Brooks Brothers Return/Exchange Policy

[Joel_Cairo]

Originally Posted by offline100

Totally a good point. I personally live by that rule with regard to social relations, family, etc. but feel I have to suspend it from time to time in purely material matters like money transactions, in order not to be exploited.

in the OP's case, its "in order to exploit"

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by offline100

When I was a student and had no idea of the proper fit of a suit, a BB salesman sold me an extraordinarily mal-fitting suit and another odd jacket, totalling over $1000. The "moral" thing to do in this situation would have been to tell me to go elsewhere, but obviously that salesman wanted to make a sale.

I have other examples, but the BB one just seemed most relevant here.

As such, I define personal integrity as not letting myself get ripped off. I wish I lived in a world where salesmen in big stores had the integrity to give objectively helpful advice. But since the world's not really like that, I'm not going to handicap myself by playing by different rules than they do.
That's completely ridiculous.
1. For all you know, the salesman didn't know any better than you did. For all you know, it was his first day on the job.
2. I guarantee you that BB doesn't have an institutionalized policy to push ill-fitting garments on unsuspecting clients. Your desire to impute one salesman's actions on an entire global company is insane.
3. Even if BB did have such an "immoral" policy, you are no Robin Hood by hoisting them by their own petard. Indeed - quite the opposite, since each fraudulent return simply raises costs for everyone else.

 

[offline100]

Thanks for your input! #1: If your (rather improbable) hypothetical were true -- BB isn't to blame for hiring and failing to train an incompetent suit salesman who knows nothing about suits? And the $1k cost of their negligence properly falls to me, a customer who reasonably relied on the fitting assistance they purport to offer? #2 and #3: I think you've badly misread. The policy of all retailers is just to maximize sales, not to be either good or evil. Nor am I Robin Hood. Quite the contrary, moral duty just doesn't come into play in arm's length commercial transactions. Not to get all attorney on you, but this is actually what the norms of contract law dictate. And yes, a corporate agent's actions are imputed to the principal.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by offline100

Thanks for your input! #1: If your (rather improbable) hypothetical were true -- BB isn't to blame for hiring and failing to train an incompetent suit salesman who knows nothing about suits? And the $1k cost of their negligence properly falls to me, a customer who reasonably relied on the fitting assistance they purport to offer? #2 and #3: I think you've badly misread. The policy of all retailers is just to maximize sales, not to be either good or evil. Nor am I Robin Hood. Quite the contrary, moral duty just doesn't come into play in arm's length commercial transactions. Not to get all attorney on you, but this is actually what the norms of contract law dictate. And yes, a corporate agent's actions are imputed to the principal.
The norms of contract law require you to return to a vendor a suit, originally bought and sold in good faith, when you work out so much that your suit size changes in the interim? What on earth are you talking about? Nobody is being "ripped off" in the circumstances presented in this thread. And, by the way, the contract law remedy for being "ripped off" isn't to go and rip the other party off in response. I sure wouldn't want you to be my lawyer.

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by offline100

Thanks for your input!

#1: If your (rather improbable) hypothetical were true -- BB isn't to blame for hiring and failing to train an incompetent suit salesman who knows nothing about suits? And the $1k cost of their negligence properly falls to me, a customer who reasonably relied on the fitting assistance they purport to offer?


no. because you bought the suit in the first place, dumbass. what, are you going to argue that BB exerted undue influence in forcing you buy the wrong suit? that, somehow, their madras shorts and bowties manage to pressure you to the degree in which the free play of your will was overborne? that there is a duty to sell perfect fitting suits, and somehow, this duty was breached?

get outta here.

 

[offline100]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

The norms of contract law require you to return to a vendor a suit, originally bought and sold in good faith, when you work out so much that your suit size changes in the interim? What on earth are you talking about?

Nobody is being "ripped off" in the circumstances presented in this thread. And, by the way, the contract law remedy for being "ripped off" isn't to go and rip the other party off in response.

This is an incrementally better post than your previous one. Before, you were misreading my post and demonstrating a lack of basic principal-agency relationships. At least now you're getting to the good point made much earlier and with fewer words by Joel: that there may be a distinction between my situation and the OP's that renders my experience fairly off point.

