I've always seen store returns as an ethical issue. If at the time of purchase I have full information about the product, I see it as unethical to change my mind a few days latter simply because of buyers remorse. One of the examples given in the article mentions the author returned a playstation after playing it for a few days. I don't see how this is a reasonable return, and it cost the store money all because the buyer was fickle.

The main story from the article is a bit different, as the user bought the case expecting X and got Y. I have no problem with returns of this nature. A reasonably informed consumer would not expect there to be two products from the same company, with the same name just only sold at different locations.

I'd probably call up AMEX and cancel the charge.

For example, managers often have the discretion to extend the duration of stated policies; in my experience, they're happy to do so if it'll please the customer. This costs the stores some money, but the people in charge keep the policies in place, so they must have judged them a net win to their business. I'm happy to take advantage of the convenience it offers me; in fact, I'm more likely to shop at a store with a lax return policy, and likely to buy more, as I know I can return it later if I don't like it. Presumably, it's this tradeoff that the store owners are after.

There's the problem. You assume full information is available up-front. In my opinion, a return policy is actually the method by which the consumer obtains full information.

Say I'm buying a TV. The interwebs will have all of the numerical information, and the showroom will have a demo playing on it, but that doesn't reflect the lighting conditions of my own home. Maybe there's an inaudible high-pitch noise that freaks out my cat. Maybe it gives me headaches after 4 hours, where my current TV doesn't do that until 6 hours.

These are all examples of information that is relevant to my purchase decision, which is not available at purchase time. Thus, your hypothesis of full information is invalid. The easiest way to obtain this information, is through a trial period of some sort. A return policy is morally equivalent to a trial period, optimized for the most common use-case.

For example, Costco's return policy is absolutely amazing. I purchased an air bed from them and after sleeping on it (ahh, being a college kid) for 7 months one of the ribs holding the form together broke and it had this weird bubble in it. I brought it back to Costco, and replaced it with another one.

I don't abuse it, but I don't think that a product should have to be replaced at 7 months in. I've done the same thing with a foam mattress I bought from Costco, after sleeping on it for 2 years the manufacturer refused to replace it even-though there was a huge "dent" in the middle so that sleeping on the bed meant you rolled into the middle automatically (made it uncomfortable to sleep with my girlfriend, now fiancée). Brought it back and we bought a mattress with springs.

The amount of money I've spent at Costco far outweighs the cost of them doing the replacement for me, and the cost for dealing with the manufacturer.

If you want to use an AirBed continuously, be prepared to plunk a minimum of $700, and upwards of $5,000 for a top of the line Comfortaire.

People seem fickle sometimes, but why should they have to drop lots of money to take home a product that doesnt work for them? Example: back in the 90's, Packard Bell shipped a monitor with this massive bezel which didn't fit in most "computer furniture" of the era. No measurements were on the box. Result? 20% return rate. Packard Bell "fixed" this problem by offering a rebate that required you to remove stickers necessary for return.

The average US household makes less that $50k/year. Gadgets aren't cheap -- return policies give consumers the confidence to take a risk on a new product.

However, I do think consumers should take the time to educate themselves about the products they buy.

EDIT - I'd like to add there is very little rational or reasonable going on in the head of most shoppers!

I really hope this doesn't become a common thing to say here.

On the other hand, I like liberal return laws because we're getting increasingly good at manipulating people with marketing. Giving people the opportunity to realise that the product doesn't make them feel as amazing as the marketing implied is probably useful.

People are simply looking for a quick fix rather than addressing the root problem.

That's why I love Collect+ so much. http://www.collectplus.co.uk/merchants

There are several Best Buys near me, and I'd love to buy stuff online and go run and pick it up when I find that it's available in one of the stores. Every single time I've tried, I ended up going to Amazon and just getting it the next day that way.

I don't care about the price, I just want it to work.

If Best Buy dropped its prices to something reasonable I would be more inclined to purchase my electronics in their store right there and then because there is something to be said for the convenience of instantly having the product in my hands rather than having to wait for something to ship from a warehouse, it just isn't worth 2 or 3 times the price.

