Unethical people & product warranties

The BBQ Pit
1

So I asked a question on Reddit about hiking socks. Specifically, I asked if there were any that were machine washable with warm water, normal cycle, and tumble dry medium, because while my Darn Tough socks are great and have a lifetime warranty regardless of how I care (or don’t) for them, I don’t feel that it’s ethical to intentionally disregard the care instructions (hand or machine wash cold & gentle cycle, wool detergent, dry flat), and then submit a warranty claim.

Instead I get a whole lot of people saying “But they warranty them anyway.”, as if that somehow makes it ok to deliberately mistreat them and submit warranty claims. I pointed out that ethical behavior isn’t about the effects on others, it’s about what you know and what you do in a situation. And I got downvoted!

Am I being a prig here, or are these people mildly unethical in their behavior? I mean, it’s between them and Darn Tough if they choose to behave like that, but I don’t think it’s right to act like that.

2

The video on the website specifically says “Unconditionally Guaranteed”. I take that to mean they’re accepting that abuse will happen and will cover it.

I also expect that there’s little enough abuse(and/or the socks can take a beating) that they can absorb the cost.

Plus the cost of replacing socks under warranty are factored into the price.

3

In other words, you told them they were erhically in the wrong. (By implication, sure. But you were, nonetheless, criticizing their ethical calculus.)

How was that ever going to end up differently than it did?

4

I know.. It was after I had just said that I didn’t feel like it was ethical for me to do that, and then that person basically said what @running_coach said.

So my reply was that ethical behavior is an internal thing - it’s not about the external effects. It doesn’t matter if there’s no ill effect, it’s still unethical.

Plus I never got a useful answer because everyone was busy telling me to do what I said I didn’t want to do.

5

I’d disagree. Morality may be solely internal but ethics is more about following rules and statutes. If the rules of that company clearly indicate that the warranty covers mistreatment, even intentionally, then it is ethical to do so. Your own moral compass may say it is still wrong, which is your right, but that is different from ethics.

In other words, ethics is driven by a shared value system or code, whereas morality is more internal.

6

I checked out the website, and they do in fact offer an unconditional guarantee for returns and you don’t even have to produce a receipt.

  1. Discover issue then remove and wash socks.
  2. Fill out online form.
  3. Ship socks.
  4. Receive code.
  5. They ship you new socks.
  6. Put on new socks.

When you read the fine print, it does make it clear that the warranty covers what appears to be inadvertent damage and they must be able to identify the socks as their brand.

From an ethical standpoint, so long as you don’t deliberately damage the socks I think you’re safe even if you didn’t treat the socks with the respect they deserve.

7

This is not exactly related, but I thought close enough that it might add to the discussion. What about people who buy something from a store with the intention of using it and then returning it? That is, they never had the intention of keeping it no matter what, but essentially are looking for a free rental. Think something like a post hole digger when they are putting up a fence. Something they could very much use for a particular project, but not something they need to own. My thought is that this violates the implicit agreement that sellers and consumers need to abide by for capitalism to run. Stores are not in the business of providing free rentals, and if enough people start doing this, costs are going to increase exorbitantly to compensate. Everyone loses.

Enough people seem to think there is absolutely no problem with this that it makes me really pessimistic about societal ethics in general. The editors of my local newspaper even thought it was ok!

8

Absolutely unethical. It was not defective and they just turned it into a used (and possibly unsaleable) item.
ETA: Is “stolen value(?)” a thing?

9

Yup.

Consider:

Darn Tough: “We will replace your socks unconditionally. In order to support this promise, we will charge you more.”

You: “That sounds like something valuable to me. I will purchase these socks instead of other socks.”

You: “I ran the socks through the dryer even though care instructions say don’t do it.”

Darn Tough: “That does not impact the warranty that you paid for.”

You: “Even though we agreed upon this, I find it unethical to utilize the warranty I bought from you.”

… you can feel how you want, and do what you want, but I’m struggling to understand the ethical (or moral, for that matter) code that one would apply to this. Darn Tough has already told you that how you wash the socks has no bearing on the warranty. You are associating those two things (care instructions and warranty) when they are explicitly not relevant to each other.

10

People returning 20 year old backpacks, destroyed garments, and worn out boots was what drove REI to change their lifetime return policy to 1 year for members, 90 days for non-members back in 2013. I know of several people who abused the system, often multiple times for one initial purchase.

I’ve seen it recommended a few times that if you had a lug nut that required a specialized socket, just hammer the closest fitting Sears Craftsman socket onto the lugnut. You can always return the trashed socket for a new one, no questions asked.

11

LL Bean did the same in 2018.

12

I see where they’re coming from, though I disagree with the conclusion. Walmart decides to allow no questions asked returns, not from the goodness of their hearts, but because it’s a good business decision.

However… that decision is to court customers who genuinely want to buy things, and ease their concerns about buying something that might not work out for them. Walmart knows that a small percentage of their clientele will be sneaky, cheating, scumbags and use Walmart as a free rental service. While it’s true that some people will be scumbags, that’s not an argument to go ahead and be a scumbag.

Oh, you lost a ring and would like to “buy” a metal detector to look for it? Here’s the taped up, half shredded box of Radio Shack’s best metal detector that’s been bought 10 times already by other people who think like you. See you next week!

