Planning to return used gear...

[duckster3d]

As someone who works for one of these "large faceless corporpations" let me assure you that this type of returns has a consequence.

My company has a return policy that allows our customers to feel confident that we will stand behind our products.

Every week I have to deal with customers who blatantly try to take advantage of their interpratation of what "unused" or "warranty" means. It is unbelievable how many of them I catch in a lie when I start asking the reason for return or what performed unsatisfactorily.

I can tell you from personal and professional experience that this type of behavior does affect other consumers and pricing, whether you think it does or not.

I don't know about cosco's return policy, but lets look at lowes, and home depot. both have 90 no questions asked return policies, on most things, there are some items that have a 30 return limit. it does not say unused, unopened, or any other limitations, gas power items have to have the tank drained, power tools need to have all packageing, and parts, other than that return at will. as someone already pointed out, these two giants still have the lowest prices around, and will match their competors prices plus 10% if you find it lower. so where is there a price increase passed onto the consumer?

so if i take advantage of their pricing policy by finding something cheaper somewhere else, and asking them to match it plus the 10% does this mean I'm stealing as well???

I've talked with managers, not 18 year old store stockers, at the stores i deal with, and they have no problem with anyone using the policy, . they see it this way they will refund the money on 100 items, and book the sales of 10,000 items. even the returners spend money on the wood, drywall doors, shingles and such.

 

[jefffalcone]

The fact that you realize that it may not be right to do it to some "Mom n’ Pop" LDS but to Costco is O.K. only further indicates that you even agree it might be morally wrong. It is called situational ethics.

Just because retailers realize they must factor in losses from theft in the price of the items they sell does not make if right to steal because they expect it. The same is true in return policies. Retailer understand that there are going to be abuses of return items but that does not make it any more acceptable behavior than any other forms of stealing.

Next time you are in a Costco ask them if it is alright for you to purchase a big screen TV for your next superbowl party and then return it for a full refund. Some 18 year employee with his own situational ethics problem may tell you it is O.K., but I can guarantee you that Costco management or corporate offices will tell you otherwise.

Liberal return policies were never instituted for the free use of goods with premeditated intent to return. Sam’s Club, as and example, has significantly changed their return policy in the last year due to abuse.

Justify it all you want. Stealing is still stealing. If we base our interpretation of stealing because of the success of a particular corporation or individual, we leave ourselves wide open to becoming victims ourselves. Anyone with less now becomes justified in stealing from someone with more.

‘Bob

I think it is wrong to do this to a mom and pop, because it does affect their bottom line. There is a distinct difference between a large corporation and a mom and pop shop. Stealing is stealing. Returning something is not stealing.

 

[Cave Diver]

so if i take advantage of their pricing policy by finding something cheaper somewhere else, and asking them to match it plus the 10% does this mean I'm stealing as well???

This is whole different scenario than buying something, using it, then returning it.

When something is returned used, the store often takes a markdown on the merchandise at store level. It counts against their bottom line and profitability.

Not only do they lose the sale, but the lose the cost of the merchandise as well. It's a lose/lose situation.

BTW, there are some states that have laws against the resale of "used" merchandise. I seem to recall Sears having a lawsuit against them some time back for "restocking" merchandise that had been used and returned and not marking it appropriately.

Just out of curiousity, how many of you would be comfortable buying underwear or other personal items if you thought someone had used them then returned them?

 

[Cave Diver]

I've talked with managers, not 18 year old store stockers, at the stores i deal with, and they have no problem with anyone using the policy, . they see it this way they will refund the money on 100 items, and book the sales of 10,000 items. even the returners spend money on the wood, drywall doors, shingles and such.

FWIW, I am a manager, not an 18 y/o stocker. In fact, I've been in management close to 18 years. I will also refund or replace items that didnt work as expected or failed to give satisfaction. I have no problem with customers that use a policy, it's the abuse of it that I question.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

Why do you care if someone takes advantage of a giant faceless corporation like costco? If people taking advantage of return policies was hurting the bottom line, the policy would change. Maybe it's dishonest to buy something planning on returning it later, but seems strange that you would waste any emotion on poor costco.
It might be worth being bothered if people were doing this to a mom and pop shop, but costco? Give me a break.

For one thing, it is stealing --which is something all of us should find offensive. (It is stealing on a couple of levels --if someone used a rental car and then returne it without paying for it, they would be charged with theft. Using a portion of something's value without paying for it is also stealing because it deprives others of its use unlawfully. Consider this, if someone bought a new car, drove it for a few weeks and then returned it --would you expect to pay full price for it? Of course not because it was used and someone stole that part of its value.)