(I'm not a Best Buy sympathizer, just a hypothesis)

I think they are trying to avoid the probably very common scenario where you forget your headphones for a trip, nothing to worry about, just buy a pair from the Express machine, return them as soon as you are back home.

In the case of the article, they're clearly going after the convenience market, but it's my opinion that attaching their branding to it then not following their brand-standard policies is a little disingenuous.

It sure is in Texas, and probably most other jurisdictions. Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices/Consumer Protection Act, it is considered a "false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice" to

(3) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;

(5) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;

and others from the "laundry list" covered by the DTPA. The days of caveat emptor are over in Texas, and if they don't give you your money back and make you go to small claims, and you prove your case, you are automatically awarded treble (triple) damages up to the first $1,000 of damages, plus costs and attorney fees. Sadly, most people have never heard of this law.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/BC/htm/BC.17.... http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V8N2pdf/V8N2deceptive.pdf

Best Buy was the one who selected the item, put it behind glass where it couldn't be examined, and then wrote the FYIGM policy. They are also the one that wants to have a brand as a reliable retailer.

If they're smart, they'll make this right.

The problem here is that you are really at the mercy of the vending machine. While the company may want to prevent buyers remorse (or even taking advantage by buying a gadget just to use for a flight then try to return it), you can't expect people to be comfortable buying anything that costs a decent amount (for me that would be > $20) without being reassured that if it isn't what they thought it would be they wouldn't be charged.

(This is the odd thing I find in reports from the U.S. ... usually there are some such laws, and I have friends who claim to have used them successfully, but journalists never talk about them.)

I tried to return a phone I bought at Target when it simply stopped working two months later. No, I didn't have the manual and box it came in (why the hell do they think anyone keeps that?) and I had thrown out my receipt long ago and couldn't remember which credit card I used and I was trying to return it to a different store than the one I bought it from.

Target took the phone back and gave me a new one without complaint.

It was well outside their return policy (should have some proof of purchase), and it took a manager to approve it, and someone to manually look through the stores databases for 2 months back to find my transaction, but they were professional and polite all the way and never questioned the return.

I don't expect to return stuff often, but I shop at Target a lot in part because I know I won't get hassled if I need to.

And yes, we do have customer protection laws, but that's a last resort.

2) Amazon customer service is awesome, I experienced this first hand at xmas when my little boys 3DS wasn't charging properly, I emailed customer service to send a new charger and they just sent a whole new device and give me 28 days to return the other one.

That is what I call customer service

That said, other than the novelty of it, there's no reason to buy electronics this way.

You need something, they are selling it, you buy it

It seems like a store saying that the purchase was made with a clearly stated return policy would be hard to argue against to your bank.

The customer service has been outstanding. I've never spent a minute on hold, and of the three disputes I've had (one identity theft, one double charge, one true merchant dispute) they've canceled the charge in seconds without question. I received a confirmation letter in the mail about a week later and that was the end of it each time. It's been a completely different experience than when I had a "free pizza" card.

I've found that when you come in to your bank to close out all your accounts, especially with an ATM card/freshly filled out paperwork for another bank they usually ask if there is anyway they can keep your business. At such times they've been known to recall that the #1 policy is making money, and they don't make very much money when your accounts are at another institution.

It's good to move your accounts around every now and then someone's always got a free iPod or whatever.

Either way, switching banks regularly in order to steal electronics from stores doesn't sound like very ethical advice.

Now he can't return it to get the device he really wanted to buy and reasonably assumed he would be buying. I don't know whether it's ethical, perhaps a philosopher can weigh in on that, in the meantime I think the author wants his cash back and the device returned.

About the iPod I meant the offers the banks make when you open accounts and move a bill or two and deposit a couple hundred bucks for a month or two.

What are the ethics around the myriad of fees surrounding VISA/MasterCard? What's the ethics around cutting off wikileaks from funding? What are the ethics around selling cables at 800% markup using illogical arguments about digital cables being 'better'?

The world isn't an ethical place my friend.

