Customer refuses to show receipt when exiting Tigerdirect store

[Nik]

Originally posted by: jtvang125
What's the big deal? It freakin takes only 5 seconds to show them your receipt. I got other bigger things to worry about.

Aparently some people enjoy being assholes, employees and customers alike.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
So at what point would those who agree with this policy find it unreasonable?
...
It's amazing how people don't realize that the more rights they're willing to waive, the more corporations and government are willing to take away.

Every one of those in your list is reasonable for a business to ask. However, it is very reasonable to expect that no one will ever shop there again. That is our right. Let that company go down into bankruptcy due to no customers.

Vote with your dollars. That is your right. Don't give up that right, Child of Wonder. And in doing so, don't restrict the rights of private companies to set their policies as they see fit. It seems like you are arguing that companies (and their owners) should give up their rights!

No, this person should not have been detained. That was wrong. But it is your right to start a private company that can set whatever policies you want. Don't give up that right. You seem to be the only one arguing that we should give up rights (the right to set policies at our stores).

 

[crosshairs]

I sure hope the Rev Al Sharpton doesent see "Shaneals" story....

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Could someone explain to me what right is being infringed when they check your receipt? Maybe the stores should exercise their right of not serving you if you're not willing to show your receipt.

the receipt it proof you been served. when you get that the transaction is over.

what are they going to do make you return the stuff? think before you post such fucking stupid ideas.


at most they can bar you from comeing in anymore. detaining them is against the law.

Let me get this straight. A receipt is proof that you've been served, you refuse to show the receipt, therefore the store is in the wrong? I guess we all might as well walk into a store and walk out with merchandise and refuse to show a receipt.

yeah you do n ot have to show the reciept (unless you belong ot sams or costco that has it as terms of membership). They can't hold you in the store UNLESS they have proof you stole something.

wich is why in such situations you can walk out with your bags etc and there is little they can do. they can't hold you, they can't go through yoru bags but they can tell you to leave and never come back.

but even that does nto matter. AFTER the sale is over and you refuse to show the reciept what the fuck are they going ot do? return your money? hah that wont happen.

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this allowed for membership stores but not for other private enterprises? If they had a sign up that said, "By shopping here, you agree to store conditions," would that be illegal for them to do? It is, after all, one's choice to patron a store. Also, does anyone have the statute or any case law regarding this issue handy? I think it's a pretty interesting debate.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
So at what point would those who agree with this policy find it unreasonable?

What if security demanded to see your driver's license before you left?

What if they wanted to see the CC and your license you used to pay for the item to verify it's yours?

What if they demanded your home phone #?

Point is, the store has no right to ask for your receipt and they can't do anything if you refuse to show it unless they have reasonable cause to suspect you are guilty of shoplifting (such as seeing you pocket something or not pay for an item). Joe Consumer refusing to show his receipt does not make him a "nerd" or a "trouble maker."

It's amazing how people don't realize that the more rights they're willing to waive, the more corporations and government are willing to take away.

how is this any different than if they suspect this person of shoplifting then?
whats to stop a shoplifter from saying no? Maybe the person who "saw" me shoplift is someone that hates me for some reason. What right do they have to detain me in that situation?

so in the situation in the OP, if the guard had said "Ma'am, I suspect you of shoplifting, let me see your receipt" it would have been ok?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Could someone explain to me what right is being infringed when they check your receipt? Maybe the stores should exercise their right of not serving you if you're not willing to show your receipt.

If you have a receipt they have already served you.


They infringed by illegally detaining her and not allowing her to leave the store. They have no right to see the receipt, and can't force her to stay in the store if she doesn't.

Well... it's not that they are infringing on your rights, is that they do not have the right to require you to show them your receipt before you can leave or to check your bags for goods that you now legally own.

Stupid on his/her part to threaten legal action and overall probably a waste of the police's time, tying up of 911, etc... and it's stupid that we are only seeing one side of this, but I think she didn't really do anything wrong here and security guard and staff needs to learn to be a better judge about the situation and just let it go unless they have a better reason to think someone is shoplifting.

 

[KK]

It's my reciept, I decide what I want to do with it. What if they wanted to check your id at the door along with your reciept to make sure that the credit card you used is yours? The only place I don't ignore the people at the doors is BJs.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Turin39789
bag != receipt. I don't think there are any FAA regulations that state receipts must be shown to ensure the safety of all shoppers.

same principle, really.

I don't see what the problem is... it takes two seconds and helps the store cut down on shoplifting.

No, its completely the OPPOPSITE principle. Your being required to have your bags searched in order to receive a service (being flown somewhere). This is more akin to your airline making you wait to search your bags after you've landed to ensure you didn't steal too many inflight magazines.

