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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

ETA: (please note, since its your store you are only selling items you approve of)

Edited February 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CA Steve]

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

ETA: (please note, since its your store you are only selling items you approve of)

This is their return policy.

 

 

Return Policy

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.

You have 60 days to return any items that were purchased with the original receipt, excluding Pierced Body Jewelry and Final Sale Items.

• PacSun will not accept pierced body jewelry, this includes all earrings. This policy assures our body jewelry hasn't been tried on or worn by anyone else but you.
• PacSun will only accept swim or underwear returns/exchanges that has not been worn. This policy assures our swim hasn't been tried on.

All items returned within 60 days with the original receipt will be refunded based on the original form of payment.

Any items returned after 60 days or more after purchase date will be credited for the price paid either in the form of a merchandise credit or merchandise exchange.

Returns without a receipt will either be exchanged for merchandise or credited in the form of a merchandise credit for the current selling price or the returned item.

If you purchased your return at a PacSun store, simply return it to your local PacSun store, for your refund/exchange. If you purchased online, you can mail it back to our return center using our self-addressed label.

Merchandise purchased at a PacSun store can only be returned to one of our PacSun stores.

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.

[Analytics]

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

 

LL Bean is famous for having the strongest return policy imaginable.  “100% Satisfaction Guarantee: Our products are guaranteed to give 100% satisfaction in every way.  Return anything purchase from us at any time if it proves otherwise.  We do not want you to have anything from L.L. Bean that is not completely satisfactory.”

 

An acquaintance of mine pushed that to the limit.  He bought a pair of boots, wore them out with heavy use, and then took them back to the store, complaining that he wasn’t satisfied.  He then repeated that again and again.  After 5 returns over as many years, LL Bean said they would not replace the boots again and told him he was no longer welcome in their store.

 

If my acquaintance were to sue LL Bean over this, would he win?

 

I’d suggest he wouldn’t.  Return policies don't authorize customers to abuse the merchant.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Analytics

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is their return policy.

Yes I linked to their policy on page 5 or 6. Care to answer the question asked?

[bluebell]

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

ETA: (please note, since its your store you are only selling items you approve of)

I don't think i would.

 

I wouldn't like it, but i'd more than likely still honor it (thus showing my tacit approval of what they did i guess).

 

And then i'd put my feelings in writing into my return policy and never have to worry about it again.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Fair enough. What you call "I wouldn't like it" I call "abuse."

Edited February 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

Fair enough. What you call "I wouldn't like it" I call "abuse."

 

Like i said, agree to disagree.

 

What i think our discussion actually shows though is that this issue is a gray area that is subject to a lot of personal interpretation.  I don't know that's it's fair to call this lady dishonest, or malevolent, or immoral, or abusive just because she doesn't see something this ambiguous in the exact same way that we might.

[CA Steve]

Yes I linked to their policy on page 5 or 6. Care to answer the question asked?

IMO if it were my store and a large chain I would allow returns no questions asked, period. From my own experience, I buy at stores like SamsClub and Costco becaue I know they will take anything back without question.

 

On Edit.

 

In fact in this case, if I were PacSun, I would issue a public statement affirming our return policy and stating that if the woman in question wished to purchase 18 shirts with the intent of returning them later, that was within our poilicy and that we are here to serve our customers.

Edited February 21, 2014 by CA Steve

[SeekingUnderstanding]

IMO if it were my store and a large chain I would allow return no questions asked, period. From my own experience, I buy at stores like SamsClub and Costco becaue I know they will take anything back without question.

Not what I asked. The reason stores don't address these loopholes is because customer intent is hard to prove, so they take stuff back no questions asked and it is a good policy.

Now back to my question:

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

[CA Steve]

Not what I asked. The reason stores don't address these loopholes is because customer intent is hard to prove, so they take stuff back no questions asked and it is a good policy.

Now back to my question:

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the intent to return it would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

I would consider it an opportunity to generate positive publicity for my company and, in the end, hopefully, increase overall sales.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I would consider it an opportunity to generate positive publicity for my company and, in the end, hopefully, increase overall sales.

Apparently I'm not being clear. I'm not talking about Pacsun. I'm not talking about someone on a moral crusade and generating publicity. This is not going to increase your sales. It's just going to create more work for you as you will have to restock the item and incur any financial transaction costs.

So let's try again:

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the stated intent to return it (stated reason was to hurt your business) would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

Further facts:

Customer does not go to media. Does not generate publicity. Is not on some moral crusade. S/he just doesn't like you or your store for whatever reason.

Edited February 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[seriously honestly]

I don't think i would.

