| |
Mookie wrote:
>
> I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> from now on.
>
> I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> what's worse is they get away with it :(
>
> Tamy
I had been keeping an eye on a single remaining 6761 Bandit's Hideout at
a local TRU, waiting for it to go on clearance. Between the time that it
was normal retail price and I found it on the clearance aisle (about a
week) somebody had ripped open the box and stolen quite a few pieces out
of it. Since I still wanted some of the remaining pieces, I talked TRU
into taking another percentage off the price. I cataloged the losses and
wrote to Customer Service, explained the entire situation. Less than a
week later a package arrived at my home with all of the missing pieces.
The accompanying letter stated that they were sorry I had such difficulty.
Another Job-Well-Done by Susan Williams and LEGO Customer Service.
SteveC
LEGO Perilous Pirate Page
http://www.widomaker.com/~litehous/Pirate/index.html
They moved the Lighthouse! To find out how:
http://www.widomaker.com/~litehous/movie.html
|
|
| |
Steve Campbell wrote:
>
> Mookie wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> > someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> > it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> > take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> > really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> > though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> > from now on.
> >
> > I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> > what's worse is they get away with it :(
> >
> > Tamy
>
>
> I had been keeping an eye on a single remaining 6761 Bandit's Hideout at
> a local TRU, waiting for it to go on clearance. Between the time that it
> was normal retail price and I found it on the clearance aisle (about a
> week) somebody had ripped open the box and stolen quite a few pieces out
> of it. Since I still wanted some of the remaining pieces, I talked TRU
> into taking another percentage off the price. I cataloged the losses and
> wrote to Customer Service, explained the entire situation. Less than a
> week later a package arrived at my home with all of the missing pieces.
> The accompanying letter stated that they were sorry I had such difficulty.
>
> Another Job-Well-Done by Susan Williams and LEGO Customer Service.
Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
LEGO to eat it.
Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
> and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
> parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
> should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
>
> I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
>
> I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
>
> Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
Nope.(1) However, I would consider it fair to go to CA, and offer to pay them
for the missing parts. (assuming I thought the missing parts were worth it -
otherwise, I'd just drop it).
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:But then, I'm the kind of freak that corrects a teller's math when I get too
much change, too.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
> Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
I agree with you. If you get compensated for not having the pieces, there's
not much more to complain about. If you know in advance that you can call CA
and get replacement pieces for free (which wasn't necessarily the case
here), you shouldn't ask for very much of a discount.
But, you certainly should tell the retailer, so they know what's going on.
And maybe they'll offer a discount out of the goodness of their hearts. If
they do that, then I don't really see a problem with taking that and also
getting the pieces from Lego.
If Lego Direct turns out to be everyone's dream, and all parts are available
for order from them in quantities of one, then it'd be pretty reasonable to
ask for a discount equal to (or perhaps slightly more, for the trouble) the
price to order the missing pieces.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
> > and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
> > parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
> > should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
> >
> > I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
> >
> > I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> > dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> > case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> > missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> > justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> > personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> > it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> > LEGO to eat it.
> >
> > Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
>
> Nope.(1) However, I would consider it fair to go to CA, and offer to pay • them
> for the missing parts. (assuming I thought the missing parts were worth • it -
> otherwise, I'd just drop it).
I'd agree with both of you. To be honest, I haven't even gone back to CA for
pieces missing or damaged from used sets. The only thing I've gone to them
for was stickers from a couple train sets which I had misplaced the
stickers. At this point, they might almost have to send a special delivery
truck with all the missing pieces from used sets.
I have bought opened boxes with the knowledge that if anything serious was
missing I could replace it. And I would not refuse a discount if the store
had chosen to apply one without my asking. I guess at that point, I'd have a
bit of a tough decision about going back to TLC for the missing pieces, but
at least in that case I'm not defrauding the store (and given that TLC
offers the replacement service, often for free, even for parts lost or
damaged by play).
Good ethical dilemma...
Frank
|
|
| |
> > >
> I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
While it is true that Target's security is pretty bad, it is also true that
Lego's packaging is substandard in terms of preventing theft.
|
|
|
