# Saving by returning



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

I have a friend that always buys things and returns them after using them. This is how he saves money. For example, for his wedding, he bought a video recorder to record the wedding and then returned it after the wedding. 

I think this should be a kind of theft. What do you all think?


----------



## Rico (Jan 27, 2011)

I've heard of people who buy clothes and wear them one night out and return them . . . I think this is pretty dishonest.

However, if one has bought an item and not opened it yet, then the price drops like a week later, I can see returning it for a refund and buying the cheaper one (although with price protection the store should be discounting it anyway).


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

davext said:


> I have a friend that always buys things and returns them after using them. This is how he saves money. For example, for his wedding, he bought a video recorder to record the wedding and then returned it after the wedding.
> 
> I think this should be a kind of theft. What do you all think?


I agree. There are plenty of ways to save money. Abusing store return policies is definitely not a way to save money. It might work swimmingly until the day the store refuses to take back an item (quite legitimately in this case) and the friend is stuck with an item he probably doesn't want.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

davext said:


> I have a friend that always buys things and returns them after using them. This is how he saves money. For example, for his wedding, he bought a video recorder to record the wedding and then returned it after the wedding.
> 
> I think this should be a kind of theft. What do you all think?


More like fraudulent and unethical.
Business like Futureshop and Best Buy have that 30 money back policy, and a lot of people can take advantage of that. 

Unfortunately there's really nothing that will happen. It's abusive behavior and dishonest really.


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

Once you get into this pattern of behaviour, it's hard to go back to actually buying things. 

There are a lot of one time events or rare occasions where this behaviour can be repeated.

For Rico's clothing example, I can't imagine how many people would do this since a lot of people are so vain that they can only wear things once.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This is known as wardrobing. It's a big problem in the retail industry.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I have mixed feelings about this one. I do think of it as abuse of the policy, but I do think this is gray. 

I know of an old school mate that couldn't afford the text books in University. He would buy the book just 13 days before an exam, study it, and then return it the day after the exam to make the 14 policy. He was always very careful with the book, and even put protectors on it. 

I know I have bought items with the intention of keeping them, and then they did not meet my expecations or I didn't like them, so I returned them. I still used them, but they were resellable and in orginal condition. For example, I started a book, it was so awful, I could get past the first few chapters, so returned it. I did the same with a camera once too. I got the camera, used it, but found it so slow and not meeting my needs, I exchanged it for another one. I realize in this case I did an exchange, but if they didn't have another camera I wanted, I would have just asked for the refund. 

Is this wrong? The outcome is the same.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

The difference in this case is really motivation...

I have no problem with returning any item that does not meet my expectations or breaks or is defective in some way. That is what the store policy is for. 

I do have a problem with buying an item knowing full well that I need it for short term use and want to return it after using it. This is leasing. 

eg. getting a humongoid big screen before the Super Bowing and returning it the next day. 

The closest I ever got to doing this was...for my mortgage exam. The calculator was over $100 so I bought a calculator for my iphone to do all the course work for $5.95. For the exam of course they required me not to use any phones in the exam. An hour before the exam I realized this. (not sure what I was thinking there) I went to Staples and bought the calculator. Of course they had some spare calculators at the exam so I did not have to even open the one I had purchased. 

Ironically, the exam did not require much calculating. It was multiple choice and for most of the questions that required math the choices were obvious.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

The more ethical solutions to this kind of problem are 1) renting and 2) borrowing.

The variety of things you can rent is amazing, including video and sound equipment, computers, tools, clothing (e.g., tuxedos), cars, tractors, etc. and usually at reasonable rates. 

When I lived in Vermont, my neighbours and I had a borrowing pool of tools that were only needed once or twice a year and thus weren't worth buying for yourself, such as a rototiller. One neighbour owned a rototiller and the rest of us borrowed it from him once he was done tilling his garden in spring. There was a chain saw that made the rounds as well; there were very few days in which two people needed a chain saw at the same time. My landlord had a cider press, and many of my neighbours had apple trees, so I would schedule a cider-making weekend in autumn and everyone brought their own apples and made their own cider. Frugal, plus it's a way to get to know your neighbours. It can get tricky fast if one neighbour is careless about maintenance or fails to return it to the owner on time, but we never had any problems.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

I knew someone who took advantage of CostCo's return policy. He'd buy a TV, return it a year later, and then use the money to buy the next model up - because the model up had dropped in price over the year. He did this every year for 3-4 years.

