If you evade rules on promotions, you're a thief

[Newbian]

You just described a vital part of capitalism.

What do you expect from a commie?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Thanks for noticing my sig. I have plenty of issues with various practices of companies, probably best discussed in another forum. It's not inconsistent to both oppose stealing from a company, and to oppose bad practices by that same company. I don't like some things Wal-Mart does, but I don't encourage stealing from them either.




You're right, it doesn't, and it shouldn't take your mind off the guilt.

I'm not totally opposed to an action that counters a wrong action - stealing back something stolen from you is ok in my book - but saying 'Wal-Mart sucks to it's ok to shoplift" I disagree. There's a case by case question whether you are simply doing an additional wrong, or doing a justice by undoing a wrong.




An argument that a store benefited by being nice when you rip them off is not persuasive.

It sounds like you stole from 'The American Store', whoever that is?

Opinion differs here. I simply used their specials. Repeatedly. They had the option to stop it at any time. Since I paid for the product, saying I stole is a very big stretch. But I bring it up because it is basically what you are talking about.

 

[Craig234]

Opinion differs here. I simply used their specials. Repeatedly. They had the option to stop it at any time. Since I paid for the product, saying I stole is a very big stretch. But I bring it up because it is basically what you are talking about.

If they didn't have a limit on using the specials, no problem. If they did and you evaded the rules, yiou stole.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You sir have a very narrow view of the world.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I bought two 4770K combos at MC, but am justified because I'll be mailing one 800+ miles to IA (bro).

 

[Newbian]

You sir have a very narrow view of the world.

I have a feeling he is upset because all the free samples at the costco were gone when he got there.

 

[phucheneh]

Fraud is morally theft

Depending on your state law, fraud is often legally theft. In mine, fraud, extortion, and the like all fall under the 'theft' heading and carry the same punishment depending on the dollar value.

But I am somehow doubtful that a precedent exists for someone using coupons too many times. It's the company's responsibility to monitor it, essentially, as plausible deniability will always exist on the consumer's end. I.e. 'I didn't see that it said limit one per customer,' 'I was buying the second one for a friend,' or some other shit.

Which, before anyone tries to say it, is not the same as 'pleading ignorance [of the law],' which is generally not an accepted legal defense.

Also this thread is strange and seems to be missing some kind of story that prompted the OP.

 

[Newbian]

It is funny as op got punished for thread crapping in hot deals dealing with this and he has to vent about it.

 

[Craig234]

You sir have a very narrow view of the world.

Wrong.

 

[Phoenix86]

In which case it is theft.

I think you have issues with definitions, the company selling a good/service was paid in this case (full price no less). Worse case it's breaking terms of service.

In fact, I'd argue that a company doesn't have a right to make this limitation in the first place, at least to individuals. If I buy something do I not own it? Can I not sell something I own? Now if we're talking making a business out of the reselling of an item my position changes.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If you go by the OP's way of seeing things, technically, murder is only theft. Stealing someone's life.

 

[Soundmanred]

I think you have issues

You could have stopped there.

 

[Craig234]

I think you have issues with definitions, the company selling a good/service was paid in this case (full price no less). Worse case it's breaking terms of service.

In fact, I'd argue that a company doesn't have a right to make this limitation in the first place, at least to individuals. If I buy something do I not own it? Can I not sell something I own? Now if we're talking making a business out of the reselling of an item my position changes.

We'll agree to disagree, but this thread is about fraud to get better prices than terms allow, so I won't derail it with a discussion on resale issues.

 

[Craig234]

If you go by the OP's way of seeing things, technically, murder is only theft. Stealing someone's life.

Completely wrong, showing you don't understand my posts. Murder is stealing someone's life, but not "only theft". It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Newbian]

We'll agree to disagree, but this thread is about fraud to get better prices than terms allow, so I won't derail it with a discussion on resale issues.

The thing is the terms allow it.

If they didn't want one person using multiple coupons for something that is free then they can easily use a one per customer rule.

 

[Craig234]

The thing is the terms allow it.

If they didn't want one person using multiple coupons for something that is free then they can easily use a one per customer rule.

Well, as I said, I agree then. I'm talking about evading the terms.

 

[Maximilian]

Sometimes companies have promotions with limits, typically '1 offer per customer'.

If you evade the liimit such as by creating multiple e-mail accounts and pretending to be different people to get multiple items against the rules, you are stealing.

It's their right to put the limit - and evading that is dishonest, the same way as any other dishonest activity such as shoplifting or switching price tags on an item.

It's funny how it doesn't 'seem' the same to some people, but it is.

It's all about dishonesty to get a deal the seller did not offer. If they wanted to sell more than one to you at the price, they would.

Just a PSA for people who haven't throught it through and realized they're stealing.

Boo hoo...

*prints some more coupons* :awe:

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I agree it is in principle stealing the service or product.

How about when stores say 'one per visit'? I go in and so does the wife. We ring out separately, go drop the goods in our vehicle, and then go back for another visit. Winning!

 

[BarkingGhostar]

PS: If businesses were not so stupid to not protect themselves then maybe they are too stupid to be a successful business.

 

[Craig234]

PS: If businesses were not so stupid to not protect themselves then maybe they are too stupid to be a successful business.

First, that does not justif you lying and stealing.

Second, it's not practical for a business to protect against all theft.

 

[Craig234]

How about when stores say 'one per visit'? I go in and so does the wife. We ring out separately, go drop the goods in our vehicle, and then go back for another visit. Winning!

You're violating the spirit of the agreement - that's nothing to be proud of - but it's a bad rule for them to use, unless 'visit' is defined, because you are technically following it.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

I dare you to post this on slickdeals or fatwallet

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

You see it all the time in FS/FT. NFR software, hardware and etc... People grab items under certain programs for pennies on the dollar, then they try to flip them at retail price for a large profit. Not only is it profiteering, but it ruins the programs since that's not what they are meant for.

But if the buyer doesn't have access to said program they are able to buy the item at a discount compared to full retail. Looks like a win win to me.

 

[jihe]

Taxation is thief. Am I doing this right?

 

[SunnyD]

But if the buyer doesn't have access to said program they are able to buy the item at a discount compared to full retail. Looks like a win win to me.

Problem is that rarely is the item sold at a discount. It's BOUGHT at a discount, then resold at or very close to full retail. The only one winning here is the profiteer.