Would this be wrong/unethical?

Originally Posted by teddieriley

Click to expand...

the stupid thing is, you have to ask.
Yes, it seems like you already had your mind made up.

Originally Posted by FIHTies

Click to expand...

If you feel that this is really no big deal just ask the retailer themselves if they mind.

+1

Originally Posted by Bird's One View

Click to expand...

Here's how I look at it.

I may be able to pay less for something by ordering it from God knows where on the internets. Sometimes this is exactly what I do.

Sometimes I pay more than the lowest internet price to buy something in a local store. Why?

The local store lets me examine the item before buying it. And if I do want it, it lets me walk out of the store with it TODAY. The opportunity to do these things is worth something to me, so I am okay with paying more than the internet price.

If no one ever pays the local price, the local store goes out of business, and the product becomes unavaliable locally. See "the Tragedy of the Commons".

hmmm that makes sense and I understand your point. I have a question for you however. Would going to the store already knowing that you were going to buy the shoe online but just to get the shoe fitted and your foot size measured be unethical in your opinion then? Because according to the line of argument above, in that scenario also you are 1) wasting the retailers/sales rep time and get them to perform a service on you when you have no intention to buy 2) and thus therefore reaping the benefits of a local store examining item and measuring you.

Now of course if you went to the retailer stating "Oh I just came to get my feet measured by you guys so I can go order them cheaper online" of course they aren't going to be helpful. So would this situation be unethical also?

I mean I wouldn't have such a huge problem paying an extra $50 or maybe $100, but when the price difference comes out to $250, then it just makes me wonder. Maybe that might be the cost of my ethical line when it comes to this question. sigh who knows

^ We are all whores.

There seems though to be a difference between going to a store, telling the clerk you are just looking and not buying today, and trying on some shoes ... and going to a store, buying shoes, then "returning" a different pair for a "refund".

Originally Posted by satorstyle

Click to expand...

Is the job that imperative that a particular brand of shoe has to be purchased? Your interviewer will most likely have no idea what brand you are wearing and probably will a square toe shoe on as well. Most men do not put much thought in their appearance. Wear what you have and order the shoe you want.

What he said. Just suck it up and wear the KC square toes for a day.


Yeah, I know it's StyleForum, but there're more important things in life. Like, you know, ethics.

Let's break this down to determine what exactly is happening:

Essentially, you are getting a free week's loan of a pair of shoes from a retailer in exchange for them having the ability to make use of your money for one week. The interest on a few hundred dollars over a week will certainly be very little and so you are getting a very cheap rental. Whether this bothers you is up for you to decided. However, the retailer is losing in one important regard: there is a chance that somebody else might have gone to the store looking for that item in their size while you have "rented" it, therefore depriving them of a sale. This may mean that they lose the sale altogether, or perhaps they would order in another pair (and thus get stuck with yours when it comes back). However, I don't think that this is enormously morally wrong; sketchy yes, but hardly the worst sin that I've heard of.

However, for you, the bigger question is one of risk. What happens if your shoes from Plal get delayed, making the other pair unreturnable, or returnable only for store credit? What if something happens to the unused pair before you can take them back to the retailer? What about the serial number issue proposed earlier? There are a lot of "what ifs" that should give you serious pause in case you get stuck with two pairs of expensive shoes, only one of which you want.

The upside of having a nicer pair of shoes for a job interview isn't enough to risk this in my opinion.

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 sjg22

Click to expand...

Let's break this down to determine what exactly is happening:

Essentially, you are getting a free week's loan of a pair of shoes from a retailer in exchange for them having the ability to make use of your money for one week. The interest on a few hundred dollars over a week will certainly be very little and so you are getting a very cheap rental. Whether this bothers you is up for you to decided. However, the retailer is losing in one important regard: there is a chance that somebody else might have gone to the store looking for that item in their size while you have "rented" it, therefore depriving them of a sale. This may mean that they lose the sale altogether, or perhaps they would order in another pair (and thus get stuck with yours when it comes back). However, I don't think that this is enormously morally wrong; sketchy yes, but hardly the worst sin that I've heard of.

