maudgonner wrote: » Unless I'm mistaken, he returned Boots 2, the unworn ones?
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.
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.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » No Boots 1 were the expensive pair returned
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » TBR Was it a "large" chain or an independent?
ncmc wrote: » That is actual theft though, no if's, and's or but's. Two situations are totally different.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » If you think the action acceptable, why should that matter?
ArnoldJRimmer wrote: » People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » :eek: You’ll double down so little point in continuing here but jesus. The tills will be out for the day. That will have to be explained.
ncmc wrote: » 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.
Shelflife wrote: » It’s def underhand behaviour. Is it theft/fraud ? I’d say yes as he has deceived the shop and denied them the profit that they we’re entitled to and that he was happy to pay for at the time. Not a very nice thing to do to a business very underhand and sharp practice!
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » That’s naive. These things can absolutely be noticed. One assistant to another: “Hey, wasn’t he in a little while ago? Why did you give him such a large refund on a sale item?”. When I worked in a shoe shop, my supervisor was incredibly clued in and observant to mistakes and discrepancies. She wouldn’t be looking for mistakes, she was just very sharp. And sales assistants do remember customers and what they bought. And often other assistants note things too. The sales assistant probably knew full well what he was up to but couldn’t prove it. Awful stuff altogether and a horrible position to put somebody in.
