Nitzlypick said,
"It is a transaction, he is giving CompUSA a product that he bought and they are giving him the money for that product. Whether it is above or below the price he paid is irrelevant. It is what CompUSA is willing to pay him. So it is his money if they are willing to give it to him.
While it is a "transaction"...it is more specifically a "return of merchandise" originally purchased from CompUSA at a set price ($99). It is not the same as the simple "transaction" you describe where you have a willing seller and a willing buyer where the final sale price of the product is indeed irrelevant to the original cost.
But, in this case...a RETURN, the original price is indeed relevant. Why in the world do you think retailers ask for receipts when accepting returned merchandise.
"It is a transaction, he is giving CompUSA a product that he bought and they are giving him the money for that product. Whether it is above or below the price he paid is irrelevant. It is what CompUSA is willing to pay him. So it is his money if they are willing to give it to him.
While it is a "transaction"...it is more specifically a "return of merchandise" originally purchased from CompUSA at a set price ($99). It is not the same as the simple "transaction" you describe where you have a willing seller and a willing buyer where the final sale price of the product is indeed irrelevant to the original cost.
But, in this case...a RETURN, the original price is indeed relevant. Why in the world do you think retailers ask for receipts when accepting returned merchandise.
LOL @ SINMEN good one. You did not break any laws so what you are asking is an ethical question.
LOL...Wolv, I didn't say "bashing", I said "basing" look again.
To get back to this spirited dicussion, CompUSA did WILLINGLY give him the $200 on top of what he paid for it. Did he ask for the extra money? I don't believe he stated that he did. He just said I don't have a receipt. I agree that if kuroc has his receipt, according to their store policy he should get back what he paid for it. If he doesn't have a receipt then it is CompUSA's decision what to give him for it. So there we have it, it's not stealing. It is perfectly ok in the sense that no laws were broken. Edit: You made my point while I was typing wolv...CompUSA dicated how much they would give him.
If you want to start talking about whether it is ethically right that is a different discussion and will depend on your ethics.
LOL...Wolv, I didn't say "bashing", I said "basing" look again.
To get back to this spirited dicussion, CompUSA did WILLINGLY give him the $200 on top of what he paid for it. Did he ask for the extra money? I don't believe he stated that he did. He just said I don't have a receipt. I agree that if kuroc has his receipt, according to their store policy he should get back what he paid for it. If he doesn't have a receipt then it is CompUSA's decision what to give him for it. So there we have it, it's not stealing. It is perfectly ok in the sense that no laws were broken. Edit: You made my point while I was typing wolv...CompUSA dicated how much they would give him.
If you want to start talking about whether it is ethically right that is a different discussion and will depend on your ethics.
I don't know about being dishonest or not but he had one thing right...returning this drive. This Sanyo blows, the only software to work is Nero packaged with it...no CloneCD...no CDRWin! After work tomorrow, I'm off to CompUSA to return this pig too for either the Plex version or my money back or some other drive like the TDK. This Sanyo quite frankly is a piece of crap.
<<<f*ck compusa! they are the biggest ripoff artists in the computer industry! turn-about is fair play, so you shouldn't have any regrets on this one. >>>
This is akin to the "embezzler's rationlization" -- (I'm unappreciated/underpaid/my boos is a jerk/ so I am justified in taking this money.)
Whatever, dudes. You think this is O.K.? More power to you.
Compusa will survive. But don't tell me that deep down, past all the bull, you know you just ripped off Compusa. Tell me otherwise, and I won't beleive you.
This is akin to the "embezzler's rationlization" -- (I'm unappreciated/underpaid/my boos is a jerk/ so I am justified in taking this money.)
Whatever, dudes. You think this is O.K.? More power to you.
Compusa will survive. But don't tell me that deep down, past all the bull, you know you just ripped off Compusa. Tell me otherwise, and I won't beleive you.
So keeping the extra money that the ATM willing gave me do not break any law? So the bank's computer program dictated that it wants to give me more money, and I know that it gave me more and I spend it, and that's legal. So I go return something, and they gave me more than what I paid, and that's OK. And this is only an ethical question. Hmm....
Nitzlypick,
Oops my bad...thought I read "bashing" and not "basing"...
Anyhow, what I'm trying to get at is that yes, CompUSA did accept the drive back. And yes, CompUSA did give him $200 extra back. But did they give it back to him knowing what kuroc originally paid for the drive? Doubtful. I'm not saying it is kuroc's fault...it's CompUSA's mistake. I believe that kuroc did not go back to CompUSA with the intent to try to get more money back than what he had originally paid for it.
When you "return" merchandise, you are not selling the item back to the retailer. You are getting the money you paid for it back...nothing more and nothing less in most cases (with the exception of re-stocking fees, S&H, etc. or in this case a plain old screw up).
As far as the law is concerned (and I'm no legal expert ), I believe that if those that received these drives for $99 knowingly went back to CompUSA with the intent to try to get the same "deal" that kuroc did would be committing some type of fraud...
P.S. Thank you Nitzlypick for your civility during the discussion of this topic.
Oops my bad...thought I read "bashing" and not "basing"...
Anyhow, what I'm trying to get at is that yes, CompUSA did accept the drive back. And yes, CompUSA did give him $200 extra back. But did they give it back to him knowing what kuroc originally paid for the drive? Doubtful. I'm not saying it is kuroc's fault...it's CompUSA's mistake. I believe that kuroc did not go back to CompUSA with the intent to try to get more money back than what he had originally paid for it.
When you "return" merchandise, you are not selling the item back to the retailer. You are getting the money you paid for it back...nothing more and nothing less in most cases (with the exception of re-stocking fees, S&H, etc. or in this case a plain old screw up).
As far as the law is concerned (and I'm no legal expert
), I believe that if those that received these drives for $99 knowingly went back to CompUSA with the intent to try to get the same "deal" that kuroc did would be committing some type of fraud...P.S. Thank you Nitzlypick for your civility during the discussion of this topic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter