Ethics

Eric to address your post, the reason why there is a no-questions-asked policy is because it is simply impossible for a store to read a customer's mind, and know what their intentions were when they purchased the product. So by the very nature of asking the shady customer whom I call trash, "did you just buy this to have it rent-free?" means you could be asking that to a genuinely good customer who just changed his mind that he didn't want the product. But the person who returned it for the sole purpose of using it rent-free clearly did want the product, he wasn't in error in desiring the product, but only for a short period of time wanted it and not pay a cent for that service. It isn't illegal, because the bad customer is still abiding by the store's conditions, it is only the store doesn't have a choice and can't better discriminate the policy because it could be a loss of sales from good, i.e. non-trashy customers. I mean to put it in a silly way, a store's policy is designed around the fact they are not telepathic and can know fully the intentions of their customers, and the very act of asking, i.e. using verbal communication to seek out information, could mean losing future sales from a repeat customer.

Post 61

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 1:38pm

John,
I think I mentioned in my post that big box management will change their policy in the event the abuse exceeds budget expectations. I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not sending letters to customers telling them to shop elsewere is the best solution.
The point is there are some advantages to getting a customer in the store, look around, talk to the sales clerk, and out the door with a product in his hands that he has paid for. And, the store's marketing policy may be to take advantage of the benefits. Understandably, the customer is not privy to the store management's marketing strategy.
If the store management wants to advise all of its customers up front that its "no questions asked" return policy does not include purchases where the purchaser intends on using the product and returning it, it is easy enough to do. Wall Mart has a big sign hanging on the wall in its return department listing its return policy requirements.
Is it an ethical requirement that the customer ask if the list is complete? I don't think it is.
Gordon

Post 62

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 1:42pm

Gordan:

If the store management wants to advise all of its customers up front that its "no questions asked" return policy does not include purchases where the purchaser intends on using the product and returning it, it is easy enough to do.

Gordan that's silly. How could they ask the purchaser if they intended only to use the product temporarily without ever having any intention of keeping it if they have a "no questions asked" return policy? Wouldn't asking the question negate the whole point of a no-questions-asked policy? Certainly they can put that stipulation in there but it would be completely meaningless would it not since the customer has no obligation for stating the reason for returning the product?

Post 63

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 1:50pm

John
Regarding your comment to Eric, the fact that it is difficult to police is no reason for not the store management making the statement on its list of "Return Policy Requirements".
The point is if the if the situation of purchase, use, and return is a no no, and it is stated on the list of "purchase return requirements", and the customer follows through with a "purchase, use, and return" transaction anyway, then the purchaser is acting in an unethical manner.
No question about it.
Gordon

Post 64

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 1:53pm

John,
I used the word advise, you changed the word to ask. Is that ethical for you to do that?
Gordon

Post 65

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 1:57pm

Gordan, you forget the point of a business. It's to make money, not to make an ethical point to a customer who wouldn't honestly reveal their motives anyway. So putting that stipulation in there serves no function for generating revenue as it is impossible to enforce that condition. But businesses are attempting to better discriminate by turning away customers they think are chronic returners, so obviously there is an attempt here by businesses to get better information and discriminate their services.

And on a side note, I'm surprised people would think something is ethical just because they can get away with it without anyone discovering why they did it?

Post 66

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 2:02pm

Gordan sorry I posted my last post while you posted your recent question. Could you clarify what you mean I changed the word from advise to ask and how that is unethical? I'm a little confused as to what you're getting at. You can certainly advise the customer you can't return something if you just intended to use it temporarily with never having any intention of keeping it, while stating there is a no-questions-asked return policy but the "advisement" is then rendered meaningless as there is no chance for discovery on the part of the store to figure out why the customer is returning the product.

Post 67

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 2:09pm

John,
I've explained my postion as clearly as I can, and I'm not inclined to spend more time on the subject. Especially when the person I'm writing to isn't interested enough to spell my name correctly.
Gordon

Post 68

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 2:14pm

Jeff, I agree with most of your post 47. It should be obvious. One qualification is at the very end, when you say that both parties are behaving voluntarily.

Fraud only appears to be a voluntary act by both parties. It's getting the victim to voluntarily part with their property based on a deception. The fact that it appears to be voluntary, since the victim physically transfers his property to the other person, is just an illusion. If it is fraud, it would appear to be voluntary.