However, for you, the bigger question is one of risk. What happens if your shoes from Plal get delayed, making the other pair unreturnable, or returnable only for store credit? What if something happens to the unused pair before you can take them back to the retailer? What about the serial number issue proposed earlier? There are a lot of "what ifs" that should give you serious pause in case you get stuck with two pairs of expensive shoes, only one of which you want.

The upside of having a nicer pair of shoes for a job interview isn't enough to risk this in my opinion.

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

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.

huh? how will new shoes be scuffed?

Originally Posted by peree

Click to expand...

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


I don't think anyone will argue the other side. It is dishonest. There is a reason that the retail store is more expensive... customer service before and after the sale. You are certainly free to do whatever you choose. I am sure some people here are hoping that you get stuck with two pairs of shoes.

It also appears that you really don't care what everyone has to say. Every time someone posts their opinion (all of which indicate that you are dishonest), you somehow try to justify or defend your dishonesty.

Do whatever you want.

Originally Posted by FIHTies

Click to expand...

If you feel that this is really no big deal just ask the retailer themselves if they mind.

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.

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.

He's in finance. All bets are off.

Originally Posted by sjg22

Click to expand...

Let's break this down to determine what exactly is happening: Essentially, you are getting a free week's loan of a pair of shoes from a retailer in exchange for them having the ability to make use of your money for one week. The interest on a few hundred dollars over a week will certainly be very little and so you are getting a very cheap rental. Whether this bothers you is up for you to decided. However, the retailer is losing in one important regard: there is a chance that somebody else might have gone to the store looking for that item in their size while you have "rented" it, therefore depriving them of a sale. This may mean that they lose the sale altogether, or perhaps they would order in another pair (and thus get stuck with yours when it comes back). However, I don't think that this is enormously morally wrong; sketchy yes, but hardly the worst sin that I've heard of. However, for you, the bigger question is one of risk. What happens if your shoes from Plal get delayed, making the other pair unreturnable, or returnable only for store credit? What if something happens to the unused pair before you can take them back to the retailer? What about the serial number issue proposed earlier? There are a lot of "what ifs" that should give you serious pause in case you get stuck with two pairs of expensive shoes, only one of which you want. The upside of having a nicer pair of shoes for a job interview isn't enough to risk this in my opinion.
I completely agree with your second paragraph. However, in terms of the retailer losing out, is it also wrong to buy an item and then return it unused? Retailers have a return policy that they must know customers will take advantage of; if you buy something, hold onto it for a few days during which other potential buyers could have purchased it, and then return it in the condition you received it, is that also wrong? It produces the exact same outcome you describe, which is why I ask; the only difference is that this person seeks to actually make use of the product he is buying, which has a neutral effect on the retailer, does it not? Also, ask the retailer this question: "I bought brand new perfect CJ _____ in _____ color, may I return brand new perfect CJ _______ in ________ color?" Would they say no? Perhaps it's douchey and a bit hair brained, but I don't understand the severe moral objections people have; if he were attempting to return factory seconds, damaged shoes, or a somehow different or inferior product, that'd be different. But excepting anything you mention in the second paragraph, these will be identical shoes. The second paragraph here is very important; it appears that the retailer will somehow get screwed in this case, but if the OP is somehow unable to return the shoes from plal, he is the one who gets screwed. It's a risk he has to be willing to take.

Originally Posted by peree

Click to expand...

huh? how will new shoes be scuffed?
I am talking about the the Goddamn soles. Assuming the shoes you describe have leather soles, the soles will be noticeably scuffed by being walked in on a hard surface, even for a short time. The retailer will spot this right away and is not going to want to take them back unless you can convince him that they are defective. And, yes, what you propose is a cheap, sleazy, thing to do. Look at the poll results!

I think it's a genius move

The bad karma alone will ensure you never get an offer. Not to mention that you will burn in hell forever if you do this.