And, again, door checks arent to cut down on shoplifting (the kind where you throw something into your jacket and book it) its to check on their OTHER employees. Well, if they hired good employees to begin with they wouldn't have an issue.

Once you've taken my money and I've taken my items, sans an other agreement (e.g. Costco) our transaction is complete. Period. The store has no right to detain you or anyone else without a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting.

As I've said, if there isnt a line I'm happ to just let them do their jobs. But I've seen 10 minute exit lines at Christmas time at Fry's, and since I'm be any means required to wait in that line I won't.

 

[Vic]

Who wants to bet here than the same people thinking a right has been infringed in this case are also the ones who think that the moderation on this forum is an infringement of the right to free speech?




Sorry, people, but no right has been infringed here. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights protect you from the government, NOT private entities (whether individuals or corporations). Any kid in high school should know that.
So the store's policy is perfectly legal. Perhaps more than a bit heavy-handed in this case (although keep in mind we're only hearing one side of the story), but legal. If you don't like it, then PLEASE get over yourself and shop somewhere else.
Personally, I hate Tigerdirect and would never buy from them (if this is the same store as online, I'm west coast and they have no B&M presence out here).


BTW, Fry's policy of marking receipts (along with most other B&M retailers) is in regards to returns. If you don't get the receipt marked, you can't return the item. Not long ago, it was a common technique of shoplifters to steal an item and then return it for cash. The receipt-marking technique is believed to be one of the best stop-loss measures ever.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Could someone explain to me what right is being infringed when they check your receipt? Maybe the stores should exercise their right of not serving you if you're not willing to show your receipt.

the receipt it proof you been served. when you get that the transaction is over.

what are they going to do make you return the stuff? think before you post such fucking stupid ideas.


at most they can bar you from comeing in anymore. detaining them is against the law.

Let me get this straight. A receipt is proof that you've been served, you refuse to show the receipt, therefore the store is in the wrong? I guess we all might as well walk into a store and walk out with merchandise and refuse to show a receipt.

yeah you do n ot have to show the reciept (unless you belong ot sams or costco that has it as terms of membership). They can't hold you in the store UNLESS they have proof you stole something.

wich is why in such situations you can walk out with your bags etc and there is little they can do. they can't hold you, they can't go through yoru bags but they can tell you to leave and never come back.

but even that does nto matter. AFTER the sale is over and you refuse to show the reciept what the fuck are they going ot do? return your money? hah that wont happen.

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this allowed for membership stores but not for other private enterprises? If they had a sign up that said, "By shopping here, you agree to store conditions," would that be illegal for them to do? It is, after all, one's choice to patron a store. Also, does anyone have the statute or any case law regarding this issue handy? I think it's a pretty interesting debate.

with costco and sams club you sign a contract saying you will show the reciept. its part of having the membership. you do not want to do it you can't get a reciept.

IF a diffrent store had a sign IN the front saying they reserve the right to check it then maybe yeah. But i have NEVER seen a place with one.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Could someone explain to me what right is being infringed when they check your receipt? Maybe the stores should exercise their right of not serving you if you're not willing to show your receipt.

the receipt it proof you been served. when you get that the transaction is over.

what are they going to do make you return the stuff? think before you post such fucking stupid ideas.


at most they can bar you from comeing in anymore. detaining them is against the law.

Let me get this straight. A receipt is proof that you've been served, you refuse to show the receipt, therefore the store is in the wrong? I guess we all might as well walk into a store and walk out with merchandise and refuse to show a receipt.

yeah you do n ot have to show the reciept (unless you belong ot sams or costco that has it as terms of membership). They can't hold you in the store UNLESS they have proof you stole something.

wich is why in such situations you can walk out with your bags etc and there is little they can do. they can't hold you, they can't go through yoru bags but they can tell you to leave and never come back.

but even that does nto matter. AFTER the sale is over and you refuse to show the reciept what the fuck are they going ot do? return your money? hah that wont happen.

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this allowed for membership stores but not for other private enterprises? If they had a sign up that said, "By shopping here, you agree to store conditions," would that be illegal for them to do? It is, after all, one's choice to patron a store. Also, does anyone have the statute or any case law regarding this issue handy? I think it's a pretty interesting debate.

with costco and sams club you sign a contract saying you will show the reciept. its part of having the membership. you do not want to do it you can't get a reciept.

IF a diffrent store had a sign IN the front saying they reserve the right to check it then maybe yeah. But i have NEVER seen a place with one.

Even still, the mere presence of a sign isn't really a legal method of allowing this to happen.

