Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stingiest things thread(op for R&R access)

Options
1…166167169171172…201

Comments

  • Options
    #5042
    ncmc
    Registered Users Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭ncmc


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    He duped them. It’s pretty clear in the post. He brought back the pair that he bought for €67. Maybe went to two different sales assistants. The original pair were probably beyond return if scuffed. There’ll be a discrepancy there that will have to be explained when the tills are balanced. It’s indefensible. But encountering these mindsets is weirdly fascinating. I occasionally encountered this during my shoe shop days. It’s rare thankfully but yep, we fielded the occasional wannabe cute hoor.
    The tills won't be out any money and the sales assistant won't get in trouble. When a shop is in sale, they still will have items returned that were bought at full price. So when the sales assistant scanned them when doing the return, she would have over ridden the price back to full price. So the till will balance and so will the stock as they have in their possession, an unworn pair of boots. The sales assistant won't get in trouble as she followed the returns procedure when doing the return as there was a valid receipt. It's not theft whatever it is.


  • Options
    #5043
    maudgonner
    Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    He accepted the full price for Pair Of Boots 1 (consideration) and paid it.

    He bought Pair Of Boots 2 for a lower price.

    He passed off Pair Of Boots 1 (which he had accepted the price for) as Pair Of Boots 2.

    Somebody could lose their job over that but, LOL, what a cute hoor.

    Unless I'm mistaken, he returned Boots 2, the unworn ones?


  • Options
    #5044
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Stevieluvsye wrote: »
    But would they? Let's assume Boots number 1 were in reasonable condition to be accepted for return. Sales assistant follows correct procedure and offers refund.

    Poster goes back in, picks up Boots number 2 for whatever reason and pays applicable price as displayed.

    If their boss found out, they absolutely could. Speaking from experience here. Not fired from a job myself but have seen it happen to others. Yes, if this was discovered, it’s a fireable offence. It’s a good chunk of change.


  • Options
    #5045
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    maudgonner wrote: »
    Unless I'm mistaken, he returned Boots 2, the unworn ones?

    No Boots 1 were the expensive pair returned


  • Options
    #5046
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,770 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Amanda Screeching Housewife wrote: »
    I'd only have a problem with it if the sales assistant is going to get in trouble,:

    I would also have a serious problem if I thought for one second that the sales assistant or manager could get in trouble. I would not have done it if there was any doubt in my mind about this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5047
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    maudgonner wrote: »
    Unless I'm mistaken, he returned Boots 2, the unworn ones?

    No, he clearly brought back Boots 1. Otherwise, why tell the story of returning the boots you’ve just bought? The whole point of the story is the swap.


  • Options
    #5048
    Salary Negotiator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Theft by deception.

    6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.


  • Options
    #5049
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    If their boss found out, they absolutely could. Speaking from experience here. Not fired from a job myself but have seen it happen to others. Yes, if this was discovered, it’s a fireable offence. It’s a good chunk of change.

    I'm sorry but i don't get the rationale here. I would sue the bejaysus out of said company if i got the tin tack.

    What exactly has the SA done wrong?


  • Options
    #5050
    ncmc
    Registered Users Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭ncmc


    No he returned boots 2, the unworn pair. They matched the receipt of boots 1 as they were the exact same pair. So no one could ever find out and no one could ever get in trouble.


  • Options
    #5051
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,770 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Stevieluvsye wrote: »
    No Boots 1 were the expensive pair returned

    I actually returned boots 2 which were identical in every way to the first pair.
    I passed them off as boots 1 as I had worn boots 1 for two weeks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5052
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    And let's assume ODB that he did not make both transactions at the same time

    (Returned Boots 1 and at the same time purchased Boots 2)


  • Options
    #5053
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I actually returned boots 2 which were identical in every way to the first pair.
    I passed them off as boots 1 as I had worn boots 1 for two weeks.

    Oh, that changes things ye manky bastard :D


  • Options
    #5054
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I would also have a serious problem if I thought for one second that the sales assistant or manager could get in trouble. I would not have done it if there was any doubt in my mind about this.

    You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.


  • Options
    #5055
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    No, he clearly brought back Boots 1. Otherwise, why tell the story of returning the boots you’ve just bought? The whole point of the story is the swap.