I also have a friend who buys things, uses them, and then returns them.

I feel that this behaviour is unethical, with negative impacts on honest consumers. Someone has to pay for the lost revenue of an opened product, and you can bet it isn't going to count against the profits of the corporation.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I have no mixed feelings about this one.

It may not be kleptomania, but it does not matter what you label it or the reasons for people doing it, it is still premeditated and dishonest behaviour & more so when such behaviour becomes a way of life that they don't even admit/believe they are doing anything wrong.

You're right Jungle, it is almost impossible to prove malfeasance.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Are you guys saying that Marge & Homer Simpson are thieves?

http://www.scriptedtvfans.com/2010/10/the-simpsons-10310-loan-a-lisa-episode-recap/

Seriously, I think it's unethical and dishonest.

Problem is that how can the stores know what the intent is at the time of purchase?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They can't. All they can do is try to identify suspicious returns and refuse returns in the future.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

K-133 said:


> I knew someone who took advantage of CostCo's return policy. He'd buy a TV, return it a year later, and then use the money to buy the next model up - because the model up had dropped in price over the year. He did this every year for 3-4 years.


Costco has clamped down on this now. The return period for electronics, computers etc. is now 90 days.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Sounds like it is pretty well unanimous that this is simply not the right thing to do. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

What also bugs me about this is it causes stores to tighten up their return policies even more, which causes the honest people with legitimate returns to really jump through hoops to get something returned. It makes it really difficult for us with all the complicated rules. In the past I've simply not returned the item because of how complicated some of the rules were.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> What also bugs me about this is it causes stores to tighten up their return policies even more, which causes the honest people with legitimate returns to really jump through hoops to get something returned.


I was going to say something similar: I often don't return items simply because the barriers are too high, although it doesn't take much of a barrier for me to give up I'm afraid. This is especially the case with items I've ordered online, because you have to find a box to ship it back in, go to the post office or arrange a courier pickup, etc., and those things alone can be dealbreakers for me when things are busy. If the store I bought something from is across town and it'll take 2 hours out of my day to go there and return it, I won't return it. Depending on how much money is at stake, of course.


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

Sounds like everyone here is on the same page. I wonder how we can get my friend who does this to change. 

For people who do this, there's really very little consideration for both the vendor and the general consumer as well as a deficiency in ethics.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

This is what happened with HMV. They used to have a return policy that allowed opened CDs to be returned. When burners first became widely available, someone bought 1000+ CDs and returned them all, after copying them. So, HMV repealed its policy. In the end, everyone else lost.


----------



## Rico (Jan 27, 2011)

davext said:


> Sounds like everyone here is on the same page. I wonder how we can get my friend who does this to change.
> 
> For people who do this, there's really very little consideration for both the vendor and the general consumer as well as a deficiency in ethics.


Social sanctions are the only likely way to get him to stop (read: embarrassment!)


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

*Consumer mentality of today*

I work with a wonderful group of teenagers in my classroom. They are at risk kids but with guidance and support often surprise us with their well developed code of ethics.(We may not totally agree with them but they do value them) One day a few years ago a young man confided in me that his friend gave him a set of truck keys so he could move the friends truck as a favor. He took it for a joy ride and caused some damage. His reasoning was that if his friend honored his truck he never would have given out his keys to someone who would abuse it. The same reasoning was given by kids who had attended a house party and trashed it. If parents were not home to look after their things then they did not value their home. I was horrified at their thinking but in their eyes it was justified. Street reasoning is if you value something you protect it. Stores may be working in an outdated system. I resent stores knowing about this scam but not doing anything to protect legitimate customers like myself. We ultimately pay higher prices for all the freeloaders that scam the system. What the answer is I do not know but I think it may have something to do with the "anti hero" concept we promoted when we were younger (I'm a babyboomer) taken to a very high level in today's society. I think we need to decide what we value and then do something to protect it. JMHO


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Berubeland said:


> The difference in this case is really motivation...


My point was that when I buy something, I intend to keep it... sometimes I have used it and found out that it was not what I was expecting. The fact is I still returned it after I used it. Final outcome is the same, some bought something, used it, returned it. 