 

I wouldn't like it, but i'd more than likely still honor it (thus showing my tacit approval of what they did i guess).

 

And then i'd put my feelings in writing into my return policy and never have to worry about it again.  

But it is abuse, even if you don't like it, and is the reason why the age old "the customer is always right" is going out the window.

 

They're called devil shoppers, or nightmare shoppers--people who purchase items with the intention to return them.  It's not illegal, per se, since they are still within the reciept guildlines, but they are a waste of time and money and are the reason why retailers are tightening their return policies for everyone.

[ERayR]

So the morality of one's actions now depends upon their legality? Well, then I guess I'm off to Colorado for a little marijuana and gay sex! After all, I wouldn't be breaking any laws.

 

Bye, enjoy yourself.

[bluebell]

But it is abuse, even if you don't like it, and is the reason why the age old "the customer is always right" is going out the window.

 

They're called devil shoppers, or nightmare shoppers--people who purchase items with the intention to return them.  It's not illegal, per se, since they are still within the reciept guildlines, but they are a waste of time and money and are the reason why retailers are tightening their return policies for everyone.

 

I don't personally believe it's abusive as long as the store accepts the returns.  I especially don't believe it's abusive if the store is completely aware that you are buying something as a protest and will be returning the items later and is still o.k. with it.

 

You can't just tell me that something is what i don't believe it is as if that proves something.  

[seriously honestly]

I don't personally believe it's abusive as long as the store accepts the returns.  I especially don't believe it's abusive if the store is completely aware that you are buying something as a protest and will be returning the items later and is still o.k. with it.

 

You can't just tell me that something is what i don't believe it is as if that proves something.  

Although she makes it known to the interviewer, none of the articles that I've read state that she informed the manager directly at the time of purchase that she fully intends to return them, so you can't say with 100% certainty that the store was "completely aware" and thus ok with it.

 

And generally (unless someone is a repeat offender) stores with accept the returns of such people because it's hard to prove they had intent to return when they purchased the items.  Not so in this case.

Edited February 21, 2014 by seriously honestly

[thesometimesaint]

But she really hasnt stopped any sales. She bought them. That will cause the store to order more and people will continue to have the option. Not to mention she is going to return them, which will again allow those items for purchase. There is no force involved.

 

Seems to me it's an ill thought out protest.

 

In the short run she did succeed in limiting sales, to just to herself.

 

Yes, the store probably will just order more of those T-shirts, and depending on turnaround time inconvenience some other customer.

 

She just didn't want to pay for them. Unless she is charged a restock fee then she is forcing the store to absorb the cost in payable man-hours to restock those shirts. What is it is someone claims something not their own and refuses to pay for it?

 

I'm not saying she did anything illegal. But it is questionably immoral.

 

It was ill thought out. IMNTBHO a much better tactic would be to teach her children not to want that type of T-shirt. To take it one step further to convince her neighbors to teach their children to not want that type of T-shirt. IOW Limit the Demand and clothes makers won't make more of that type of clothes.

[CA Steve]

Apparently I'm not being clear. I'm not talking about Pacsun. I'm not talking about someone on a moral crusade and generating publicity. This is not going to increase your sales. It's just going to create more work for you as you will have to restock the item and incur any financial transaction costs.

So let's try again:

If you owned a store, had a 30 day return policy for unused items and someone bought merchandise with the stated intent to return it (stated reason was to hurt your business) would you consider it abuse of your return policy?

Further facts:

Customer does not go to media. Does not generate publicity. Is not on some moral crusade. S/he just doesn't like you or your store for whatever reason.

No. Again, if my business goal is to develop a reputation for a "no questions asked return policy" then this person would actually be helping me accomplish that goal. While she may not talk about why and what she was doing, I certainly could. I have two options. I could publically complain about this person, maybe even involve the courts, which would in all likelihood result in bad publicity for me and cost me business,  (especially if it is some middle aged woman on a morality crusade) or I could turn her motives into something positive for my business and try and use it to my advantage.

[ERayR]

A question for those who think this lady was out of line.  Why do you think that we should  not uphold a community standard and that we all should be subject to and cater to the appetites of those with the basest desires and the least moral compunctions?

Edited February 21, 2014 by ERayR

[bluebell]

Although she makes it known to the interviewer, none of the articles that I've read state that she informed the manager directly at the time of purchase that she fully intends to return them, so you can't say with 100% certainty that the store was "completely aware" and thus ok with it.

