1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Would this be wrong/unethical?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by peree, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. polar-lemon

    polar-lemon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    This is true. But there is some vague, gray-area line crossed when he actually returns a physically different pair than the one he bought. I dunno what it is, maybe an existentialist can elaborate.

    I understand the physically different part, and I would severely object if the dupe pair were somehow inferior to the original. I fail to see a huge distinction if the item is equivalent in every single respect except for the fact that it was not purchased at the store (which does seem odd and objectionable at first).
     
  2. Tarmac

    Tarmac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,219
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Location:
    Location: Location
    The problem is, I don't think it is up to the buyer to determine if it is indeed identical. Is a Brooks Brothers shoe from 2006 identical to the same model from 2008? Were they made with the same leather? Were they made in the same factory? Possibly yes, but possibly no. The only way to be sure of yes is if it is the exact same item.
     
  3. southbound35

    southbound35 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    992
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I understand the physically different part, and I would severely object if the dupe pair were somehow inferior to the original. I fail to see a huge distinction if the item is equivalent in every single respect except for the fact that it was not purchased at the store (which does seem odd and objectionable at first).
    The issue isn't that there will be an inferior item returned; it's that the item was purchased with the absolute intent to return it (or, in this specific case, its equivalent). This is much different than buying an item, discovering you can buy it cheaper elsewhere, then returning the original purchase; the difference is in the intent of the original purchase.

    I agree with those who mentioned that it's unethical to buy clearance items, try to sell them on the B&S forum (or elsewhere), then return those items that don't sell. In the sales business, there is an inherent risk in not being able to sell everything you buy/manufacture; although ingenious in a Costanza-esque way, allowing someone else to bear all of your "not able to sell" risk is highly unethical.
     
  4. Mark Seitelman

    Mark Seitelman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    812
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Location:
    New York City
    There's nothing wrong with this.

    Wear the shoes to the interview, and then take a 30 mile hike in the snow. Return the shoes to the retailer, and complain that they cannot withstand the rigors of normal wear.[​IMG]

    Seriously, don't use the retailer as a tuxedo rental shop. At least the rental shop gets a fee for the use of the clothes.
     
  5. r_fine

    r_fine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    221
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Unethical? That of course depends on your ethics and standards you hold yourself to. It certainly involves lying. You would be using the return policy for something it was not intended for and which would never be accepted if the store knew what you were up to, because you would not actually be doing a return but rather you would be providing the store with another pair of shoes which you think are equal in quality.

    My guess is that the OP asks because he knows the answer. Good for him.
     
  6. johnation33

    johnation33 Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    There's nothing wrong with this.

    Wear the shoes to the interview, and then take a 30 mile hike in the snow. Return the shoes to the retailer, and complain that they cannot withstand the rigors of normal wear.[​IMG]

    Seriously, don't use the retailer as a tuxedo rental shop. At least the rental shop gets a fee for the use of the clothes.


    that analogy is wrong, because the OP is returning a new pair of shoes, so it would be akin to buying a tuxedo at a rental shop and returning a new one.

    I think as others have pointed out the only risk is really to the OP as you might not be able to return the ones you get from plal since the serial number might be diff. hey its a risk you're willing to take.
     
  7. dsgNYC

    dsgNYC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    422
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    From my perspective it's unethical and I wouldn't do it, but you have to make up your own mind on that.

    One more thing, remember to shine those new C&J's for the interview!
     
  8. rezzor

    rezzor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    280
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle
    Maybe I'm just lazy but this seems like a big hassle. Just shine up the KCs and go to the interview. Unless you're interviewing to be a sales associate at the local C&J store, I don't think it will have any bearing as to whether you get the job or not.
     
  9. polar-lemon

    polar-lemon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    He doesn't at all need the CJ's for the interview. The only possible benefit he derives from this situation is to feel more comfortable or stylish or whatever in the nicer shoes. If he wants to take the risk, fine.

    I don't think it's unethical for people to sell things in the B/S forum that they know they can return; in fact, it allows those who don't live near outlet-type sources to share in good deals, allows the seller to turn a profit, and allows the store to sell the item. Though it can also have negative effects, I'm just pointing out that everyone here is decrying this guy's scheme without realizing how similar it is to everyday practice on B/S that has never come under fire.
     
  10. DrZRM

    DrZRM Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,079
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    While I agree that you risk losing your local shops if you shop on-line, do you really think that walking into a brick-and-mortar ship to try something on and then buying it on-line is the moral equivalent as returning something to a store that you did not buy there claiming you did? If so, this community holds a very high moral bar, I must say. I do think the exchange is unethical, though I've probably done worse when using the Costco return policy. To say that is the equivalent to using a public merchant to see if an item fits or suits your taste seems...overstated to say the least.

    Precisely. It's one thing to shop online and take advantage of the discounts that can be found there, but it's quite another to use the services of your local retailer and then to deny him compensation for those very services by making your purchase online.

