nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stingiest things thread(op for R&R access)

System

See what I did there?!

Original thread here..... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88733360#post88733360

As you were.....

For anyone interested the ranting & Raving forum has a brilliant thread about retail. On gaining access to that forum I spent 6 hours reading every post.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057757954
Apply here for access. Read the first post before requesting

CRITERIA FOR ACCESS
A minimum of 50 posts on boards.ie
A minimum of 3 months on boards.ie
A relatively clean record (this is at the mods discretion)

Subscribers bypass the time and postcount restrictions (please mention in your request if you are a subscriber). Please note that the moderators decision is final with respect to access.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I mean a manager signed off on the return though. If they turn around and give out to a sales assistant then that's not on the customer.

He agreed to the price, they agreed to the return.

It's like being cross that you gave someone twenty euro, they gave it back but it was a different note.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

dubstarr wrote: »

Seriously i worked in a shop.And i wouldnt know one customer from another.Unless they where regulars or did something that made me remember them.

He brought back the same boots in new form.There wont be discrepancy though,he had a receipt for the boots he brought back.The receipt and the boots match,he brought them back within the timeframe.The shop are the ones that reduced the boots.So to get a pair back they can still sell in the sale

My experience was different. I remembered many customers. And was on a number of occasions faced with pisstakers that you knew were being underhand but you couldn’t pin it on them because of loopholes like the beer revolu exploited (and admitted was sharp practice). As a lowly sales assistant, it was an shitty position to be placed in. But Smirky Joe gets a lump of money back so who cares, right? Ugh.

TitianGerm

I wonder what would the op done if the store didn't offer a refund and he was then stuck with two pairs of boots?

the beer revolu

TitianGerm wrote: »

I wonder what would the op done if the store didn't offer a refund and he was then stuck with two pairs of boots?

Well, I knew that the store offered refunds with a receipt. If for whatever reason, the didn't refund the larger amount, I'd have just returned the new ones for the lesser amount.

the beer revolu

ODB, please explain how the till would be out as you claimed.

Deebles McBeebles

I've made some questionable life choices before but reading the last 4 pages is definitely up there.

TitianGerm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Well, I knew that the store offered refunds with a receipt. If for whatever reason, the didn't refund the larger amount, I'd have just returned the new ones for the lesser amount.

I mean in general. If the store policy was not to give cash refunds (which they are not required to do in the case of a change of mind) then what would you have done?

the beer revolu

TitianGerm wrote: »

I mean in general. If the store policy was not to give cash refunds (which they are not required to do in the case of a change of mind) then what would you have done?

Nothing.
I'd just have been cross.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

the beer revolu wrote: »

ODB, please explain how the till would be out as you claimed.

Oh no, I’m sorry I made a mistake there. Clearly, this was totally fine because of that error.

You admitted that it was sharp practice and deception in this post or at least “accepted” it. You can’t really defend it after that. Likely they knew you were exploiting a loophole and had no choice but to refund you. I recall dealing with people like that.

On a popular thread, your post about this story is lightly thanked. That’s telling.

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.

TitianGerm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Nothing.
I'd just have been cross.

At yourself for trying to pull a fast one I assume seeing as the shop wouldn't have done anything wrong? But at least you would have gotten store credit or a second pair of boots out of it I suppose.

Purple Mountain

dubstarr wrote: »

Seriously i worked in a shop.And i wouldnt know one customer from another.Unless they where regulars or did something that made me remember them.

He brought back the same boots in new form.There wont be discrepancy though,he had a receipt for the boots he brought back.The receipt and the boots match,he brought them back within the timeframe.The shop are the ones that reduced the boots.So to get a pair back they can still sell in the sale

It's still fraud though.
He accepted the original price and entered into a contract for that price.
It was his tough luck that the price dropped subsequently.
If we all did this when we saw a price drop, imagine the fallout.

Purple Mountain

It's up there with a young wan buying a dress for a disco on Saturday night,wearing the dress with the label concealed and then taking it back on Monday for a refund and claiming it was never worn.
Pure shneaky.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Purple Mountain wrote: »

It's up there with a young wan buying a dress for a disco on Saturday night,wearing the dress with the label concealed and then taking it back on Monday for a refund and claiming it was never worn.
Pure shneaky.

I have nothing but contempt for people who pull shit like that. They genuinely don’t see what’s wrong with it. SO entitled.

the beer revolu

TitianGerm wrote: »

At yourself for trying to pull a fast one I assume seeing as the shop wouldn't have done anything wrong? But at least you would have gotten store credit or a second pair of boots out of it I suppose.