 

[bsobel]

BTW, Fry's policy of marking receipts (along with most other B&M retailers) is in regards to returns. If you don't get the receipt marked, you can't return the item. Not long ago, it was a common technique of shoplifters to steal an item and then return it for cash. The receipt-marking technique is believed to be one of the best stop-loss measures ever.

:roll: This is 100% wrong. This is to keep shoplifters from using the same receipt multiple times. Marking a receipt doesn't help a shoplifter who's trying to return an item without a receipt. 'Umm sir, did the receipt you lost happen to have a pink highlighter mark on it?'

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: trmiv
Fry's Electronics does this too, and they mark the receipt with a frigging hi-liter to show they checked it. Why they do that I have no idea, it's not like I can't get my hands on a pink hi-liter and mark it myself.

Marking is so you can't walk to your car, walk back into the store, pick up the same items and walk back out with the same receipt.

The receipt check exists to keep their employees honest, not the customer. They are designed to catch cashiers who are working with customers to steal (e.g. ring up wrong price on an item, dont count every item, etc). When I walk out if there is no line I'll let them mark it, if there is I just walk out. I'd *love* for one of them to tackle me, I'd wind up owning Fry's.

That as well.

And I doubt you'd own a Fry's. For one, it's privately owned. 2nd, all they'd have to do is say that you were witnessed and suspected by in-store security of shoplifting prior to exit. 3rd, Fry's has one of the best loss-prevention records of any retailer in the country (both shoplifter and employee). They're a model for success in that arena.
Long story short: you could resurrect Johnny Cochran for your lawsuit and you still wouldn't get so much as an apology.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Could someone explain to me what right is being infringed when they check your receipt? Maybe the stores should exercise their right of not serving you if you're not willing to show your receipt.

the receipt it proof you been served. when you get that the transaction is over.

what are they going to do make you return the stuff? think before you post such fucking stupid ideas.


at most they can bar you from comeing in anymore. detaining them is against the law.

Let me get this straight. A receipt is proof that you've been served, you refuse to show the receipt, therefore the store is in the wrong? I guess we all might as well walk into a store and walk out with merchandise and refuse to show a receipt.

yeah you do n ot have to show the reciept (unless you belong ot sams or costco that has it as terms of membership). They can't hold you in the store UNLESS they have proof you stole something.

wich is why in such situations you can walk out with your bags etc and there is little they can do. they can't hold you, they can't go through yoru bags but they can tell you to leave and never come back.

but even that does nto matter. AFTER the sale is over and you refuse to show the reciept what the fuck are they going ot do? return your money? hah that wont happen.

Excuse my ignorance, but why is this allowed for membership stores but not for other private enterprises? If they had a sign up that said, "By shopping here, you agree to store conditions," would that be illegal for them to do? It is, after all, one's choice to patron a store. Also, does anyone have the statute or any case law regarding this issue handy? I think it's a pretty interesting debate.

with costco and sams club you sign a contract saying you will show the reciept. its part of having the membership. you do not want to do it you can't get a reciept.

IF a diffrent store had a sign IN the front saying they reserve the right to check it then maybe yeah. But i have NEVER seen a place with one.

Even still, the mere presence of a sign isn't really a legal method of allowing this to happen.

not sure on that. but you are probably right.

IF they had a sign saying you shop here you have the right to check reciepts and bags. then you can go to somplace else.

as it is they have someoen at the door checking it. As bsobel said they do not have that right. the transaction is over. the goods in the bag are now yours. you do not have to show anyone them.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who wants to bet here than the same people thinking a right has been infringed in this case are also the ones who think that the moderation on this forum is an infringement of the right to free speech?




Sorry, people, but no right has been infringed here. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights protect you from the government, NOT private entities (whether individuals or corporations). Any kid in high school should know that.
So the store's policy is perfectly legal. Perhaps more than a bit heavy-handed in this case (although keep in mind we're only hearing one side of the story), but legal. If you don't like it, then PLEASE get over yourself and shop somewhere else.
Personally, I hate Tigerdirect and would never buy from them (if this is the same store as online, I'm west coast and they have no B&M presence out here).


BTW, Fry's policy of marking receipts (along with most other B&M retailers) is in regards to returns. If you don't get the receipt marked, you can't return the item. Not long ago, it was a common technique of shoplifters to steal an item and then return it for cash. The receipt-marking technique is believed to be one of the best stop-loss measures ever.

