| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Garrison writes:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, David Eaton wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the real loser in this is Target, not Wal*Mart. And they're living
> > with their mistake instead of trying to take back what they said-- unlike
> > the 75% off Ames sale oh-so-long-ago.
>
> Huh? Target didn't lose anything---
? Sure they did-- they didn't mean to mark it down by such a percentage,
hence they're losing money. IE for each Slave I they sell at $24.99 they
loose about $25.00. Not *REALLY* since (more likely) more are being sold
than otherwise would, but without better numbers and more statistics,
they're losing $25.00 per Slave I they sell at the $24.99 price.
> they were clearly willing to sell the
> sets as advertised.
Indeed. As I pointed out, they're willing to live with the loss rather than
fight battles with the customers. And I say good (for me though, not really
for them except from a 'pride' standpoint). I really couldn't stand it when
Ames made a similar mistake ("75% off all Star Wars items in the toy
department", but meant everything *except* Star Wars Lego), since Ames was
much more reluctant (or so it sounds) to live with their error.
> However, the original post clearly indicates *fraud*, in that:
>
> Two Slave Is were purchased at Target, at a cost of $50 (MSRP $100 for
> both).
> Those Slave Is were "returned" for store credit at Wal-Mart.
> The poster used the credit to buy a Republic Gunship (MSRP $90).
>
> The obvious implication (and the only reason for messing around with the
> Slave Is) is that Wal-Mart gave $100 in store credit for merchandise that
> was purchased for $50 at another store.
Oh I understand perfectly well the application of fraud-- and it's not
something that I think is particularly fair-- but you can really only call
it fraud (legally-- I think) if:
- Wal*Mart's policy is to accept returns ONLY from Wal*Mart stores
- The customer actually said (or *possibly* implied, I dunno-- IANAL) that
the item was purchased at a Wal*Mart store
As someone pointed out, if you got a gift you wanted to return without
knowing where it was purchased and you wanted to return it, is it fraud if
you return it to a Wal*Mart if they'll accept it?
Situation 1:
"Here. I bought these at Target for really cheap with the intention of
returning them here for a higher store credit than what I paid."
Fraud? Nope. Likely to get the return? Nah. Though maybe. Probably not though.
Situation 2:
"Hi, I got these from a friend of mine who bought them from Wal*Mart and I'd
like to exchange them for store credit."
Fraud? Most certainly. Likely to get the return? Definitely.
Situation 3:
Customer:"I'd like to return these two sets for store credit."
Employee:"Was there anything wrong with them?"
Customer:"Nope."
Legal Fraud? Don't think so. Maybe. IANAL. Moral fraud? Maybe I guess.
Probably given the actual customer that did it. Likely to get the return? Sure.
Anyway, point wasn't whether or not it's fraud. Arguable. Point also wasn't
whether it's moral or not. Point was, would/should a Wal*Mart manager let
you get away with it? I've known various retail managers. Most of 'em will
bend over backwards for customers who are pushy and can't be proven that
what they're doing is wrong/against policy/illegal. Lots of managers even
accept returns of things they know they can't resell (but are assured by the
pushy customer that they were unused/whatever), just so the customer goes
away happy and doesn't cause a scene. IE it's not worth the hassle. And
given that those instances indicate a *definite* loss on the store's part,
something like this where there's a pretty equal trade-off is even more
likely to be accepted.
> Most return policies that I've seen that allow returns without receipts do
> so expressly with the condition that the maximum refund is the minimum
> price for which the item has been available in the locality within the
> preceding 90 days.
Most return policies that I've seen give you the current going rate from
their store-- usually because they can't be bothered looking up whether or
not the item's been on sale recently. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a
policy that based its prices on lowest *locality* price though. Which
store(s) have you heard that from? And in what area out of curiosity?
> Wal-Mart paid out because the people at Wal-Mart were
> tricked into thinking that the Slave Is came from their store (and thus
> that the applicable price was MSRP, and that they had a duty under store
> policy to accept the return).
>
> Wal-Mart was defrauded of the difference between their price from TLC and
> MSRP, as well as restocking costs.
Assuming they don't sell the sets they were given, yes. But if they do?
You're only looking at the restocking fee as a loss. And then, as I pointed
out in the last message, part of the reason they allow things like store
credit is in the hopes that you'll buy something more expensive with it. In
this case, the customer did. IE the Republic Gunship. They've now made a
*profit* on selling *that* set-- but again, a NET profit only if the Slave
I's sell at the price they were returned for.
== Moral Summary ==
Legal fraud? Eh, probably not. Maybe though. Depends.
Moral fraud? Probably.
Morally wrong? Yeah, I think so. Because you're not guaranteed that Wal*Mart
is going to sell the Slave I's for the same price you returned them for.
Hence, since Wal*Mart technically breaks even from a strictly minimilistic
view on the situation, but certainly no *better*, and there IS a *chance*
that they'll LOSE money provided the sets DON'T sell, so overall it's a
lesser deal for Wal*Mart. Essentially you're giving them a 95% chance to
break even, say, which is less than the 100% chance they had otherwise. But
that's not looking at the profit made on the Gunship nor the restocking fee
as you pointed out.
Anyway, I'm still betting the biggest loser in this situation is Target,
since they're DEFINITELY taking a hit they didn't expect to take. Wal*Mart
MAY take a hit, but probably not (unless a mass flood of people are
similarly inspired to do the same thing).
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| <snip entire debate of fraud on target, Wal-Mart of Jango Fett Slave I> All these wonderful posts on Matt commiting fraud... =) After reading all these post for and against his actions it makes me wonder if those who are mad at him are INDEED mad at (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Huh? Target didn't lose anything---they were clearly willing to sell the sets as advertised. However, the original post clearly indicates *fraud*, in that: Two Slave Is were purchased at Target, at a cost of $50 (MSRP $100 for both). Those (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
