Would this be wrong/unethical?

[Threadbearer]

Originally Posted by yawn123_#21

If the store can't afford to pay the overhead of being in your neighborhood and still turn a profit, then they shouldn't be in business.
Your statement makes no sense in the context of this discussion. No store can afford to pay its overhead in any neighborhood if people don't make their purchases there.

You can't have it both ways. If you want stores to stick around, you have to make purchases in them. If your goal is getting online discounts, that's fine, too, but you need to man up and admit that it's unethical to "shop" in the store (meaning to examine merchandise and get your sizes right) only to make your final purchase online. If you do that, you're using the services and convenience of the store without paying for it.

 

[Tarmac]

Stores like the opportunity of the sale.

I do not think they mind if you intentionally go in to "look around" or "try something on", even if you aren't intending to buy, because they would rather have the opportunity to try to sell you something than to never have you visit in the first place. Even if you go to Nordstroms just to see your size in Park Avenues, any savvy salesman would like the chance to sell you the PAs on the spot, or to upsell you on some Tramezzas, or at least get you to buy a tin of polish. I don't see a problem here.

They would also, in most cases, be fine with you buying 5 things even if you say you will probably return 2 of them, because you might just decide to keep everything. Once you have the items in your home with the ticking 30 day refund policy? They like those odds.

But, buying a pair of shoes and having the identical pair on the way, just so you can return them, that is crossing a line. There is no way a reasonable person would keep both shoes, even by chance. You are screwing them over.

I like how the OP has disappeared.

 

[Cary Grant]

Originally Posted by RedLetterDay

I really couldn't care less about the ethics of this but some of you are obviously not reading the topic or understanding his intentions. He isn't trying to return the shoes he wears to the interview. He is trying to return the brand new shoes he receives in the mail after the interview, shoes that have never even touched the floor.

Whether you agree with the morality or not, he would be returning a factory-new pair of shoes to the store so they would have no reason to deny that.

Thanks for the correction- It's a bit confusing to read and I, like many, read it to say the opposite of what he really meant.

So sure, return the unworn shoes if the seller allows.

 

[FIHTies]

Originally Posted by Tarmac

I like how the OP has disappeared.

I doubt he did...Just went back to browsing/posting under his regular name...

 

[kdaust]

Eek! What a long thread for this question.

Its simple really. Either C&J Belgraves are fungible or their not.

fungible = only your conscience has a problem

not fungible = store gets shoes that are not the same as the ones they sold... (store has a problem)

 

[DrZRM]

Based on this argument, I assume finding something at a store where you know that a sale is coming up (we do share that sort of information here) and waiting to buy it until it goes on sale would be equally "immoral?" As you would have saved money at the store's expense. More power to you, but I find this kind of hard-line drawn in gray areas to not really hold up. I'm glad you are so certain, and that you can afford to be.

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

Not the entire community, certainly. But a few of us do -- thankfully -- seem to be holdouts for higher standards of behavior.

The harm done here is that I've saved money at the bookstore's expense.

I vote no. If you want that store to be there for you in the future, pay them for the services they're providing you. At the very least, you should purchase the item you examined (assuming you like it, of course). Once you know your size in that particular brand (let's say it's a shoe), then I suppose your could buy more shoes of that same brand from an online discounter with a clear conscience. But don't complain too loudly when that brick & mortar shop disappears, as you will have had a hand in its demise.

 

[yawn123_#21]

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

Your statement makes no sense in the context of this discussion. No store can afford to pay its overhead in any neighborhood if people don't make their purchases there.

You can't have it both ways. If you want stores to stick around, you have to make purchases in them. If your goal is getting online discounts, that's fine, too, but you need to man up and admit that it's unethical to "shop" in the store (meaning to examine merchandise and get your sizes right) only to make your final purchase online. If you do that, you're using the services and convenience of the store without paying for it.

Then they shouldn't be in business? If no one is buying from a store then there is a problem with their business model simple as that. Whats stopping a store from price matching? For you it may be a loss to the company, yet I see opportunity. The online store was did not pull through for the op, therefore the store can capitalize on the situation by accommodating the op, and next time the op is shopping, he may purchase from the store rather than online.

 

[sloane3]

When a store accepts credit card payment, they pay a processing fee. When they refund that purchase, do they get a refund on that fee?

 

[yawn123_#21]

Originally Posted by DrZRM

Based on this argument, I assume finding something at a store where you know that a sale is coming up (we do share that sort of information here) and waiting to buy it until it goes on sale would be equally "immoral?" As you would have saved money at the store's expense. More power to you, but I find this kind of hard-line drawn in gray areas to not really hold up. I'm glad you are so certain, and that you can afford to be.

On that note, wouldn't it be immoral for a store to sell you something knowing it'll go 40% off in 3 days, and not inform you? In commission based pay stores, i doubt many will tell you that. In an non commission employees are more willing to tell you, but most don't care enough to know. heh

 

[Threadbearer]

Originally Posted by DrZRM

Based on this argument, I assume finding something at a store where you know that a sale is coming up (we do share that sort of information here) and waiting to buy it until it goes on sale would be equally "immoral?"
Your scenario is not analagous to mine. In yours, the store still made the sale. In the one I described, however, the store's services were used, but then an online discounter, who provided no services, made the sale. Please tell me you see the difference.

There's nothing wrong with waiting for a sale. If a store decides to lower prices on an item by putting it on sale, that decision is based on a business calculation. In the end, they're still moving merchandise at a profit -- just a smaller one.

Originally Posted by yawn123_#21

If no one is buying from a store then there is a problem with their business model simple as that.
Fine. You get what you pay for. If too many of us adopt your opinion on this matter and are not willing to pay for the services we want, then those services will go away. We'll be left with Wal-Mart and online discounters.

 

[sloane3]

I like to max out my credit card at retailers. Buy $24,000 worth of stuff. Hold on to it for about 2 weeks and then return the whole damn lot. Repeat.

 

[apropos]

Does anyone else get the distinct vibe that yawn123_#21 is an adolescent with an inflated sense of entitlement - short on life experiences, but long on conjecture?

 

[merkur]

..

 

[aribo]

Clients like the OP are not welcome in my place of business.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by merkur

That's some josepidalling right there.

Better than ghulkaning 'em.