Stingiest things thread(op for R&R access)

the beer revolu · 05-12-2019 4:42pm

Amanda Screeching Housewife wrote: »

I'd only have a problem with it if the sales assistant is going to get in trouble,:

I would also have a serious problem if I thought for one second that the sales assistant or manager could get in trouble. I would not have done it if there was any doubt in my mind about this.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:42pm

maudgonner wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, he returned Boots 2, the unworn ones?

No, he clearly brought back Boots 1. Otherwise, why tell the story of returning the boots you’ve just bought? The whole point of the story is the swap.

Salary Negotiator · 05-12-2019 4:42pm

Theft by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

Stevieluvsye · 05-12-2019 4:42pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If their boss found out, they absolutely could. Speaking from experience here. Not fired from a job myself but have seen it happen to others. Yes, if this was discovered, it’s a fireable offence. It’s a good chunk of change.

I'm sorry but i don't get the rationale here. I would sue the bejaysus out of said company if i got the tin tack.

What exactly has the SA done wrong?

ncmc · 05-12-2019 4:43pm

No he returned boots 2, the unworn pair. They matched the receipt of boots 1 as they were the exact same pair. So no one could ever find out and no one could ever get in trouble.

the beer revolu · 05-12-2019 4:43pm

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

No Boots 1 were the expensive pair returned

I actually returned boots 2 which were identical in every way to the first pair.
I passed them off as boots 1 as I had worn boots 1 for two weeks.

Stevieluvsye · 05-12-2019 4:44pm

And let's assume ODB that he did not make both transactions at the same time

(Returned Boots 1 and at the same time purchased Boots 2)

Stevieluvsye · 05-12-2019 4:44pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

I actually returned boots 2 which were identical in every way to the first pair.
I passed them off as boots 1 as I had worn boots 1 for two weeks.

Oh, that changes things ye manky bastard

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:46pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

I would also have a serious problem if I thought for one second that the sales assistant or manager could get in trouble. I would not have done it if there was any doubt in my mind about this.

You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 05-12-2019 4:47pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, he clearly brought back Boots 1. Otherwise, why tell the story of returning the boots you’ve just bought? The whole point of the story is the swap.

He passed off the newly bought unworn boots as the pair he'd paid full price for by my reading.

They have a new pair of boots which they think were the ones sold for 179 but they're not, they're the pair that were sold on sale and the full price ones are the ones he still has which probably aren't in returnable condition by now.

He didn't get mightily ripped off, they still have a shop fresh pair of boots.

If he'd done what your reading of the post was then yes that'd be very scummy but I don't think that's what happened.

ncmc · 05-12-2019 4:48pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.

You're not listening to logic, there is no way they can find out or anyone get in trouble. He returned a pair of unworn boots with a valid receipt. Whether or not they were the exact physical pair of boots listed on the receipt is irrelevent and unprovable as they do not have a serial number or any other identifying information.

the beer revolu · 05-12-2019 4:50pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re not in the position to know that. You’ve walked away and will never know if there were repercussions.

Oh, give over.
There is no possibility of this coming back on the sales assistant of the manager.
None.

They refunded €179 for a pair of boots, with a receipt for that amount.

I will accept sharp practice.
I will accept a level of deception.

The notion that the sales assistant could lose their job - no.
Not.
Ever.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:51pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Accepted, but they are hardly going to laugh heartily and say "well done", if they were secretly appalled.

Whatever about the claim that it is, technically, theft at worst and sharp practice at best, the notion that an assistant could lose their job is a complete load of bollocks.

Please explain how this could happen.
The refund was approved by a manager.

I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.

Dodge · 05-12-2019 4:52pm

Buy boots A - 179
Buy boots b - 69

Return the unworn pair and receive 179 in exchange?

I don’t see any problem here except for the OP calling himself a stinge as no self respecting stinge is paying either price for a pair of boots

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:53pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Oh, give over.
There is no possibility of this coming back on the sales assistant of the manager.
None.

They refunded €179 for a pair of boots, with a receipt for that amount.