    This applies not only to the OP's clever Costanza-esque scheme, but also to those who drop into their local shops only to check on fit and fabric textures, then make their purchases from an online discounter. If people keep trying to have it both ways we will lose our local retailers.
     
  11. CrocsRock

    CrocsRock Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    234
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Just do it. You've made up your mind already, and no matter how many people point out that it's a little unethical, I doubt we're going to give your moral compass a shake. That one's up to you.

    But please... ask the retailer what they think of it. Ask your interviewer. No reason, aside from my own personal edification.
     
  12. oneeightyseven

    oneeightyseven Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,677
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    lmfaaaooo at the poster above..please tell me your screename/avatar is broadcast in a facetious manner..
     
  13. ChicagoRon

    ChicagoRon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,217
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I'll sum up my Business School ethics class as succinctly as possible. And then I will relay a similar anecdote.

    An ethical discourse dilemma can be resolved when you can prove that your solution is
    1> Reasonable (it has been reached through logical analysis)
    2> Feasible
    3> Consistent (it is aligned with your self-assumed morality, and is consistent with your level of moral reasoning [levels are - Fear of punishment / Desire for benefit or reward / Desire to follow laws and rules to maintain order / Desire to protect community / Desire to do what is best for the most people / Absolute Altruism])
    4> Reversible (if you were the other party, would you be okay with this solution?)

    A previous poster mentioned that you should ask the retailer. This would give a definitive answer to the reversibility question, although it is not absolutely required for the other party to actually agree to meet the guideline... as long as you would genuinely think it were okay for someone else to do the same thing to YOU then you can defend your action as ethical fairly easily.

    I have been in some similar situations myself. I am not sure I would do what the OP is suggesting, for various reasons that have been mentioned above. Mostly I do believe that the B&M store is charging a premium for convenience, and the OP wants the convenience without the premium.

    Once, however, I returned something to Nordstrom which was defective, but not purchased there. I told them explicitly that it had been purchased elsewhere, but they assured me it would be replaced by the manufacturer, so it did not make a difference.
     
  14. acidboy

    acidboy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,170
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    ah well argued. I think I will just have to wait for my order to arrive. Does anyone care to argue the other side?

    And it isn't just one, it's interview week as everyone knows for finance for I have 6 interviews this week with super saturday.

    I wish I never read this forum as then I would never have been self conscious about the stupid kcs. sigh ignorance is bliss


    Just what the financial sector needs, another guy with questionable ethics.
     
  15. apropos

    apropos Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,455
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Just what the financial sector needs, another guy with questionable ethics.
    +1
     
  16. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?
     
  17. bdeuce22

    bdeuce22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,761
    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Location:
    Detroit
    Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?

    i always feel bad for doing this, but when i know i am going to try on just for size, i usually try to help myself with very little interaction from the SA. that being said, i typically try to pick up at least something when i do this.
     
  18. ChicagoRon

    ChicagoRon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,217
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Here's a question I've been wondering: is it ethical to go to a store merely to learn your sizing in a brand, when you have no intention to buy from said store, but rather to seek cheaper alternatives online ?
    I think that there is an element of goodwill involved here on the store's part as an investment. If you do it all the time and you never have any compulsion to throw the store a bone, then I say "to each his own". I would expect most shopkeepers know this happens, but are happy to build a relationship with prospective customers. And if it's Nordy's or something like that, I feel no guilt. They are not specialty retailers and if they are not competing on price, that's their fault.
     
  19. yawn123_#21

    yawn123_#21 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Plenty of people who voted yes, do stuff just as "wrong" as what the op suggested. Going to the store and jacking off sales associates wasting their time, only to later buy the item online for a cheaper price. People mentioned buying stuff and trying to vend it at the B/S forum, and return anything unsold.
    @ Op, returning is at your own risk. Retailers are bitching about taking losses, meaning they would love to sell and take your money away, but returning they don't like [​IMG]. If Shopping online kills brick-and-mortar stores so be it. Survival of the fittest? Why should people feel the obligation to "not cheat these poor stores" 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. This is no different than someone who a sales person pushes crap onto, brings it home and thinks about it for a week then returning. It's in the premium price that you are paying.
    I could start another poll, is it ethically right for retailers to charge you 2-3 or more times it's cost to make a profit? Is it ethical to sell an item for $500, then later decide to raise it to $650? 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?
    This is a capitalism, not Communism. Plus it's a free country. Ethics is a highly gray area. If you want to do things, go ahead and do them, as long as you feel good at the end of the day, if you have second thoughts, then it might be better not to do it. You might regret it later on but by then it'll be too late to take something back.
     
  20. CrocsRock

    CrocsRock Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    234
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    lmfaaaooo at the poster above..please tell me your screename/avatar is broadcast in a facetious manner..

    But of course. I was debating between the pink and the black dress Crocs. These seemed like the more offensive.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by