Subject:
|
Re: Has any one else noticed this lately?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:41:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Has any one else noticed this lately?
|
| (...) 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 (URL) then, I'm the kind of freak that corrects a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