 

My information comes from post #87. It includes a link, which in turn includes a video of the news report. In this video it is specifically stated that the woman told the manager she would be returning the shirts in 60 days in order to give the manager time to talk to corporate, (and the city it sounds like), and find out whether or not it's legal for them to display the shirts in the store window, or whether they will have to keep them in the back of the store.

And for the record, this woman isn't trying to keep the shirts from being sold at all. If i have understood correctly, she is just trying to keep them from being displayed in the store window. She initially asked the store to remove the display, and when they said they couldn't, she offered to buy just the shirts in the window. The manager told her though that she would have to buy out the store or they would simply put another shirt up to replace the one she bought.

So yes, unless you are suggesting that we assume this lady (and the reporter) are lying to us, we know with 100% certainty that the store is completely aware.

 

And generally (unless someone is a repeat offender) stores with accept the returns of such people because it's hard to prove they had intent to return when they purchased the items.  Not so in this case.

 

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens in 60 days then.

[thesometimesaint]

A question for those who think this lady was out of line.  Why do you think that we should  not uphold a community standard and that we all should be subject to and cater to the appetites of those with the basest desires and the least moral compunctions?

 

Because one community standards are not going to be the same as another community's standards. IE: Say my community's standard says that marriage between the races is immoral. That your community's standards are that it is OK with interracial marriage. Whose community's standards are we ALL going to be subject to? Or do we Balkinize into our own little communities separate and apart from everyone else?

Edited February 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No. Again, if my business goal is to develop a reputation for a "no questions asked return policy" then this person would actually be helping me accomplish that goal. While she may not talk about why and what she was doing, I certainly could. I have two options. I could publically complain about this person, maybe even involve the courts, which would in all likelihood result in bad publicity for me and cost me business,  (especially if it is some middle aged woman on a morality crusade) or I could turn her motives into something positive for my business and try and use it to my advantage.

Fair enough. With two people here saying they'd have no issues perhaps this view is more wide spread than I would think.

[frank_jessop]

A question for those who think this lady was out of line.  Why do you think that we should  not uphold a community standard and that we all should be subject to and cater to the appetites of those with the basest desires and the least moral compunctions?

It was not her place though. She made herself arbiter of law when she prenvented others from purchasing and displaying the shirts on their own bodies. At least she didnt burn down the shop as some orthodox are prone to do in other places. The proper method of redress, as anyone of would have learned in school, is file a complaint and let those commissioned to enforce the law handle the situation.

[CA Steve]

Fair enough. With two people here saying they'd have no issues perhaps this view is more wide spread than I would think.

I don't think there is a "one answer fits all" for return policies in all cases. If there were a customer that was consistently coming into my store to purchase items with the intent to return them and with the intent to cause me hardship and doing so over and over again, certainly there would come a point where my return policy would have to take a back seat to such an individual, especially if I were a small solo location. Rather than change my return policy, I might just refuse to provide service to her anymore by pointing that we have the right to refuse service to anyone. There are a lot of options, but usually the best way to proceed is to avoid providing the other side fodder in the form of bad publicity

Edited February 21, 2014 by CA Steve

[ERayR]

Because one community standards are not going to be the same as another community's standards. IE: Say my community's standard says that marriage between the races is immoral. That your community's standards are that it is OK with interracial marriage. Whose community's standards are we ALL going to be subject to? Or do we Balkinize into our own little communities separate and apart from everyone else?

 

IMSHO that is not a valid reason for lowering standards to the lowest moral point.

[seriously honestly]

 

My information comes from post #87. It includes a link, which in turn includes a video of the news report. In this video it is specifically stated that the woman told the manager she would be returning the shirts in 60 days in order to give the manager time to talk to corporate, (and the city it sounds like), and find out whether or not it's legal for them to display the shirts in the store window, or whether they will have to keep them in the back of the store.

And for the record, this woman isn't trying to keep the shirts from being sold at all. If i have understood correctly, she is just trying to keep them from being displayed in the store window. She initially asked the store to remove the display, and when they said they couldn't, she offered to buy just the shirts in the window. The manager told her though that she would have to buy out the store or they would simply put another shirt up to replace the one she bought.

So yes, unless you are suggesting that we assume this lady (and the reporter) are lying to us, we know with 100% certainty that the store is completely aware.

 

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens in 60 days then.

 

 

I didn't watch a video prior, so thank you for bring that to my attention.  I know her intention was to prevent them from being on display and not necessarily the being sold, but she mentioned she would buy more if they were on display again. This pattern could give Pacsun leverage to not honor the return (she is wasting  their time and money), in which case she would stuck with X number of horrible shirts and out hundreds of dollars.

Edited February 21, 2014 by seriously honestly