hey, folks, the Best Buy did ** not**necessarily sell defective merchandise. we don’t know why it’s no longer working, remember, just that it’s under warranty.
stuff happens to those things, maybe the friend did something stupid with it, maybe it just up and quit for no reason. but you can’t assume either way, given the OP.
We asked. You rule. 
I don’t even have to call the number… they can do it at the store!!!
Thank you, DDG. That’s what would happen-unless you had some major arse-sucking manager.
And if you take it back without the receipt-you get a store credit for the lowest sales price in the last month, I believe (in most store’s it’s like that.)
Also-didn’t you say your friend was at the store asking them about it before? Perhaps they’d remember him? Even from talking on the phone.
We ain’t dumb. Please. We deal with better stuff all the time!
Danielinthewolvesden
Yes, so? What did you immediately follow that comment with?
You cancelled yourself out, Daniel.
Ptahlis
Lying is a moral consideration, but its account is only unto The Pink Unicorn, your God or Nature.
Ethics, on the otherhand, concerns man’s actions towards other men for which society may create laws to govern such interaction and to punish if deemed appropriate to do so.
jmullaney
The situation was not as you presented it. If it was, I would agree with you.
No, sdimbert, I’m not ashamed of you, really. At least, not ASHAMED “ashamed”, the way I would be if you’d suggested something really ghastly and dishonest, like holding up the Best Buy at gunpoint, or running for public office.
But I still maintain that it’s best to try to work something like this out with the Management, and not try to get creative. Like Guin says, they deal with “creative” types all the time, and are probably equally creative in dealing with them (although I understand that OSHA no longer allows them to use voltages higher than 1,000 watts in the back room.)
The situation is exactly as I presented it. There is no need to lie in order to return the phone.
Nor is there anything immoral or unethical going on here. You seem unable to see the reality of the situation, IMHO.
I suspect edlyn was referring to an omission here. Alter your dialogue to "Do you have a receipt for this particular 'phone and the answer is either “No” or a lie.
Baloney!
“Do you have a receipt for this particular 'phone?”
“I have a receipt.”
Where is the lie?
It is not immoral to ignore a question.
(Let he who has wisdom understand: as Pilate said to Jesus: “What is Truth?”)
If you read any return policy or agreement it is perfectly clear that a customer must present the receipt for the actual item being returned. By even proferring a receipt that is not in accordance with this you are perpetrating a fraud, whether or not you utter words that are inherently falsifiable. It’s like getting into a bar when you are underage.
“Do you have an ID?”
“Sure,” says jmullaney, handing over his older brother’s card.
“But judge, I didn’t actually lie!”
Pilate’s dodge isn’t exactly recognized as a pinnacle of ethics by the way, and invoking it doesn’t help your case.
Edlyn:
The thing is, the thread was asking about the moral implications of the thing, not the ethical considerations. If ethics is all that is concerned, then the letter of the agreement is absolutely paramount.
People read these things?
How can it be a fraud if no one is harmed by it?
I wouldn’t consider using a fake ID immoral or unethical. Illegal, yes. If a law was passed that said everyone had to wear purple on Thursdays, and you didn’t do so, your contrarywise choice of attire would not be immoral nor unethical by my standards.
The point wasn’t so much Pilate’s question, as Jesus’s answer 
(hint: I’ve already given you the full exchange.)
They better. It would save EVERYONE a lot of grief and many customer service reps a lot of abuse.
I apologise for a late response. My grandson’s battle with cancer recently made another turn which necessarily limits my participation. My explanation is given for understanding, not sympathy.
Ptahlis
Ah, I see. jmullaney’s position is based on the argument that no one is harmed, therefore it is neither immoral or unethical to be dishonest (deceitful/fraudulent). It may be prudent to keep this in mind: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
If scripture is considered, I offer this: Psa 10:7 His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity. and Pro 20:17 Bread of deceit [is] sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel. I get the impression that such action is frowned upon and hope jmullaney has excellent dental insurance.
jmullaney
Where, in scripture, is it stated that He answered Pilate’s question, my friend?
By Jove, Edlyn – I think I’m coming around. Still, elsewhere in Col 2:
Couldn’t the bothersome fact of not retaining a receipt and thus submitting to not getting a refund for your defective merchandise be submitting to foolish rules? The requirement of having a receipt is only there to prevent people from being completely dishonest by returning merchandise for which the warrenty has expired, right?
You may be right: this could be deceitful. But since you are not lying with your lips ant just trying to get what is yours by right but for a piece of paper, it is a tough call. People from more beurocratic parts of the world may argue that there are cases where bending such rules is the only way to get things done – not the rules of God but the regulations of man.
That was my point. Elsewhere, Jesus does not answer questions put to him, and my point was a Christian does not have to answer every question put to him, nor, I believe, tell the “whole” truth at all times.