In one case, the intent was to take advantage of the system, in mine, it's because not what I expected. How does one prove intent then?

From an ethicial point, I agree with everyone that it's wrong, to knowingly do it.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think it comes down to motivation. Some people only think of themselves. Others think of society (Do unto others...), and buyers are in both categories and a few others.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I find that stores with liberal return policies usually have higher prices than stores with strict policies.

Think Futureshop vs electronics stores in Pacific Mall.

I also recognize that big box stores create liberal return policies to lessen the barrier to making a purchase. By providing the "why don't you try it, you can always return it later." thought before a consumer make a purchase. There are many instances where I use that reasoning, but failed to return the product I didn't like because of the hassle.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

That's a really good point about the try before you buy. I know thats not the intent from the OP.

I know that there have been many times I have not been sure about a purchase, and would have never bought if it wasn't for the ability to return. 

Often I have kept the item... unless it was really bad or absolutely unusable.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

davext said:


> I have a friend that always buys things and returns them after using them. This is how he saves money. For example, for his wedding, he bought a video recorder to record the wedding and then returned it after the wedding.
> 
> I think this should be a kind of theft. What do you all think?



What do I think?

I think your friend is an a**hole, and a scumbag.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I prefer to call him an opportunist! It may end up being the same thing. Anyone who always tries to get things on the cheap will often miss really good quality opportunities. I have a friend who does that and we like him in spite of it. He is just doing things out of necessity. He had the same opportunities as us but missed them.


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I prefer to call him an opportunist! It may end up being the same thing. Anyone who always tries to get things on the cheap will often miss really good quality opportunities. I have a friend who does that and we like him in spite of it. He is just doing things out of necessity. He had the same opportunities as us but missed them.


I wish I could find some kind of ancient proverb that would make it enlightening.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Pigzfly said:


> This is what happened with HMV. They used to have a return policy that allowed opened CDs to be returned. When burners first became widely available, someone bought 1000+ CDs and returned them all, after copying them. So, HMV repealed its policy. In the end, everyone else lost.


The person who "burned" 1000 cd's went beyond ethics, and actually broke the law.

People who abuse return policies piss me off. They are pathetic, and as pointed out already, many store will really clamp down on returns, and make it difficult for the rest of us who may have a legitimate reason to return something.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

davext said:


> I wonder how we can get my friend who does this to change.


with all due respect, 
butt out
it's really none of your business, or ours


----------



## cannon_fodder (Apr 3, 2009)

Davext,

Does your friend also go into a restaurant with the intention of not paying for dinner by eating most of the food and then complaining that it wasn't quite right? Does he see anything wrong with that? If he does (well, it's not like they can resell the food I ate) then you could point out to them the store may not be able to resell it as brand new thus they will make less money because he rented the item for free.

Would it make a difference to him if he was ripping off a mom-n-pop shop rather than a big corporation? Would it make a difference to him if someone was doing that to a small business his mom owned? Does that hypothetical scenario change his thinking?

I'm no lawyer, but I do know the law has the capacity to consider intent when deciding charges for a crime. Knowingly buying something with full intent of returning it after a temporary use is at least unethical. Eventually, one has to decide if a friendship with a person maintaining opposing principles is worthwhile.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2011)

davext said:


> I have a friend that always buys things and returns them after using them. This is how he saves money. For example, for his wedding, he bought a video recorder to record the wedding and then returned it after the wedding.
> 
> I think this should be a kind of theft. What do you all think?


I think that you should watch your back ... long ago beach combing a buyer offered to credit more than was delivered ... the same buyer over time became known to credit less than was delivered ... I agree, a thief I think is what I'd call such a friend.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I prefer to call him an opportunist! It may end up being the same thing. Anyone who always tries to get things on the cheap will often miss really good quality opportunities. I have a friend who does that and we like him in spite of it. He is just doing things out of necessity. He had the same opportunities as us but missed them.


I disagree with you, kcowan. Like Rikk, I prefer to call him a thief.


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

hystat said:


> with all due respect,
> butt out
> it's really none of your business, or ours


I think this is a valid frugal topic whether it's about someone I know or myself. It's not like I'm asking how I can get a friend out of depression. If you're not interested in it, there's no need to post.


----------



## PoorPablo83 (Feb 8, 2010)

warp said:


> What do I think?
> 
> I think your friend is an a**hole, and a scumbag.