In this case, I think it is fraud. And if the store had an explicit policy of "no renters", even if they couldn't prove you were renting, it would be certainly be fraud. But really, it's simple. If the store was informed of your intentions, and decided not to make the "sale", it would show that they consider your intentions as part of the transaction. If you've misrepresented your intentions, tricking them into making a trade they don't consider valuable, it is fraud.

Jon, you seem to get the point in post 50. In post 48, you talk about deception like "I can't go any lower than X". The problem here is that deception itself isn't necessarily fraud. Fraud is when you offer something for trade, and you don't actually provide that. When you offer to buy the product, but you are actually renting, it's trade because the other side didn't get the value they were promised in the exchange.

To everyone who said they wouldn't have the policy if it didn't benefit them, I think you have to recognize that the policy is not for these "renters" but for the other people. The fact that they can't easily distinguish between the two does not mean they want both. Nor does it mean they benefit from the renters. The benefit is from the non-renters, and as long as they outnumber the renters in value, the store might continue it. But don't pretend that the store is okay with the renters just because they keep the policy.

Eric, is your scenario supposed to be that the store tells people they're welcome to come "rent" the product for a week? If so, then clearly it's not fraudulent. But the wording you use does not convey that clearly. It sounds just like another wording for a return policy. Instead of renting, it still is still worded as a purchase.

John, your posts have been excellent, even if you don't seem to entirely agree with me. 62, I think, was a little unfair. It may sound silly to have an explicit policy that says no renters while still having a policy of returns for any reasons, since as you said it's meaningless in terms of enforcement. But evidently there are people here that think unless that is actually spelled out, it's perfectly moral to take advantage of the store. It may sound silly, but given the already silly position that stores who have these polices want you to "rent" from them, it seems like a reasonable precaution. Yes, you the store can't do anything about the renters. But maybe Objectivists would decide that the act is immoral under those conditions. Perhaps not.

I'd be curious from the pro-renter group to hear whether such a policy would transform this behavior into an immoral action and/or fraud. Bill? Eric?

Post 69

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 4:12pm

Gordon I apologize for misspelling your name, I assure you it wasn't intentional. I'm sorry you feel that means talking to me is a waste of your time. Oh well..another satisfied customer I suppose.

Post 70

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 4:23pm

I, for one, am surprised this thread has generated such response to what one would have thought a clear and unambiguous answering to a specific question..... amazing...... deceit is an issue of fraud - period.....

Post 71

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 4:29pm

Joe

John, your posts have been excellent, even if you don't seem to entirely agree with me. 62, I think, was a little unfair. It may sound silly to have an explicit policy that says no renters while still having a policy of returns for any reasons, since as you said it's meaningless in terms of enforcement. But evidently there are people here that think unless that is actually spelled out, it's perfectly moral to take advantage of the store. It may sound silly, but given the already silly position that stores who have these polices want you to "rent" from them, it seems like a reasonable precaution. Yes, you the store can't do anything about the renters. But maybe Objectivists would decide that the act is immoral under those conditions. Perhaps not.

Joe thanks for the compliment as I always find your posts to be excellent as well, I think of any Objectivist forum out there you as a moderator intelligently contribute to threads more so than any other moderator I've come across. But I actually thought we were entirely in agreement?

Anyhow to add to the point as far as whether a contract is executed faithfully in the case of the bad customer who is only interested in rent-free service, all contracts must still require consideration, not just offer and acceptance. There really is no law that states a store can't sell a product as is, so long as there's no fraud involved, and the return polices are only there as a means of generating revenue from a marketing stand point. Having said that there is an element of good faith the store is injecting into these policies, the idea being they want to get you to be loyal to their store. They want the opportunity to win you over as a repeat customer, certainly one can take advantage of that good faith without any intention of going back to that store and actually doing business with them, and of course it is completely legal for a piece of trash customer to do this as a store must abide by their stated conditions for a contract, but my contention is it's not ethical, not necessarily illegal. There is no consideration offered when a moocher just wants to get rent-free service from a store and thereby taking advantage of that store's goodwill business intentions of winning over customers. I mean it doesn't have to be illegal or legally fraudulent for it to be unethical. Let's attach whatever term we'd like, "alegal fraud" perhaps, whatever, but that's a semantics game I'd rather not get into.