First, I was going to say that there was too much unspecified in the original question, but since it seems that the problem is solved, I won’t go into that.
and now… Dude…
You’re lying. Still. You said you had A receipt. Not the exact receipt that came with the sale of the original phone. That’s what they are refering to. Claiming that ignoring a question isn’t immoral is merely soothing your conscience using logic. We aren’t sure if God (Or whomever) is keeping score. (I suspect he is, but that’s my opinion)
Ethically. Okay, tossing the realm of religion aside for the moment. If you don’t have the exact same recipt that came with your phone, they aren’t obliged to do anything
If you bring me a second cordless phone, and claim it doesn’t work, the First thing I’d do is hook it up and make sure you charged the battery. 
I just don’t see it. Not on a moral level.
“Are you Jesus of Nazareth?”
“Who do you say I am?”
Was Jesus lying? Perhaps by human standards. But those standards do not apply to people of the spirit at all times.
Want to rachett it up a notch? What if you took a friend to the emergency room, but they would not treat him if he didn’t have an insurance card. You find a card in his wallet, but it is expired. You know that he has kept his policy current, but apparently didn’t put his new card in his wallet. Would it be wrong to alter the card you do have to make it appear it was not expired, or by inaction allow your friend to die?
That is an extreme, perhaps unrealistic example. But I just can’t see what the big deal is.
But either way – the old free spirit saying is that a just man falls seven times a day. Sin happens. Refusing to save your dying friend because he doesn’t have the correct paperwork is a sin too (I realize that never happens in the U.S.) – so you’d actually be helping to prevent the hospital from making an even more serious error.
But ethically, they still sold you defective merchandise, and by their own rules, could you prove they sold you the phone they would have an ethical obligation to repair or replace it. Paperwork be damned.
. . . Might be justifiable in some extreme situations, but not when you’re returning a phone to Best Buy.
Let’s compare. “This phone is broken.” No implicit subtext; straight-forward (and true) statement. “Do you have a receipt?” Implicit subtext: I mean a receipt for THIS phone. I am not asking you if you have a receipt for your toaster, or for a phone you bought two years ago, or for a phone you bought at Monkey Ward’s, or, in fact, for any phone except THIS phone. “Yes.” Implicit subtext: Yes, I have a receipt for THIS phone. This is a lie. You do not have a receipt for THAT phone. You have a receipt for a different phone. I would also note, parenthetically, that everyone but JMULLANEY understands this. No one else has argued that SDIMBERT’S friend would not be lying; rather they have asked whether the lie is okay, since arguably it doesn’t harm anyone.
Compare to: “Are you Jesus of Nazareth?” No subtext; straight-forward question. “Who do you say I am?” *Subtext: I will not answer this question. *
In the second example (the Biblical one), there is no implication of ‘yes’ and no implication of ‘no’ and therefore no lie. Jesus is not playing upon an assumption He knows or ought to know his questioner holds; He’s just refusing to answer. In contrast SDIMBERT’S friend knows or ought to know that the person at the Best Buy counter, when asking “do you have a receipt?” means “do you have a receipt for this item?”
No, He was not, for the reason given above.
There is no definition of lying under “standards of the spirit” (whatever that means) tha differs from the definition of lying “by human standards.” To lie in all cases means “to tell an untruth.” The question is when, if ever, lying is justified. But a justifiable lie is a lie just the same.
A notch? Your very poor example ratchets it up a thousand notches. You seem to be saying that if lying is ever justified, lying is always justified. I don’t think that follows. In your emergency room example, lying might in theory be justified because a person would die if you told the truth (unlikely but, hey, it’s your example). There are no such exigent circumstances here. The guy just has to pay to have the camera repaired, just as he would if it was not under warranty. Hardly the same situation.
But sin is manifestly to be avoided where possible. The point is not that we do not sin, but that we ideally do not sin intentionally. If a person believed that lying is inherently a wrongful act – as opposed to a wrongful act only when it causes damage, but not wrongful when it does not – then that person should not lie, because by so doing he or she commits a wrongful act.
Now, we can argue about whether a lie is always a wrongful act or not. And we can argue about whether a lie, wrongful or not, may be justified by exigent circumstances. But we should not delude ourselves that what we are talking about is not, in fact, a lie. It is.
I would simply point out that the OP does not say the merchandise was defective. It says only that it “stopped working.” That is not the same. A merchant (or, for that matter, a manufacturer) does not have the same obligation regarding merchandise that the customer broke as it does regarding merchandise that never worked in the first place.
Well, but the obvious precursor to this is that you prove you bought it at THAT STORE, because they have no obligation to repair or replace merchandise you bought somewhere else. That’s one of the reasons they want to see the receipt in the first place. Why should they undertake to fix a phone you bought at Al’s Discount Phone Barn?