Nevertheless, I disagree with you. I'm saying that if OP timely returns the suit and BB takes the return under the stipulations of its own return policy, this is sufficiently conclusive that OP has abided by his contract. Unless the return policy has a clause stating "buyer has a duty to volunteer information about any alterations he made to the goods, even in the absence of being asked," there is no breach. Whether or not it is high-minded or not is strictly beside the point, if it's not in the contract.

Originally Posted by zjpj83

I sure wouldn't want you to be my lawyer.

A good lawyer makes the best possible argument for his client in a dispute where both sides have some tenable perspectives. I strongly suggest that if you are ever in need of legal counsel, you do not seek out an attorney that will side with your counterparty-opponent, just because you're no "Robin Hood."

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

no. because you bought the suit in the first place, dumbass. what, are you going to argue that BB exerted undue influence in forcing you buy the wrong suit? that, somehow, their madras shorts and bowties manage to pressure you to the degree in which the free play of your will was overborne? that there is a duty to sell perfect fitting suits, and somehow, this duty was breached?

get outta here.

Thanks for participating!

The situation at hand has nothing to due with undue influence in the original transaction, when of course the buyer had free will. We were talking about whether, if the seller misrepresented his expertise about suit fits during the sale, it is inequitable for the buyer to make his own misrepresentation later on. (Basically, this would be a double standard.)

This is a totally distinct claim. Please make sure you've got things straight before being smug. Also, please keep in mind that ending sentences with "comma jackass" does not make you more convincing, only more immature!

 

[LWF]

I think it would be simply wrong to return the clothing after you had alterations done, had worn the clothing for a period of time, and had deliberately exercised your body with the goal of intentionally changing your size.

Not a gentlemanly thing to do in my opinion. The store nor the clothes are at fault. The returned clothing could not be resold by Brooks.

 

[fashionnoob]

Originally Posted by LWF

I think it would be simply wrong to return the clothing after you had alterations done, had worn the clothing for a period of time, and had deliberately exercised your body with the goal of intentionally changing your size.

Not a gentlemanly thing to do in my opinion. The store nor the clothes are at fault. The returned clothing could not be resold by Brooks.

Well, at least Project Adventure can use it:

http://www.projectadventurekids.org/cn02.htm

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by offline100

blah, blah, blah deleted

a good lawyer should know when the claim is just totally crap. unless you like padding your billable hours. which is what you would be doing, if you actually tried this.

 

[offline100]

A good advocate should know that ad hominem attacks, profanity, conclusory statements, rhetorical questions and sarcasm carry no weight in a discussion in any forum devoted to the exchange of views on any topic.

If you want to continue this discussion on its merits, feel free. Otherwise, to coin a phrase, "get outta here." So far you've added nothing except for a good joke about madras.

 

[milosh]

I know the solution to your problem:

- Stop getting bigger. Finish the interviews, and then continue getting bulked up.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by offline100

A good advocate should know that ad hominem attacks, profanity, conclusory statements, rhetorical questions and sarcasm carry no weight in a discussion in any forum devoted to the exchange of views on any topic.

If you want to continue this discussion on its merits, feel free. Otherwise, to coin a phrase, "get outta here." So far you've added nothing except for a good joke about madras.

Your feigned disgust at his calling you a "jackass" doesn't change his substantive points, namely, his point with respect to your suggestion that you would have some kind of legal action against Brooks Brothers for selling you a suit that you don't think fits well. You wouldn't.

A fraudulent misrepresentation of material fact may apply if he sold you a women's suit telling you it was a man's suit, or sold you a ski outfit and told you it was from their formal business line, or perhaps selling you, a clueless 36 short, a suit that's a 48 extra long (did he?). If not, at the end of the day, he sold you a suit that is fit for and can be used for the purposes for which it was intended. You may not like the way you look in it very much, but that hardly rises to the level of fraudulent misrepresentation of material fact. You would be laughed out of court.

Additionally, you completely missed the point as to why I would not want you as my lawyer. You are advocating a self-help remedy of combating this allegedly fraudulent dealing by Brooks Brothers by committing fraud yourself - returning a suit in bad faith that only doesn't fit you anymore because you've been working out. As a result, this is not a question or your "siding with my counterparty-opponent" or not, it's a question of your advocating an improper legal remedy. Even if your claim of material misrepresentation were valid, which it is not, the appropriate remedy is contract rescission. It's not purposefully and in bad faith countering their misrepresentations with misrepresentations of your own.