in today's market if the news goes national.

 

PacSun is probably loving that woman right now.  

 

I agree about this particular incidence.  I do admire this woman for her creativity and spunk.  And if I were PacSun, not only would I give her a full refund when she returned, I'd also give her a $100 PacSun gift certificate as a token of thanks.

 

But if this happens again, the tactic will get old really quick.

 

In general, I would expect a half-decent attorney to successfully convince any judge that PacSun has no legal obligation to make a refund in these situations--even leaving the written return policy as-is. 

Edited February 21, 2014 by Analytics

[bluebell]

If she did this to make a point then her efforts fall flat. She wasted money in the first place which in turn has wasted her time and the time of PacSun. Maybe she should just stay home and come up with her own clothing line and leave businesses alone.

 

I agree that I think it was a dumb move, but then i'm sure other people think i do dumb stuff sometimes too when i'm trying to stand behind my convictions.

 

We ALL do dumb stuff sometimes when we are actually trying to do the right thing.  I think i'd rather have a group of people who don't stay home, but who try to do the right thing, even if they get it wrong sometimes, than a group of people who don't ever stand up for anything they believe in because someone else might call it dumb.

 

[Analytics]

When did the mall owner and the police refuse to enforce 'community standards'?  I've followed this pretty closely so far and i haven't read anything about the mall owner or the police even being involved yet.  What did i miss?

 

My point is simply that if they would have enforced the alleged "community standards", the offensive t-shirts wouldn't have been in the window in the first place.

 

If a retailer is breaking the standards of the mall or the legal standards of the community, the civilized thing to do is inform mall management or the police.  Taking care of the situation yourself is being a vigelante.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The manager should know the store's return policy.  If the manage knows that what the woman is doing is allowed under the store's return policy, then the owner of the store should be aware of the same thing (you'd hope, anyway).

 

Just because the store manager is complicit doesn't mean it abuses the return policy any less.

 

They would have to publicize it in order to organize such a protest. And they would have to publicize in order for their protest to have any meaning.

The purpose of the protest is to remove the promoted items from view (not to gain publicity for removing the items from view). The church pays for a month long promotion. During the promotion, no books are on display (hence no promotion) because these evangelicals buy them all. Once the books are returned, the promotion is over and President's Monson's book is back on an obscure shelf where no one will ever see it (unless they are looking for it).

 

I get that you think what the woman did was bad.  I disagree.  I think it was dumb, but i don't think it was unethical.

I'm not saying she was bad and agree she was dumb (had she not publicized her actions, she might have done some good). Some of our most honored heroes broke the rules. Judging whether an action is overall ethical is difficult and subject to individual interpretation.

What is unambiguous is that she is abusing the store's return policy. While she may comply with the letter of the stated policy, that policy assumes good faith on the part of the buyer which is absent in this case. Can you imagine any business that would support this kind of thing? If you owned a business would you support this type of return?

Edited February 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

My point is simply that if they would have enforced the alleged "community standards", the offensive t-shirts wouldn't have been in the window in the first place.

Generally, someone has to complain first before the decency laws (and we aren't talking about 'community standards' but actual laws voted on by the people of Orem.  Most counties in America have decency laws so they aren't unusual in that regard) can be enforced.  That's what happened in this same mall when Victoria's Secret got out of bounds.  Someone complained and the store got to remove the display when it was investigated and discovered they had indeed done something illegal.

 

If a retailer is breaking the standards of the mall or the legal standards of the community, the civilized thing to do is inform mall management or the police.  Taking care of the situation yourself is being a vigelante.

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

If I understand correctly, if someone is attempting to do something illegal in the moment, a person can, according to the law, intervene up to a point of course and THEN call the police.  

 

It's still legal for someone to make a citizen's arrest for example, without being charged with vigilantism.   

[bluebell]

Just because the store manager is complicit doesn't mean it abuses the return policy any less.

 

Yes, i know you believe that. From my perspective, you haven't successfully argued that point. That is why i said we are going to have to agree to disagree.