13

There’s a practical reason to know what the proper care is, and follow it. Even if there is a lifetime warranty, no questions asked, you still have to go through the process of getting the socks replaced if they become damaged. It’s better to just not ruin them in the first place. So it’s still good to know how to properly take care of them.

This is something I remind my customers of all the time at work. We have warranties on all of our computers, but you can’t snap your fingers and voila, they are magically fine again. We have to carefully document the issue, submit the request, schedule a repair, be on site for the repair, and so on. And in the meantime, your computer is broken. So be careful for fucks’ sake.

As for the ethics of disregarding care instructions… Warranties aren’t free. They are part of the price of the product. It’s one of the selling features. I was a salesperson once upon a time, and our 3 year warranty was intended to give the customer the peace of mind that if something went wrong, we’d fix it (as long as they didn’t do anything to violate the warranty that is).

For socks, the warranty is there to assure you that if you don’t want to be gentle with the socks, it’s fine. They’ll take care of it when the socks get worn out. They do that so you buy the socks from them, and not a competitor who might sell socks that are effectively identical but without the warranty.

It’s like the ethics of a free refill in a fast food restaurant. It’s not unethical to get a refill. If you feel like you are taking advantage of the business by doing so, and don’t feel right about it, that’s fine. That’s your prerogative. Don’t get a refill. It doesn’t mean it’s unethical for other people to take advantage of the offer, but if it makes you feel better to not do it, don’t do it.

On Sunday, I took my friend to one of our favorite game stores. (He had a stroke a number of years ago and while he has recovered well he can’t drive anymore, and doesn’t get out of the house as much as he’d like, so I took him on a bit of a trip.) When we got there, we found out that the store was closing and they had a huge sale on much of their merchandise. I felt a bit bad taking advantage, because they are obviously having financial hardships (or they wouldn’t be closing), but they are offering that discount for a reason. They are trying to get rid of stock as fast as possible before they lose the store to sell them from. Considering that, my guilt went away.

Another example… When I go to the grocery store, I go out of my way to return the cart to the vestibule after I go shopping. I used to work in a store, and I used to be the person who had to return carts, so I know how much that can suck. When I return a cart, it feels like I’m helping out my past teenaged self who had to do that stuff. I know that ethically I don’t have to, there is no obligation to do so, and someone else is paid to do that. And my returning one cart isn’t going to matter much to the person who has to go out and collect dozens at a time. But it makes me feel better to do it. I’m doing it for myself, really.

I don’t judge everyone else who doesn’t return carts and I don’t think they are being unethical for not doing what I do.

14

There was a boutique geared toward teens in my town, growing up.

We all went there. The proprietor had a eye for what the kids wanted.

A few I think she manufactured and talked us into believing it was next big thing!

You could take things home “on approval” and hope to talk your parent into letting you keep it and pay for it.
I knew many girls who did the “on approval” thing and used the clothing. One night. They took it back after wearing it.

I always thought it unethical.

When shopping there,
I looked at the stuff I might want to buy for signs it was used and returned.

Bad teenage girls!!

15

As I remember from when LL Bean changed its policy, people abused the policy by buying used LL Bean goods from garage sales and then getting it replaced with new stuff from the company.

And I think many stores track who returns stuff and if you’re identified as a serial returner, you may no longer be allowed to return anything.

16

When you buy the socks, you and the company have a mutually agreed contract about the return policy. They are, in effect, making a promise that their socks will remain suited for purpose*, and if they are ever not suited for purpose they will replace them free of charge. That is the only promise being made. The care instructions are only recommended, and are not part of the contract. This is the way the situation reads to me, and so it does not seem unethical (to me) for you to take them at their word.

*The term “suited for purpose” that I have chosen can be interpreted in different ways. It may include whether you still like to wear them even if they haven’t changed but you have. The company is not making any conditions, but you can if you like. That does not make other customers who interpret the contract more to their advantage than you do, less ethical than you. Always assuming that they are not committing fraud.

eta: ps, I’m not clear why this thread is in the pit. Are you pitting the Reddit posters who voted you down?

17

exactly! It is based upon the good faith premise that you only buy what you legitimately think you want. If it turns out not to work as you intended, or there is some other legitimate reason to return it, that policy makes it easy to do so.

And it’s not an argument to defend scumbags who do so by saying, “well the store knew that some people would do that, so it’s totally ok”, like those editors I linked to were trying to do.

18

Yup. This American Life did a story about LL Bean’s return policy. In addition to buying stuff in bulk, people were buying a bunch of camping gear on Friday, going to an outdoor Phish concert on Saturday, and returning everything covered in mud in Monday.

19

When I worked at Toys R Us, we had people who we knew were buying things, using them, and returning them. Like, say, a kid’s plastic swimming pool in the Summer. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it was to deal with a dirty, scuffed up pool that was 8’ in diameter?

But store policy accepted that crap as long as they had a receipt and it was dated recently. So we took it.

I do find that shit unethical, even if it’s not illegal. There are lots of things that are legal but still make you an asshole.

20

It seems to me that, by offering this unconditional warrantee, the sock company is implicitly saying that “Our socks are so tough, they’ll continue to hold up no matter how you treat them”. In other words, the usage instructions are “go ahead and use them however you want”. In such a situation, I don’t see anything at all unethical about using them however I want.

I probably still wouldn’t deliberately try to damage them, unless I ran a product-review website or something and was trying to determine just precisely how durable the socks are. But I would absolutely take that as permission to launder them in whatever way was easiest for me.