How can marking a hi-liter across your receipt be stopping fraud?

second, the stores policy to check receipts may be legal, but the customers right to ignore these folks checking receipts is also legal. The illegal part would be the security person impeding the customer from leaving the building.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: trmiv
Fry's Electronics does this too, and they mark the receipt with a frigging hi-liter to show they checked it. Why they do that I have no idea, it's not like I can't get my hands on a pink hi-liter and mark it myself.

Marking is so you can't walk to your car, walk back into the store, pick up the same items and walk back out with the same receipt.

The receipt check exists to keep their employees honest, not the customer. They are designed to catch cashiers who are working with customers to steal (e.g. ring up wrong price on an item, dont count every item, etc). When I walk out if there is no line I'll let them mark it, if there is I just walk out. I'd *love* for one of them to tackle me, I'd wind up owning Fry's.

That as well.

And I doubt you'd own a Fry's. For one, it's privately owned. 2nd, all they'd have to do is say that you were witnessed and suspected by in-store security of shoplifting prior to exit. 3rd, Fry's has one of the best loss-prevention records of any retailer in the country (both shoplifter and employee). They're a model for success in that arena.
Long story short: you could resurrect Johnny Cochran for your lawsuit and you still wouldn't get so much as an apology.

while he wouldnt end up owning fry's he would get a good chunk of change. they do not have the right to assault a person for any reason.

 

[bsobel]

So the store's policy is perfectly legal.

There is nothing 'legal' or 'illegal' about the policy. But in practice they can not legally detain someone without a reasonable suspision of shoplifting. Refusing to show your receipt is not reach the level of reasonale suspicion under the law.

Basically the door checks (sans contractual obligationsin some stores) are voluntary. Since most people don't know that, they just do it.

 

[eelw]

I love how this person is getting shafted by the police, security company and State's Attorney. Whine all you want, it will do nothing.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: bsobel

BTW, Fry's policy of marking receipts (along with most other B&M retailers) is in regards to returns. If you don't get the receipt marked, you can't return the item. Not long ago, it was a common technique of shoplifters to steal an item and then return it for cash. The receipt-marking technique is believed to be one of the best stop-loss measures ever.

:roll: This is 100% wrong. This is to keep shoplifters from using the same receipt multiple times. Marking a receipt doesn't help a shoplifter who's trying to return an item without a receipt. 'Umm sir, did the receipt you lost happen to have a pink highlighter mark on it?'

I lol'd.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

They don't even ask me cuz they know i'm not stopping for sh1t

 

[bsobel]

shoplifter and employee). They're a model for success in that arena.
Long story short: you could resurrect Johnny Cochran for your lawsuit and you still wouldn't get so much as an apology.

If the story happened as reported in the OT your right. But trust me, if actually tackled it would be a whole different ball game.

 

[JohnAn2112]

Some of the Fry's stores in the Bay Area don't even check the receipt to see if it matches the merchandise in the bag. They just blindly mark the receipt with the pink hi-lighter. So stupid.

 

[Syrch]

stupid honestly. I worked retail for about 10 years and i had door duty a few times. Yes to most its a stupid event to go through but if they ask for the receipt just give them the damn thing for the 2 seconds it takes for them to scribble on it. Believe me, the guy at the door really doesn't give a fvck whats in the bag but if it doesn't look like hes doing his job he's fired. Thanks to another a$$hat for making one guys day hell.


I swear everyone needs to work retail for a year before being released into society.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy
as it is they have someoen at the door checking it. As bsobel said they do not have that right. the transaction is over. the goods in the bag are now yours. you do not have to show anyone them.

Sorry, but this is wrong. First, it's not an issue of "rights," yours or the store's. Rights don't even belong in this discussion. Second, the transaction is not over as long as you're still on their property. So while you certainly can hold out and refuse to show your receipt, they can at the same time legally detain you on suspicion of shoplifting until the police arrives to settle the matter.

This isn't opinion here. This is the law. One thing I will note (because I'm not one-sided, I'm actually pro-consumer) is that you don't have to stop if you set off one of those door alarms. Some years back, the courts ruled those too unreliable to provide sufficient grounds for suspicion.
This whole issue is kind of double-edged. It's an incovenience to have to show your receipt, yes... but that practice has also proved extremely successful in stop-loss and thus keeping consumer prices low. So what's it worth to you and is it really that much of a big deal?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: bsobel

So the store's policy is perfectly legal.

There is nothing 'legal' or 'illegal' about the policy. But in practice they can not legally detain someone without a reasonable suspision of shoplifting. Refusing to show your receipt is not reach the level of reasonale suspicion under the law.

Basically the door checks (sans contractual obligationsin some stores) are voluntary. Since most people don't know that, they just do it.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have any links to laws regarding this that shows that not showing a receipt is not reasonable suspicion?