I will accept sharp practice.
I will accept a level of deception.

The notion that the sales assistant could lose their job - no.
Not.
Ever.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. You and the responses backing you up - cute hoorism is alive and well.

the beer revolu · 05-12-2019 4:54pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.

I'm sure you didn't say "fair play to you, that's fcuking brilliant".
That's, the reaction I got from anyone I told.

I think that suit guy is a scumbag too.
I wouldn't do that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:55pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

I'm sure you didn't say "fair play to you, that's fcuking brilliant".
That's, the reaction I got from anyone I told.

I think that suit guy is a scumbag too.
I wouldn't do that.

I laughed and made vaguely affirmative noises (awkwardly). Anyway, you do you.

Stevieluvsye · 05-12-2019 4:55pm

TBR

Was it a "large" chain or an independent?

the beer revolu · 05-12-2019 4:56pm

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

TBR

Was it a "large" chain or an independent?

Multinational

ncmc · 05-12-2019 4:56pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I had somebody proudly tell me this summer gone that the suit he owns is one he never returned to the suit rental place. Somebody brazenly telling you about their underhand behaviour is incredibly difficult to respond to. I laughed it off and changed the subject but I didn’t challenge the person. However I think he’s a complete knackbag now.

That is actual theft though, no if's, and's or but's. Two situations are totally different.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:56pm

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

TBR

Was it a "large" chain or an independent?

If you think the action acceptable, why should that matter?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 4:58pm

ncmc wrote: »

That is actual theft though, no if's, and's or but's. Two situations are totally different.

Just brought it to highlight that people are often not straight with each other. I wouldn’t point out the underhandedness if it wasn’t worth the hassle but I’d forever think less of the person. One case might be more serious than the other but I would find both knackery, to different degrees.

Stevieluvsye · 05-12-2019 4:58pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you think the action acceptable, why should that matter?

I was wondering because of the size of the discount....was it an independent looking to get rid of it's stock at any value as it had a cashflow problem.

ArnoldJRimmer · 05-12-2019 5:12pm

People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway

Wayne Jarvis · 05-12-2019 5:20pm

ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »

People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway

It will be even worse when they see the actual boots he bought

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 6:13pm

ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »

People certainly aren't being stingy with over-reactions today anyway

This is a popular thread and the post has still only been thanked twice. I’m comfortable in my reaction.

dubstarr · 05-12-2019 6:45pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

:eek:

You’ll double down so little point in continuing here but jesus. The tills will be out for the day. That will have to be explained.

The tills wont be down as the original price was paid out.Plus most places have a customer service desk.So different tills.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 6:49pm

ncmc wrote: »

You're not listening to logic, there is no way they can find out or anyone get in trouble. He returned a pair of unworn boots with a valid receipt. Whether or not they were the exact physical pair of boots listed on the receipt is irrelevent and unprovable as they do not have a serial number or any other identifying information.

That’s naive. These things can absolutely be noticed. One assistant to another: “Hey, wasn’t he in a little while ago? Why did you give him such a large refund on a sale item?”. When I worked in a shoe shop, my supervisor was incredibly clued in and observant to mistakes and discrepancies. She wouldn’t be looking for mistakes, she was just very sharp. And sales assistants do remember customers and what they bought. And often other assistants note things too. The sales assistant probably knew full well what he was up to but couldn’t prove it. Awful stuff altogether and a horrible position to put somebody in.

Shelflife · 05-12-2019 6:50pm

It’s def underhand behaviour.

Is it theft/fraud ? I’d say yes as he has deceived the shop and denied them the profit that they we’re entitled to and that he was happy to pay for at the time.

Not a very nice thing to do to a business very underhand and sharp practice!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-12-2019 6:51pm

Shelflife wrote: »

It’s def underhand behaviour.

Is it theft/fraud ? I’d say yes as he has deceived the shop and denied them the profit that they we’re entitled to and that he was happy to pay for at the time.

Not a very nice thing to do to a business very underhand and sharp practice!

Exactly. He agreed to the price he paid.

Stingiest things thread(op for R&R access)

Comments