Yeah, I’m on a sinking ship alright. But if anyone can make me see the error of my ways (just in the context of this thread!) I’d be much obliged.
OK, so what if I held up the wrong receipt and asked: “Does this look like it?” There is definitely no lie there. I guess I just don’t believe your “implicit subtext” creates some moral requirement. If he is misunderstanding the subtext you are projecting to him, too bad for him.
Lying is never justified. Exigent circumstances shouldn’t make a difference. I don’t think playing with words in this case can possibly be a sin though. If he ordered you to tell him the truth that would be a different matter. How can you lie and not say anything false at the same time?
How do you sin unintentionally?
I don’t think I’m being delusional here. A lie is a false statement. You haven’t made a false statement. Therefore, no lie.
My understanding (and perhaps this is implicit subtext) is that he did buy the product at the store and if he merely had the receipt everything would be perfectly copasetic and he could return the product for repair or exchange.
There is more than one kind of lying.
I have found that the most effective sort of lie is when you tell the absolute truth, all of it, and do so in a way that makes people think you are lying.
Isn’t there? If you are attempting to answer the real question the person is asking (which, again, is not merely “Do you have a receipt [any receipt]?” but rather “Do you have a receipt for this item?”) untruthfully, then you are telling a lie. If you just handed him the receipt without saying anything at all, you would still be attempting by your actions to convey false information. In other words, you would still be lying.
No one but you has asked whether the person’s actions in the hypothetical do or do not technically constitute lying. Everyone else understands that they do. The question is whether the lie is okay because in theory no damage comes from it. That is where the question of morality arises. So you can argue about whether a “moral requirement” is created, but I don’t really think you can argue that the intended effect is not to mislead the guy at the Best Buy counter.
“Too bad for him”? Why don’t you just break into the Best Buy and steal what you want? If they don’t catch you, too bad for them. Besides, he has not misunderstood you. He asks, in effect, do you have a receipt for this item? You answer “yes” – a lie. He didn’t misunderstand you; he heard precisely what you said, which was “yes.” The fact that you lied to him can hardly be chalked up to his failing to understand you. He understood you all too well, but you weren’t telling the truth.
This strikes me as a whole different topic.
That depends on whether or not you think lying is in all cases a sin. You appear to be arguing that the “playing with words” in this case did not constitute lying; I think that is manifestly incorrect. If you, by word or actions, convey an untruth, then you are lying. You can lie by words, by actions, or by omissions. You can lie by saying something, or by failing to say something. But ultimately, if you convey an untruth, you lie.
Wait a second – are you saying that we do not have an obligation to be generally truthful to one another, unless directly ordered to do so? I fail to see how you could justify such an assertion. And, you can easily lie and not say anything false at the same time. You are at the mall. An announcement is made that a wallet has been found and may be recovered at the service desk. You go up to the desk and say “I heard you found a wallet” and put your hand out. You expect that the person facing you will make the obvious inference that the wallet is yours – or else why would you ask for it? You therefore have, by your strictly true words and voiceless actions, conveyed an untruth – ie, “the lost wallet is mine.” You have lied.
You tell me – hey, “sin happens,” right?
A lie is not merely a false statement. To lie is “to make an untrue statement with intent deceive” OR “to create a false or misleading impression.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.
That’s because he represented that the product was still under warranty – i.e., to be repaired or replaced for free. If it wasn’t, then he wasn’t entitled to have it repaired or replaced for free (unless it was defective, as opposed to just broken). That is what the receipt would have established – that it was just purchased and therefore still under warranty. But there is nothing in the OP that indicates the product was defective as opposed to just broken. The facts to be established by the reciept were: (1) I purchased this item here; and (2) it is new and under warranty and ought to be replaced. Now, both these things are in fact true, or so the OP tells us. But the receipt for one item does not establish these facts for a different (if identical) item, and if you allow Best Buy to think you have a receipt for the broken item when you don’t, then you are lying to them. Again, whether the lie is justifiable is another question, but it seems to me to be beyond argument that you are, in fact, lying when you return one item with a receipt for a second item and allow the company to think the two go together.
Tell me what is so wrong with the following-
[list=1]
[li] BestBuy has payment for one phone.[/li][li] BestBuy has second non-working phone with warranty (assumming product was previously defective) from manufacturer.[/li][li] Customer has one working phone with no reciept.[/li][/list=1]
The only immorality (IMHO) going on here is the BestBuy paperwork. It is the only thing standing in the way of a happy cutomer. The only reason that BestBuy has such a stringent policy on returns is their add-on “warranty” they sell.
BB Sales: Would you like to purchase a two year warranty on this video card, it is only 80$?
Me: Why, is it going to break?
BB Sales: Well it shouldnt, but if it does we will replace it!
Me: You mean you wont replace it if it isnt working?
BB Sales: We will up to 30 days on all electronic returns.