99% of the time, people play by the rules and play fair by each other. If those things you listed were excuses for lying and cheating your way out of paying anything you wanted, there would be no modern society; it'd be chaos.

People that act as you described (who at any little upset, immediately turn to threatening the business with everything under the sun.. and in this case, are threatening a business that has nothing to do with the kiosk the purchase was made at) really grind my gears. Luckily, I've only encountered a few of the type out of tens of thousands of customers.

How much do you think someone should have to actually have some leverage?

  export devilsadvocate="1"

Trying to return something to a store is not fraud. This guy in particular always intended to pay for a case like his wife's. If he didn't get what he expected, then returning the product for a refund is reasonable and legal. If he sends them a note saying, "I am returning the product and canceling my payment; where should I send it?" then no fraud has been committed.

I'd fully expect to be sued for fraud and lose if I attempted what's being described here.

Also, the stuff printed on a dot-matrix receipt does not have the force of law. A store's policies describe what they normally do. That's just where you begin the negotiation.

Turn it around a bit. Let's say you buy something from your average big box store, like a piece of software. You are informed both by signs in the store, on your reciept, and let's say you're extra cautious and ask the checker what the return policy is.

That policy is always some variation on "Opened software will not be accepted for refund, only exchange of the same item".

You buy the item anyways.

Later, you decide you don't like it - not because it's defective, because that's an entirely separate category of law (and you could always do an exchange anyways), but that you simply decide you don't want it anymore.

You take it to the front counter and attempt to do a refund. Denied - the clerk and manager both point at the sign on the wall and the text on your reciept with the same refund policy text from earlier.

You go home, call your card company, and attempt to do a chargeback.

How is what you did not fraudulent? Did you not accept the terms by purchasing something from a company that said they won't take $item back? You are basically forcing the company to give you money against their will - all while you still have the item. There's no obligation in law that entitles you to a refund.

I don't mean this to be offensive, but people like you are what scare me in the business world. If you don't like a retailer's posted policies, you should shop elsewhere.

If you'd like to carry on getting screwed just because somebody put some lawyerese on a sign, feel free. That's what consumers do, I guess. But negotiation is a fundamental part of business. I'm starting business #5 now, and I've always been happy to make things right for a customer. If Best Buy is smart they'll do that here just like they do in the stores.

Problem is I disagree with your premise, namely that an "attempt" to return something is good enough in the face of a policy that says "no returns". And then you come back and take my money anyways. WTF dude?

I'd love to see something that backs that up.

You're beyond negotiation at that point anyways - Money has changed hands and the transaction is complete.

The transaction is definitely not complete just because you've given somebody your credit card number. Credit cards aren't cash; they serve an escrow function. Thus, the chargeback. And even if cash were paid, you still have recourse to the courts and the ocean of consumer protection law out there.

You're never beyond negotiation. Especially in a case like this, where there's not only the credit card company and small claims court, but an ongoing business relationship and a brand that the company would like to protect. You may decide not to negotiate, but that's a choice.

The item wasn't defective, but you also were unable to get any use out of it.

Punishing the store is still wrong.

I ordered an expensive (at the time) PC that wasn't shipped within weeks of when the vendor said. After I got tired of the runaround from them, I cancelled the order and bought from someone else. A day later the original PC shows up.

Talking to the vendor sales people got me nowhere (the owner even called me to bitch about me wanting to return it and how he absolutely refused to return my money!), I called the bank/Visa to do a chargeback, explaining that I had waited two weeks after the promised date and bought another PC but the vendor didn't want to take my cancelled order back.

Without any argument, the customer service told me to package it up and ship it back with proof of shipment and immediately credited me the full amount. I never heard a thing about it after that.

I have never had a chargeback request refused. Granted, I only do it as a last resort, but still.

OTOH, as I said in another post, if you purchased something and it was not as expected and the vendor won't take a return, the chargeback will almost certainly go through. There are exceptions, but not many.

He lampoons Best Buy over a personal mistake.

I'd call that a "time to install an ad/scriptblocker" kind of experience. I (w/ NoScript) had no idea there was an ad overlay 'til I reached your post.