I wouldn't have bought the cheaper pair if I hadn't known that they would offer a refund as per store policy.

the beer revolu

Let's imagine another scenario.
I had bought the boots but hadn't worn
them. On seeing the reduced boots, I bought them and returned the original boots.
Would that be OK?
If not, why not?

In this imagined scenario, the result to the shop would be identical to the result in my actual scenario.

the beer revolu

Purple Mountain wrote: »

It's up there with a young wan buying a dress for a disco on Saturday night,wearing the dress with the label concealed and then taking it back on Monday for a refund and claiming it was never worn.
Pure shneaky.

Difference being that I returned the boots unused.

dubstarr

the beer revolu wrote: »

Let's imagine another scenario.
I had bought the boots but hadn't worn the
them. On see the reduced boots, I bought them and returned the original boots.
Would that be OK?
If not, why not?

In this imagined scenario, the result to the shop would be identical to the result in my actual scenario.

It was 100 euro not a fiver.Thats better off in your pocket than the shops.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

the beer revolu wrote: »

Difference being that I returned the boots unused.

You know there’s different ways to deceive, right? And you admitted it was deception.

radiata

Please close this thread. Was looking forward to some stinge stories not 5 pages about boots

the beer revolu

radiata wrote: »

Please close this thread. Was looking forward to some stinge stories not 5 pages about boots

Sorry, I'd no idea the shltstorm it would be.
I'll stop.
Favourite thread of mine, too.

Mods, perhaps delete the lot?
(rather than close thread)

OhHiMark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

What is the difference between this person doing what they did, and buying the boots for 179, never wearing them, buying the same boots for 69 2 weeks later, and then returning the original pair?

the_pen_turner

no need to delete everything. this si a good stinge story. nothing ilegal as far as i can see. ****ty and bit lowsy of course.

tara73

radiata wrote: »

Please close this thread. Was looking forward to some stinge stories not 5 pages about boots

yes, was hoping the same and reminded me that there were once great stinge story threads. why are they gone...???:(

kenmc

I fail to see the theft too.

If he bought them for 179 and brought the same pair back for a full refund, and then bought the next day at the sale price of 69, the net result is they sold a pair of boots for 69 euro.

As it stands, they sold a pair of boots for 179, and another pair for 69. They refunded the full price of one pair. The end result is still that they sold one pair of boots, for 69 euro.

Similarly if he had bought the boots, not worn them, and seen them reduced, brought them back for a full refund and bought them again right there and then, no loss to the shop, still one pair of boots sold, 69 euro.

They are no worse off in any scenario, ergo no theft.

It does go to show the importance of keeping your receipt though, as he could not have done this without one, or if outside the returns policy window.

Shelflife

kenmc wrote: »

I fail to see the theft too.

If he bought them for 179 and brought the same pair back for a full refund, and then bought the next day at the sale price of 69, the net result is they sold a pair of boots for 69 euro.

As it stands, they sold a pair of boots for 179, and another pair for 69. They refunded the full price of one pair. The end result is still that they sold one pair of boots, for 69 euro.

Similarly if he had bought the boots, not worn them, and seen them reduced, brought them back for a full refund and bought them again right there and then, no loss to the shop, still one pair of boots sold, 69 euro.

They are no worse off in any scenario, ergo no theft.

It does go to show the importance of keeping your receipt though, as he could not have done this without one, or if outside the returns policy window.

The shop is worse off, they still have the same number of shoes but they have €110 less in their till than they should have !

kenmc

Shelflife wrote: »

The shop is worse off, they still have the same number of shoes but they have €110 less in their till than they should have !

But in either other scenario I described they would still have 110 euro less. So still no worse off, no theft.

bucketybuck

Shelflife wrote: »

The shop is worse off, they still have the same number of shoes but they have €110 less in their till than they should have !

"Should have" is a meaningless phrase in this context.

There is no illegal, there are no tills left short, there is no fraud, there are no sales assistants getting sacked, there is just one guy on a high horse who doesn't realise he is wrong.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

"Should have" is a meaningless phrase in this context.

There is no illegal, there are no tills left short, there is no fraud, there are no sales assistants getting sacked, there is just one guy on a high horse who doesn't realise he is wrong.

I’m a she and I’m very comfortable in my position.

When the person himself admits that it was deception, I’m safe in my position.

Way more people thanked purple mountain’s post following it which said the same as me. It’s hardly some oddball opinion here.

bucketybuck

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Way more people thanked purple mountain’s post following it which said the same as me. It’s hardly some oddball opinion here.

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody cares about "thanks".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody cares about "thanks".

Superb.