or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Would this be wrong/unethical?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would this be wrong/unethical? - Page 9

post #121 of 134
WWMD - What Would Manouche Do?
Then do the opposite.
post #122 of 134
Actually, you are commiting fraud in the amount of the retail purchase price of the shoes.

You are defrauding the retail store of the purchase price of the shoes by representing that you are returning the same pair of shoes that you purchased, when in fact you are returning a different pair.

BTW-fraud is a crime.
post #123 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowsnothin View Post
BTW-fraud is a crime.

Yeah...But is it unethical or wrong to commit a crime?

Huh? Is It?

What say you?

post #124 of 134
I too once had two pair of shoes
Four in all and needed only two
But ethics were moot as
I wore one on each hand and each foot.
post #125 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post
Does anyone else get the distinct vibe that yawn123_#21 is an adolescent with an inflated sense of entitlement - short on life experiences, but long on conjecture?

On the contrary, I'm more inclined to think he's the type that likes to read up on books like '7 Habits....', 'Millionaire Next Door', etc... and writes down terms like 'paradigm shifts', 'tipping points' so he could use them to try to impress somewhat intelligent people.
post #126 of 134
Really? I thought maybe he's the type that is intelligent enough to be able to continue a discussion instead of resulting to personal attacks because they cannot understand the situation.
I've never read those books, perhaps you can enlighten me as you seem to be fully read up on them.

What gave away my age? was it that I still retain manners learned? Do those become unneeded as I grow older and get more experienced?


Just because someone is able to dress nicely, does not mean they have style. Just because you are able to fill your closet with nice clothes, they will not mask and make up for your deficiencies as a person.

I personally would not do what the op has proposed. Many others would not either judging from the poll. Yet there are people who will, and companies will have to realize that. Companies have to realize there's competition in a free-market. And if they can't compete they'll go out of business. They can also always have the right to refuse service to people who abuse policies.
post #127 of 134
Besides the obvious prick/unethical factor here... how could you possibly receive belgraves from malaysia fast enough to return them to a store within the alotted return period?
post #128 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by yawn123_#21 View Post
Really? I thought maybe he's the type that is intelligent enough to be able to continue a discussion instead of resulting to personal attacks because they cannot understand the situation. I've never read those books, perhaps you can enlighten me as you seem to be fully read up on them.
Really? The OP asked this
Quote:
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.
Your replies are these
Quote:
If Shopping online kills brick-and-mortar stores so be it.
Quote:
Survival of the fittest? Why should people feel the obligation to "not cheat these poor stores"
Quote:
These aren't mom and pop owned stores. Big large corporations, Who should have taken such things into consideration when charging the price in it.
Quote:
Is it ethical for Corporate Executives to make millions of dollars, Ride private company jets on 20k a pop, while min wage paid workers can't even make that in a year?
Quote:
This is a capitalism, not Communism.
Quote:
If the store can't afford to pay the overhead of being in your neighborhood and still turn a profit, then they shouldn't be in business.
Quote:
It's not in the interest of the op to worry about keeping stores alive. That's what employee's of the stores are paid to do, and at the same time getting customers into the store and purchasing stuff.
Quote:
If no one is buying from a store then there is a problem with their business model simple as that.
Quote:
The online store was did not pull through for the op, therefore the store can capitalize on the situation by accommodating the op, and next time the op is shopping, he may purchase from the store rather than online.
Quote:
On that note, wouldn't it be immoral for a store to sell you something knowing it'll go 40% off in 3 days, and not inform you?
So aside from your quite obvious disdain to large corporate retailers, what part of "intelligent", "continue", and "discussion" and "understand the situation" have I missed from you? Oh and better yet, your answer to the OP's question finally came out:
Quote:
I personally would not do what the op has proposed.
Of course, after implying that since the evil corporate brick-n-mortar devil retailer is overcharging to finance the corporate jet then its perfectly alright to do it since they don't have the right to exist if they can't cut it in a price war with a small niche shop in Kuala Lumpur.
post #129 of 134
OP, you are asking if it is alright to commit fraud.

It is not alright. You might as well be a thief, you thief. If I caught you pulling this kind of thing in my shop (hypothetical, I don't own a shop), I would have you arrested and prosecute the shit out of you.

This is like someone asking if it's okay if someone else sleeps with your girlfriend, but then they suggest it's okay because they'll tell you they really just slept with your next door neighbour.
post #130 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by yawn123_#21 View Post
Really? I thought maybe he's the type that is intelligent enough to be able to continue a discussion instead of resulting to personal attacks because they cannot understand the situation.
You're right, yawn; you were attacked personally and without justification. I think you drew fire, not because of what you said, but because of the snarky, dismissive, winner-take-all manner in which you delivered the message. Regardless, you didn't deserve to be attacked on a personal basis. Apologies are in order.

Quote:
I personally would not do what the op has proposed. Many others would not either judging from the poll. Yet there are people who will, and companies will have to realize that.
Companies do realize this, but customers have to realize it, too. You're making this more one-sided than it really is. As you said, it's a free market. But you're ignoring the fact that buyers have just as much responsibility as sellers.

Some companies sell only goods; other companies sell goods and provide services. Responsible shoppers will support, with currency, the goods and services they value. Irresponsible shoppers will always seize the lower price and then be surprised and upset when services they've come to expect are no longer available.

I think someone who holds your opinion on this matter has not carefully considered what "services" really means. A local retailer provides more services just than a sales staff and free alterations. Picture an assortment of slacks and sweaters spread out on a display table for your close examination. That's a service -- one that you won't get online. So is the fitting room and the privilege of trying on dozens of garments before making a selection. I really like those services and I don't want them to go away. The only way to prevent that is to shop responsibly and vote for those services with my dollars.

Again, there's nothing wrong with saving money by making purchases from online discounters. But it is unethical and irresponsible to use the retailer's services and then make all your purchases online. The very reason you're getting a better price online is that you're not getting any services there. It is hypocritical to expect to have it both ways.
post #131 of 134
Times are tough for retailers. Have you tried just asking for a price match?
post #132 of 134
OP needs to take a break from this forum and the mind-poison it spreads, making him think that going to an interview in KCs will somehow negatively affect him, or even dumber that going in wearing C&Js will serve positive in his favor.
post #133 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Get Smart View Post
OP needs to take a break from this forum and the mind-poison it spreads, making him think that going to an interview in KCs will somehow negatively affect him, or even dumber that going in wearing C&Js will serve positive in his favor.
Surely the OP's mind is poisoned by the fog of forum. This forum would reccomend Aldens for the interview, no? And they are higher in Kuala Lampur, I'm given to understand.
In short, young man, get thee to an Alden shop!
post #134 of 134
Does the phrase "short against the box" come to mind for anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Would this be wrong/unethical?