| | Jeff writes, Once again, what the store does or does not (or can or can not) know at the time of the purchase, does not determine the ethical status of the buyer. But the fact that the store doesn't inquire about the buyer's intentions and doesn't establish its policy with respect to those intentions means that the buyer's intentions are not part of the contract, in which case, they are irrelevant to the ethical status of the buyer. The only thing that's relevant is that the buyer pay for the product before he takes it out of the store. And, in particular, with reference to your statement that there's no harm to the store -- whether true or not is beside the point, with respect to the ethics of the buyer. He may not be lying (although this is debatable and has been covered at length), he is being dishonest, i.e. faking reality, by pretending to buy the camera, knowing he intends to return it for a full refund. That the store allows this has no bearing on the ethics of the buyer. He's not being dishonest, because there is no representation that in buying the product, he intends to keep it. Do you really want to argue that an action is only unethical if party A harms party B? No, of course not, but if it doesn't harm the store or violate the seller's rights, then what's unethical about it? You say that it's fraudulent or dishonest; in fact, it's neither, because the buyer's action is mute with respect to his intention of either keeping or returning the product. And if his action is neither fraudulent or dishonest, then on what grounds is it unethical?
John writes, But businesses like Hampton Inn and Macy's clearly are trying to judge the intentions of their customers by refusing to do business with people that they feel abuse their company's policies. But what constitutes an "abuse" of their company's policies? It isn't buying a product with the intention of returning it; it's buying a product and returning it repeatedly, regardless of one's intentions at the time of purchase. A shopper who buys a product and returns it only once is not abusing the policy, even if he intended to return it at the time of purchase, whereas a shopper who buys a product and returns it repeatedly is abusing the policy, even if he didn't intend to return it at the time of purchase. In short, the "abuse" in this case refers not to the buyer's intentions but to his actions. But suppose Bill you and I enter into a contract with each other for an automobile I am selling to you. I say I'm selling the car for 2,000 dollars, I write up a contract, give it you, but there was a typo and I entered 200 instead of 2000. According to your logic, since there is no way to objectively assess what was spoken verbally (save for perhaps we had a tape recorder) to you there is nothing unethical about taking the written contract price over the verbal agreement and give me only 200 dollars for the car. Your example is not analogous. The store could establish its policy of "no questions asked," because there is no convenient way to assess the buyer's intentions. Or it could do so simply as a way to attract business. In either case, the policy is one that disregards the buyer's intentions at the time of purchase by allowing him to buy the product even if he intends to return it.
By contrast, the sale of your car does not involve a policy in which you're willing to disregard the amount of money I pay for it. You're explicitly requiring 2,000 dollars for it; the typo does not represent your price; your verbal statement does. And I am obligated to pay it, if I want the car. You and I both know what price you're charging, because you've made it explicit. To you there is I guess nothing unethical about that, you can't sit there and judge my intentions I suppose, maybe I just changed my mind and decided to give you the car for 200 dollars and it's not a typo, after all you're just following the terms of the contract. Nothing unethical about that right? Here I would have positive evidence that you are willing to part with the car only if you receive 2000 dollars for it, so it's reasonable for me to infer that the 200 dollar price on the contract is a typo. The fact that a third party may not know this is irrelevant, if objective evidence of the price is available to the contracting parties themselves. I think there is a responsibility for consideration in a contract, a seller and buyer to have a harmony of interests must not be out to look to shaft the other guy and take advantage of his goodwill offering. A store that has a service guarantee didn't make the policy so people who are completely satisfied with a product or service could just get products and services for free. But a person who returns a product that he has purchased isn't completely satisfied with it at the price he paid; otherwise, he wouldn't return it. This is true, even if he buys it with the intention of returning it, for he could always change his mind and decide to keep it, in which case, he would be completely satisfied. There is no indication that a store with a "no questions" asked return policy isn't willing to allow customers to buy the product even if they intend to return it, because they might decide to keep it once they try it out. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the vendors at my local farmer's market allow people to sample their fruits and nuts, on the premise that a certain percentage of customers will decide to buy them once they discover how good they are.
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/21, 1:12am)
|
|