    He passed off the newly bought unworn boots as the pair he'd paid full price for by my reading.

    They have a new pair of boots which they think were the ones sold for 179 but they're not, they're the pair that were sold on sale and the full price ones are the ones he still has which probably aren't in returnable condition by now.

    He didn't get mightily ripped off, they still have a shop fresh pair of boots.

    If he'd done what your reading of the post was then yes that'd be very scummy but I don't think that's what happened.


  • Options
    #5056
    ncmc
    Registered Users Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭ncmc


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.
    You're not listening to logic, there is no way they can find out or anyone get in trouble. He returned a pair of unworn boots with a valid receipt. Whether or not they were the exact physical pair of boots listed on the receipt is irrelevent and unprovable as they do not have a serial number or any other identifying information.


  • Options
    #5057
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,770 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.

    Oh, give over.
    There is no possibility of this coming back on the sales assistant of the manager.
    None.

    They refunded €179 for a pair of boots, with a receipt for that amount.

    I will accept sharp practice.
    I will accept a level of deception.

    The notion that the sales assistant could lose their job - no.
    Not.
    Ever.


  • Options
    #5058
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    Accepted, but they are hardly going to laugh heartily and say "well done", if they were secretly appalled.

    Whatever about the claim that it is, technically, theft at worst and sharp practice at best, the notion that an assistant could lose their job is a complete load of bollocks.

    Please explain how this could happen.
    The refund was approved by a manager.

    I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.


  • Options
    #5059
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,163 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Buy boots A - 179
    Buy boots b - 69

    Return the unworn pair and receive 179 in exchange?

    I don’t see any problem here except for the OP calling himself a stinge as no self respecting stinge is paying either price for a pair of boots


  • Options
    #5060
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    Oh, give over.
    There is no possibility of this coming back on the sales assistant of the manager.
    None.

    They refunded €179 for a pair of boots, with a receipt for that amount.

    I will accept sharp practice.
    I will accept a level of deception.

    The notion that the sales assistant could lose their job - no.
    Not.
    Ever.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself. You and the responses backing you up - cute hoorism is alive and well.


  • Options
    #5061
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,770 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.

    I'm sure you didn't say "fair play to you, that's fcuking brilliant".
    That's, the reaction I got from anyone I told.

    I think that suit guy is a scumbag too.
    I wouldn't do that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5062
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I'm sure you didn't say "fair play to you, that's fcuking brilliant".
    That's, the reaction I got from anyone I told.

    I think that suit guy is a scumbag too.
    I wouldn't do that.

    I laughed and made vaguely affirmative noises (awkwardly). Anyway, you do you.


  • Options
    #5063
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    TBR

    Was it a "large" chain or an independent?


  • Options
    #5064
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,770 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Stevieluvsye wrote: »
    TBR

    Was it a "large" chain or an independent?

    Multinational


  • Options
    #5065
    ncmc
    Registered Users Posts: 4,852 ✭✭✭ncmc


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.
    That is actual theft though, no if's, and's or but's. Two situations are totally different.


  • Options
    #5066
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Stevieluvsye wrote: »
    TBR

    Was it a "large" chain or an independent?

    If you think the action acceptable, why should that matter?


  • Options
    #5067
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    ncmc wrote: »
    That is actual theft though, no if's, and's or but's. Two situations are totally different.

    Just brought it to highlight that people are often not straight with each other. I wouldn’t point out the underhandedness if it wasn’t worth the hassle but I’d forever think less of the person. One case might be more serious than the other but I would find both knackery, to different degrees.


  • Options
    #5068
    Stevieluvsye
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,907 ✭✭✭Stevieluvsye


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    If you think the action acceptable, why should that matter?

    I was wondering because of the size of the discount....was it an independent looking to get rid of it's stock at any value as it had a cashflow problem.


  • Options
    #5069
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,493 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway


  • Options
    #5070
    Wayne Jarvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Wayne Jarvis


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway
    It will be even worse when they see the actual boots he bought


    rBVaR1usZHKAETjSAAHx0p5-0BU758.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5071
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway

    This is a popular thread and the post has still only been thanked twice. I’m comfortable in my reaction.


Advertisement