Post 72

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 4:50pm

Hi John, thank you for the kind words. I'm glad my presence on the forums is considered a contribution. For awhile, there were people who considered it unfair that I should be able to post, as I was the owner of the site.

I got the impression that you didn't quite accept that this deception was an actual rights violation, which is why I said you don't seem to entirely agree with me. You've focused on the unethical part, and done a fine job at it. And I agree that even if it isn't a rights violation or legally fraudulent, it is still unethical. There we are in complete agreement.

In terms of whether it is actually a rights violation, I'm interested to know if there can be any line drawn. If there is an explicit policy that they will only make sales to non-renting customers, and a renting customer lies and gets them to make a deal, is it fraud? Have their rights been violated? I say yes. We can go further and also say that they don't need to have such a policy made explicit, but the question comes down to if they do have that policy, whether it's an actual rights violation at that point. If I say I'll only trade this with you if you're not simply renting, and you are actually intending to just rent, have you cheated me and violated my ownership?

This is the crucial question for fraud. Those who say it is fraud, but if the policy is only implicit its not fraud, are just claiming a technicality (that I don't think exists). Those who say that this isn't fraud, have a lot of explaining to do.

Post 73

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 5:44pm

Joe writes:

I'd be curious from the pro-renter group to hear whether such a policy would transform this behavior into an immoral action and/or fraud. Bill? Eric?

Yikes! Somehow I got put in the "pro-renter group" even though I've said in every post that I take moral issue with someone who tries to get something for nothing.

I think "renting" is not an appropriate designation for the specific action we're talking about. Renting something is trading value for value. "Freeloading" would be a more appropriate term here, I think. And I think free-loading is unethical. But not every case of freeloading is an act of fraud. For example, if someone takes advantage of a free soup kitchen, it's freeloading, but not a criminal act.

As I said in Post #58, if a store's return policy is explicit, stating something to the effect of "No Used or Damaged Goods May Be Returned," then of course it is an act of fraud to purchase a product, use it, and then upon returning it act like you never took it out of the box.

Joe, I'm curious if you've conceded the point regarding where the defining moment of fraud exists. You had argued that it is at the point of purchase. If you still think that, I'd like to hear your response the hypothetical story of Sally in Post #46.

Post 74

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 5:52pm

Ahh, ok Joe I see now how we're not entirely in agreement but pretty darn close to it. I would hesitate to say it would be a rights violation. Since the conditions set by the store was you can get a refund no matter what the reason, the store has to abide by that unless they provide a stipulation that such a refund must be done in good faith, i.e. a refund if you decide you're actually not completely satisfied with the product, not a refund if you are satisfied with the product but don't want to pay for it. The alternative is to have the government guess what the store's and customer's intentions were, and I think it's a business's obligation, not the government's obligation as rights protectors, to protect themselves by wording their conditions of a contract to serve their own interests. Perhaps then it is a rights violation but something that is just not enforceable? I'm not sure. I would fear the government's response to something that a business might not actually ask for. I think businesses are starting to take a more discriminatory approach that better protects their interests as the Hampton Inn and Macy's examples I've provided show. I think that approach is far better at remedying such unethical behavior. Otherwise a business has to deal with their own policies and their own contracts on how they want to word them.

Hi John, thank you for the kind words. I'm glad my presence on the forums is considered a contribution. For awhile, there were people who considered it unfair that I should be able to post, as I was the owner of the site.

Joe don't pay attention to them! I always enjoy reading your posts! Whether I always agree or not you alway present your case intelligently and sincerely.
(Edited by John Armaos on 1/16, 5:54pm)

Post 75

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 6:15pm

Sorry Eric. I forgot to respond to you. And sorry to put you in the pro-renter group, which doesn't correctly describe your position. I do want your input on that, though, since you seem to disagree that the initial act is the problem.

Going back to your Sally question, you think that because she paid for it in the end, the initial act wasn't fraud.