Secondly, Costco probably does not bear the brunt of the return's costs. All huge retailers like that require any of their suppliers to pay for returns. That means Costco, WalMart, Target or anywhere else can have these generous return policies and simply pass that cost back onto normally much smaller companies.

Ultimately we all pay for that kind of thing in higher prices, restocking fees (which are imposed when we have a legitimate return) or more stringent return policies.

It is morally wrong. In a nation where so many people claim to live by some higher morality, it is truly amazing that these things go on so frequently.

Finally, if some scumbag will do that to Costco, is there any question that they would do the same thing to some small mom 'n pop store?

I don't do things like that.

Jeff

 

[cuddlefish]

The fact that a corporation allows it does make it right. You are not
hurting them, or they would not allow it. Your moral interpretation is based on a misunderstanding. If no one suffers, why is it wrong. You assume that either the company or the consumer is being hurt by this policy. The company definately is not being hurt or the policy would not exist. I can't see any evidence that the consumer is being hurt. Costco has the best prices on the products they sell.

You are applying the ethics of small business to a corporation, and it just doesn't make any sense.

You say that if no one suffers, why is it wrong. Let's say there is a very rich person who has a ton of jewelry. You take an item of that jewelry to keep for yourself. The rich person has so much jewelry that she doesn't even notice it's gone. No one suffers...so why is it wrong? It's wrong because it did not belong to you.

Someone does suffer. A mom and pop store often loses business because they need to have firmer return policies. If someone says they are going to use the gear for two weeks and then return it...the mom and pop store may not be able to accomodate that...so Costco gets their business. Now you might say that that is fine. Which would be ok if the mom and pop had an unfair policy. But they don't...they have a reasonable policy.

And, by the way, I am not wasting emotion on this as you mentioned. I said it is a pet peeve and an action that I feel is wrong. I'm not screaming and kicking in the floor over it. Like many people here, I believe that it is the intent of the action that doesn't set well with me.

But I am certainly open to experience anyone else's opinion.

 

[Otter]

Some of you guys have very finely tuned moral compasses (and a desire to tune them for others.)

Pretty rare today, eh? I am not a right-wing, bible pounding conservative. But I can still tell ya that our morals have gone down the tubes. There is a RIGHT and a WRONG and most of us know it, some actually try to follow it most of the time.

 

[merxlin]

I think it is wrong to do this to a mom and pop, because it does affect their bottom line. There is a distinct difference between a large corporation and a mom and pop shop. Stealing is stealing. Returning something is not stealing.

Let me tell you where it hurts a mom & pop. Most retailers have very liberal return terms with their vendors. Most of what is returned opened, damaged, or marked as defective (whether or not it actually is) is taken as credit from the vendors. Most vendors do not take the returns back (some retailers will not even return product to you or charge you to get back your own merchandise). The closer you are to the making of the product the less money you make from it. Big retailers are also well known for having extended credit terms and applying severe penalties to vendors for a variety of issues, including number of product returns. But based on their volume they demand and get the lowest of prices. It doesn't take much to put a small company that supplies a big retailer out of business when the retailer decides (correctly or incorrectly) to apply these penalties, take credits, or pay slow.

So it hurts in two ways. The vendor making the product has to allow for these returns in the price of goods as a waste factor. This means the cost of goods to everyone is higher. And when the small vendor can no longer operate financially because the returns exceed what was allowed for, and operate at a loss, they go broke and close up, file chapter 11 or 13 (not paying their vendors), and putting people out of work. So when you think Costco or Depot can afford it, you are correct. But remember that they do not actually make anything, so the people making the product may not be able to afford it. And they are the ones, along with you me and every other consumer, who do pay the price.

I sell product to the big box retailers, components and product to others who sell to them, and worked in retail for a long time. I have personal experience with this.

I'll stay out of the selective morality issue.

 

[Coalcracker]

I'll stay out of the selective morality issue.

It is not even selective morality. It is just slimes who think it is ok to rip off people, big or small. As you pointed out, we all pay for it in the end. Having had personal experience with Wal-Mart, and watching a good "small" company go bankrupt, 100+ people out of work, I know what the "use it and then return it" jerks can do on a local level.

 

[twinkles]

As a partial owner (and loyal customer) of Costco, I resent the suggestion that it is OK to abuse their liberal policy on returns. The policy exist so that those with ligitimate (and I don't need to define it, you know what I mean) issues can return merchandise without aggrivation. It is not so that unethical people can borrow merchandise.

I simply do not understand the mentality of people that think it is ok to take from "big corporations." Don't you realize that the owners of "big corporations" are just us everyday joes. You are stealing from us, not some big faceless entity.