There are many food products that say something to the effect of, “your satisfaction as a customer is guaranteed, or we’ll give you your money back.”
With that sort of loophole, what prevents a customer from buying many groceries with such labels, then consuming them, then claiming dissatisfaction with the product and getting a refund, then repeating the process indefinitely? It would be a logistical challenge to claim refunds each time, but would a company be legally able to say, “No, you are not dissatisfied since you keep buying it repeatedly?”
As RNATB suggests, there is no doubt some sort of limiting language somewhere, but even if not, the consumer would have to sue the vendor to recover damages and if the suit is found to be without merit (they returned the same stuff repeatedly) then the consumer just might be on the hook for the vendor’s legal expenses in defending against a frivolous suit… all for the potential “winnings” equaling the cost of a box of Fruit Loops.
Such as the pants lawsuit, where a judge sued a dry cleaner for $67,000,000 for losing a pair of pants. He basically claimed that their “satisfaction guaranteed” sign meant they had to do whatever he wanted to “satisfy” him. The suit was filed after several offers by the dry cleaners to reimburse him for the pants, the last offer being for $12,000. Thankfully the judge lost the suit, had to repay the dry cleaners’ legal costs, and lost his job as a judge.
There are companies that have generous return policies that are on occasion exploited. REI was famous for this (“Rent Every Item”). Now, you have a year to return your stuff (which is still incredibly generous, in my opinion). L. L. Bean does as well.
What happens? Well, at least in L.L Bean’s case, few enough people take advantage of it that they feel that the good will it brings is worth the cost. Cynically, you might say that they’re passing the costs on to the customers who don’t take advantage of the policy.
I just this morning called Kelloggs to complain about a box of corn flakes that had an open inner plastic bag. They quickly offered to mail me a coupon for a free replacement, but they obviously required my name and address. I would imagine that they keep a record of who calls with complaints, and would relatively soon suggest buying other products if someone keeps calling with complaints and wanting reimbursement.
An old co-worker of mine takes huge advantage of REI’s return policy. Every year he buys the most expensive, top-of-the-line snowboard gear at the beginning of the season… and then returns them for a full refund at the end. He basically rents the best gear for free.
I had an employee who I liked in most regards. But every year he would by a vacuum sealer from (I think) Wal-Mart for his large fish haul, use it until it burned out the motor and then return it at the end of the season for a new one. I couldn’t judge too harshly, because if the store is going to have that sort of giveaway program, they have to expect that people are going to take advantage of it.
Many stores require you to show ID when you return merchandise. There are companies that track how often individual consumers do returns. If you return stuff too frequently, the store might deny the customer further returns for a while.
I think there is a big difference between carelessness on the one hand, and a large sign that says “Your money back - no questions asked” on the other.
While you raise a good point, I think ChefGuy’s take is probably fair for businesses that set their own return policies. It’s not like they just made a mistake, and it’s not like they don’t have indirect ways of benefiting.
As an example of those indirect benefits, we’ve just spent a whole thread talking about how wonderful REI is, and Google is indexing every word. That’s advertising gold.
I don’t see a big difference at all. Both can be seen as theft. It may be careless to leave a car unlocked, but that is not an invitation for someone to steal it or use it without permission. A money back policy is not intended to allow people to use store property and then return it because they are finished with it. Frankly, what the above guy does with REI and the other guy does with a food vacuum is the same as buying a dress to wear to a prom or wedding, leaving the tag on, and then returning it. If you don’t want to own something, rent it or borrow it from a friend. Don’t buy it knowing you plan to return it after you use it.
These all reflect a lack of ethics, no matter how you want to pretend they are not. The stores take back these used items that they can no longer sell as new and eat the cost. Yes, the stores should change their policies to provide more protection, but that’s a separate issue from a complete lack of ethics on the part of their “customers”.
I had a boss once who would buy a bunch of PC computers from some place like Office Depot when there was a big trade show coming up; then set up a booth at the show with our software on all those PC’s; then return them after the show. He did a lot of stuff like that, which I thought was sleazy.
In Honolulu, Hawaii, the city garbage collection trucks are painted in the same distinctive color pattern as the city buses (at least as of 1980’s when I was there). I saw one garbage truck with the slogan painted on the side: “Satisfaction guaranteed or double your garbage back.”
Jack Benny [for you younger generation: Jack Benny’s “TV character” was a notorious cheap-skate] did a skit once, in which he sat in a big easy chair munching on peanuts from a jar, all the while dictating a letter while Rochester transcribed. His letter consisted of a very lengthy complaint about the bad taste and rotten quality of the peanuts. After that, he mused aloud: “Gee, I love these satisfaction or double-your-money-back offers.”
Perhaps if they put signs on them saying “take me”. Otherwise, that’s the worst comparison ever. Companies make generous return policies like that for the publicity, and treat the returns as loss leaders. People go in to return an item, and while they’re at it spend additional money on other items. If you think the numbers aren’t seriously crunched by the company’s bean counters, and the language isn’t parsed by the attorneys, then you’re not thinking it through.
I once worked for a home improvement chain with a no-questions-asked return policy. One time I saw them give over a hundred dollars of store credit to a customer that brought in an old beat up lawn mower we didn’t even sell.
Their policy was every customer walks out the door happy. I don’t think they’re that generous any more.
When you say “consuming them,” as in the cases where the customer uses up and trashes the product, you made me think how most of us in normal circumstances have encountered the situation: you take your first bite of the [spoiled/undercooked/wrong/looks funny] sandwich, your dissatisfaction is usually noted and accommodated; after half of it is eaten it takes some chutzpah to say it wasn’t quite what you wanted and want a change.
My wife once returned, “on principle” and out of boredom, a box of toasted waffle or something breakfast cereal that apparently was the very antithesis of her idea of morning goodness; actually I think she wrote a letter to their “customer satisfaction” address, more in sorrow than in anger, asking for a refund.
Needless to say, I teased her, and actually berated her (as much as I dared) that the product wasn’t defective, spoiled, etc. Caveat emptor. It happened that a lawyer friend of ours was over, and he lawyerly scanned the box, which said it could be returned “for any reason.” So in his legal opinion yes, she was being a nudnik (hey, the second Yiddish Moe Just here!) but had a case.
Eventually came back a bunch of freebie vouchers for a few of their other fine breakfast cereals to make up for her pain and suffering.
Another anecdote. I waited tables in college and there was one family group that would order several pounds of steamed shrimp from the raw bar, eat all but a few shrimp, and then say they weren’t cooked to their liking or that a fly had landed on them and demand the original amount of pounds as a replacement. And they tried this almost every time they came in.