I think that's a bit of a stretch. While I agree it's not right, I doubt anyone was hard done or negatively effected because the friend returned the video camera. In fact, someone probably got a great deal on an opened box returned camera the next day . 

I will fully admit to doing this once, when I went skiing. I borrowed most of my gear as at the time I didn't have any, but the only thing I couldn't borrow were goggles. The trip was planned on short notice, and I only had a couple of days to buy goggles. Being the middle of winter, there was no chance for a sale so I bought a pair at regular price (around $130... it was all they had left) and returned it when I got home. In the summer I walked into the store and bought the same pair for around 35% of the original cost. Did I lose a minute of sleep over it? Nope.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, it is basically theft. You stole some of the value of the store's property.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

What ever happened to the 'Cheapest thing you ever did' thread?

Here is my confession...I once bought a sander that fell apart a couple of weeks later but by the time I returned it 30 days had passed and I would have to get it sent away and serviced - no returns. It was a 39.99 sander from a big box store. I needed it that day/weekend so I bought the exact same one, and a couple of days later returned the broken one and still have the new one. 

I was peeved about the 'return policy' and service it required to get it fixed and that fact that it was a big box store - would never do this at a mom & pop store.

There that feels better getting that off my chest


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Karen said:


> I disagree with you, kcowan. Like Rikk, I prefer to call him a thief.


It sure makes the world seem simpler when you can only see black and white!
and then there is this.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Companies face a lot of shrinkage and huge annual profit losses from actions listed above, such as return broken merchandise beyond 30 day policy by using a newer receipt and returning used items. 

Of course CS agent never checks the box or tests it upon return of funds.

Be very careful and don't take it too far. (ie criminal)


----------



## furgy (Apr 20, 2009)

Karen said:


> Like Rikk, I prefer to call him a thief.





warp said:


> I think your friend is an a**hole, and a scumbag.





kcowan said:


> I prefer to call him an opportunist!





rikk said:


> I agree, a thief I think is what I'd call such a friend.


Hmmmmm.......I'm gonna go with "DOUCHE BAG" here , (gosh I hope I win!).



davext said:


> I wonder how we can get my friend who does this to change.


Maybe send him a link to this thread?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I'll go with miscreant. 

Moonlighter might fit also as for some, this habit seems more like a normal part-time occupation.


----------



## houska (Feb 6, 2010)

PoorPablo83 said:


> While I agree it's not right, I doubt anyone was hard done or negatively effected because the friend returned the video camera. In fact, someone probably got a great deal on an opened box returned camera the next day .
> 
> I will fully admit to doing this once, when I went skiing. I borrowed most of my gear as at the time I didn't have any, but the only thing I couldn't borrow were goggles. The trip was planned on short notice, and I only had a couple of days to buy goggles. Being the middle of winter, there was no chance for a sale so I bought a pair at regular price (around $130... it was all they had left) and returned it when I got home. In the summer I walked into the store and bought the same pair for around 35% of the original cost. Did I lose a minute of sleep over it? Nope.


PoorPablo, I'll avoid the labels that are being thrown around in this thread, but what you (and the OP) did was wrong and unethical. A lot of us have done wrong things in our youth, but the logic you use to justify it still now is faulty. No single individual was damaged by returning the video camera, or by you returning and later repurchasing the goggles. But companies were - some combination of the retailers and manufacturers who had to take a writedown on merchandise. They correctly estimated that someone would need that video camera/goggles but were forced to discount it as open box or unsold merchandise and take a loss. And guess what, the aggregate of all that translates as lower profits, which in turn either comes and bites consumers through higher prices, through more restrictive returns policies, or through lower dividends to shareholders. 

There's a lot of this faulty thinking of "if it affects an organization or group rather than an individual, it's not that bad". I just don't buy it. It's unethical and antisocial behaviour. The sum total of it by weak-willed individuals who rationalize it away as "not being that bad" negatively affects all of us.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I work for a retailer. This is not a victimless crime. The victims are the owners/shareholders. So, they are the ones harmed when someone buys something in bad faith.


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

the sad thing is that the people who do this are actually proud of the fact that they are able to "beat" the system....

like most who posted here, I know a couple of people who practice this "lifestyle" (my wife's aunt, who by the way lives in a paid for $1M home)


----------

