Would this be wrong/unethical?

Although this is something that is not done by most people everyday, why not just do it instead of polling people? Ethical dilemmas do not have a one size fits all solution. To some, your actions would be that of a douchebag. To others, it is a victimless crime or an ingenious way to get what you want. Why should you really care what others think? Or were you just trying to get input on all of the angles to see if there was a chance that PLal would figure out what was done?

I don't get these questions. If you are asking, then you probably think it IS wrong. If you didn't, you'd never think to ask.

I voted "yes" and, as such, I wouldn't do it. Probably nobody would know the difference, but I would know and that's what counts. A man only has his word and his integrity... and if you think that it's worth it to play with that just for an interview, then that's your choice.

I'd just wear the shoes I had and work hard to give a good impression as to my CV/resume and interview skills. The shoes probably are irrelevant, so long as they aren't sneakers or flip-flops.

Originally Posted by polar-lemon

Click to expand...

sounds wrong, but...is it really? it's a form of arbitrage, but no one is negatively impacted.

The store might. They might loose potential sales if this is the last pair in stock.

Originally Posted by peree

Click to expand...

hello,

so after browsing some threads I've wanted to buy some beautiful C&J belgraves from Plal but I cannot afford to wait as I have an interview in two days. I was wondering if it was ok to buy C&J belgrave from a retailer near me at the more expensive price and then wear those and when I receive the belgraves I also ordered from Plal, return the new ones I received from Plal to the store.

Technically this isn't wrong right? since I'm returning the same brand new shoe? Do you think this is ok? Are there serial numbers or something that might not identify the shoe as the same shoe?

This is completely unethical. And the general rule is "where the shoes outside" or on anything but your carpet and no return unless defective.

I wouldn't do this. I also wouldn't wear new shoes to an interview.

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Click to expand...

This is completely unethical. And the general rule is "where the shoes outside" or on anything but your carpet and no return unless defective.

I really couldn't care less about the ethics of this but some of you are obviously not reading the topic or understanding his intentions. He isn't trying to return the shoes he wears to the interview. He is trying to return the brand new shoes he receives in the mail after the interview, shoes that have never even touched the floor.

Whether you agree with the morality or not, he would be returning a factory-new pair of shoes to the store so they would have no reason to deny that.

But that's true with any return. They can't sell the shoes while you have them. Are all returns then unethical because you cost the store the potential sale? Why not ***** at all the B&S guys who say "Final reduction and then I'll just return them." There is (might be) a moral question here, but that point really does not seem like the one. Frankly the retailers probably have much bigger worries that getting different brand new shoes returned to them. The most relevant information here seems to be that there are serial numbers in C&J shoes. Do you really want them to check that and call you out for that?

Originally Posted by A Guy from Shanghai

Click to expand...

The store might. They might loose potential sales if this is the last pair in stock.

As has been stated, there are really two questions floating around here:

1) Is the proposed behavior unethical; and

2) Is he likely to get away with it.

As to 1), I don't really see how anyone can argue that this behavior wouldn't be unethical. The original poster is proposing to commit fraud on an establishment; he wants to purchase one item, and then return a completely different item for money. Doesn't matter that it looks the same; it's not a commodity, these are discrete shoes.

The store didn't agree to this; per their return policy, they will take the merchandise they sold him back in exchange for a refund. Anything else is fraud, and therefore unethical (depending, of course, on what your definition of ethical may be).

The question of whether and how much the store is damaged by his actions is irrelevant to whether or not it's an ethical practice. He doesn't get to decide whether this hurts the store or not.

As to 2), I have no idea, but hope that there is some mechanism to prevent this.

The ethical dilemma arises not from the store's lost opportunity to sell the shoes while in the OP's possession, but from the OP's convoluted scheme to avoid compensating the store while benefitting from its services.

I don't know why I have been so patient with this petty bullshit when I am usually such an asshole. I am through with this thread.

I'd rather have an employee who wore Crocs to his interview but with high personal integrity working for me than a guy in C&Js who had to ask this question.

Highly unethical, but slightly creative, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Johnathan

Click to expand...

FTW

Originally Posted by FIHTies

Click to expand...

Here, I have a better Idea... (First time I quoted myself)

Do it or even if you don't do it, casually mention at the interview your dilemma here.

I certainly will hold my eyes open for interviewees sporting brand new Belgraves.

Originally Posted by Orsini

Click to expand...

Once the shoes have been worn "off the carpet" and the leather soles scuffed, I am not sure the store be willing to take them back unless you can demonstrate that they are somehow defective.

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Click to expand...

This is completely unethical. And the general rule is "where the shoes outside" or on anything but your carpet and no return unless defective.

A couple of the regular posters are so pure at heart and soul, that they cannot even fathom the diabolical scheme.

Putting aside ethics temporarily, does anyone think this is illegal?