I wonder if the same could be said for most or all cases of fraud. I could sell you a fake diamond, for instance. After going home and thinking about it, I could decide I was wrong and remedy it by sending you a real one, or giving you your money back, or something like that. Was my initial action a case of fraud? Did it stop being fraud when I changed my mind and decided to give you the real merchandise? Is every case of fraud simply an uncompleted transaction, that you can magically transform into a non-fraud by finishing it?

So no, I haven't conceded the point of about the moment of fraud. I think it was a case of fraud in the initial transaction, and is just remedied before the store could find out in the case of Sally.

As for my question to you, that's not the policy I was talking about. You keep trying to change it to a policy of not accepting used items for return. I want to leave that part how it was, that the policy is wide open for the returns. Now, if the additional policy is that they don't sell to "renters", so the initial purchase is only valid if they are not simply "renting" the camera, would you consider it fraud? Remember that the return policy is still wide open, so nothing there provides grounds for calling it fraud.

I also agree that "renters" isn't right, but it does identify the idea in the context of this conversation. Free-loaders may be technically correct as they are free-loading on the policy set because of the contributions of others, but it doesn't highlight the important point that these people are planning to use and return and ultimately not providing any value to the store in this deceptive "exchange".

John, I don't think your fears of what the government might do are off-base, so don't consider that a disagreement. The only point of contention is whether its a rights violation, or whether it would be if the policy of not selling to "renters" were made explicit. Dealing with it privately is almost certainly the only workable course of action, even if it is a rights violation, since it's so difficult to prove.

And note as well that the loose return policy doesn't negate the policy that they don't sell to renters. It just makes it incredibly difficult to prove. So even with that policy, it can still be a rights violation.

Post 76

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 7:58pm

John, I'm sure there was no harm nor foul intended, and your apology is not necessary and accepted without reservation. I have been called worse things than Gordan.

Anyway, I should add that the reason the article caught my attention in the first place was I was a CFO and later a CEO for a company that desinged, manufactured, and sold a outerwear to retailers. We also had our own retail stores. We guaranteed our product and accepted returns on a "no questions asked basis" knowing that some customers returned product that they had used and abused etc. Its not the exact same situation as the camera sales example, but anyway, I had a way of keeping track of the cost of returns, and we also did periodical customer satisfaction surveys.
The reason we continued the policy was the annual cost of the returns was small compared to the word of mouth advertising and goodwill the policy generated. Understandably, if the cost had out weighed the advertizing value we would have changed the policy.

In this very narrowly defined example, were our customers' unethical to take advantage of our relaxed return policy? After all what retailer would be so dumb as to accept a jacket back that had been worn for 2 or 3 years and the cuffs were ragged. We didn't think they were. The marketing strategy was working and we let it go at that.

Gordon

Post 77

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 11:18am

Want to find out what the real answer is? Go to the store and talk to the sales person. Say, I intend to take this home, use it for a week, and then return it. I they say "fine" then you are all set. If they say "no way" then you have your answer. Then you can debate the m about their return policy. You may get a different response at each store. If you think you are justified, but then need to check with an online forum, you're not really sure if your justified. If, in the above situation, you were to tell the salesperson that you will just buy it and keep it, and then returned it to the store, or another store in the same chain, that would be intentional deceit. Bottom line: ask the involved party. period.

Ethan

Post 78

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 12:04pm

Joe,

I'm confused by your "renters" policy. If I understand it, it goes like this:

We are happy to offer full refunds on all merchandise, no questions asked.

We are happy to do business with anyone who walks through our front door. However, if you are what we call a "renter" then we refuse to do business with you. By "renter" we are referring to a person who purchases a product with the sole intent of using it and then asking for a full refund. We think that behavior is despicable, and we refuse to do business with such individuals. If you are such a person, we ask that you leave our business establishment immediately.

This is convoluted, but I believe it is the policy that you are proposing. I think what you are aiming for in this is to show that a "renter" who shops there anyway is violating store policy and thereby committing fraud. My guess is that then you'd argue that what has been made explicit in this policy is actually implicit in the nature of all retail stores. Thus, if a person is guilty of fraud with this explicit policy, they are also guilty in a store that has not defined such a policy.

I truly can't understand your position on poor Sally and her dress (http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1153_2.shtml#46).
You really think she's a criminal? Should she do jail time or pay a fine?

Post 79

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 5:12pm