Why is so damn difficult to get a refund??

[hibri2]

Wow, not at all constructive. Not in the least bit and so far beside the point as to be insulting.
.

ooookey... apologies if i offended some sensitivities, yet what you write below is basically (maybe better put) what i said above...

do as you want, deal with it. refunds are just another way to make consumerism easier.

as a staunch opponent to consumerism, i think i have the choice (and as far as i know... the freedom) to express my point about it.

If you want a Coach bag, and can afford a Coach bag -- then what the hell?!? Go buy one. In fact one could easily argue the point that buying two or three classic, high quality bags is very European and a clear demonstration of the responsible consumer. It's the schlocky, off the assembly line, non-repairable, disposable ___________________ (could be anything -- fill-in: toasters, hand bags, shoes, phones, etc...) choking our landfills.

good point, but its not addressing my argument, im expressively talking about refund, obviously getting a high quality anything is better than buying more trash... point is, if you know what you want and get a high quality item, why go a day later to put it back just because you "wake" up of your hypnotism and now want it in red or dont want it at all... i mean, whats so hard in delivering that point?

sorry guys, but there are millions out there that will find the whole rant laughable, i see no insult in it.

[road.not.taken]

sorry guys, but there are millions out there that will find the whole rant laughable, i see no insult in it.

Yes, and millions more who would find your post equally as laughable. Why is that germane to this conversation? If you don't like free trade or 'consumerism' as you deigned it -- that's fine -- but don't for a minute think you are not a consumer and therefore don't practice 'consumerism'. Did you buy the clothes on your back? The computer you type on? Your last meal? Ya, I thought so. So it's just the amount of things people purchase which you find objectionable. To a kid living off the garbage heaps outside of Manila you might appear to be a wild spendthrift -- its all relative. The store had a policy which they did not uphold, that should be the only point of discussion here, not where Candy or anyone else falls on your sliding scale. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, even if it offends or rankles.

[hibri2]

hibri2,

unpaid clerk or underpaid clerk - he is still irrelevant.

i disagree but wont be surprised if you are unable to see it considering the whole approach you take. i already pass you several sources you can read about it and its your choice to follow up with more information on that topic

Your rant about this topic is irrelevant.

i wont disagree that the main demographic target of this forum may find my rant (by the way i like it to be called tantrum instead if you dont mind) irrelevant

yet "Eppur si muove" as its relevant on the bigger picture as many others not in this forum may agree with the main points thrown, as much as some will want... certain points of views cannot be killed or silenced.

For your info I was not crying, I was ranting. There is a difference.

noted;

And furthermore, who are you to judge?

who says im remotely trying on being a judge? i have a certain disdain for the current legal systems everywhere.

dont read me as a judge, im more the court jester, you know? that little freakish looking guy who will still point out that the emperor has no clothes, eh?

Don't give me this big talk about morals and greed.

again, you are projecting it seems... i have still to really understand what morals mean as im not really satisfied with the group mentality definition of it, hence, its not my intention to provide you with moral guidance at all.

greed on the other hand, is the base of consumerism and that is what i am talking here, if you mind too much about being greedy, well stop being it.

[hibri2]

Yes, and millions more who would find your post equally as laughable. Why is that germane to this conversation? If you don't like free trade or 'consumerism' as you deigned it -- that's fine -- but don't for a minute think you are not a consumer and therefore don't practice 'consumerism'. Did you buy the clothes on your back? The computer you type on? Your last meal? Ya, I thought so. So it's just the amount of things people purchase which you find objectionable. To a kid living off the garbage heaps outside of Manila you might appear to be a wild spendthrift -- its all relative. The store had a policy which they did not uphold, that should be the only point of discussion here, not where Candy or anyone else falls on your sliding scale. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, even if it offends or rankles.

why do you assume i dont see me as a consumer? i mean, really!?

just because i say that as consumers we should be more careful and that refunds in general are just another way to maximize consumerism does not makes me less of a consumer...

funny thing, is that i do agree with what you have written in the last two posts and basically if you were not so set on being defensive, you may actually see that we are touching the same points from slightly different sides.

in no way i have said we should stop consuming, actually i have expressively said, do what you want... just dont make a big fuss about it when your own bad choices put you in trouble (real trouble or otherwise)

and, honestly... as laughable as my point of view could ever be... you have to agree that the whole: boo hooo the bad singapore store wont do refunds (when the same store in wherever does) and i want my money back cause i just dont feel like i want my very expensive BAG! is funny to say the least...

[hibri2]

i did not think it was really needed, but well... just in case:

there is a huge difference between: consumers and consumerism

and very important, since my post 0 in this thread im specifically talking about the whole "refund policies" and the shared point of view that is an illusion of freedom, fueling the lie that is a good "right" to have and an expected "duty" for the market.

if you are taking this personally, its a silly choice of actions... actually, a very immature action to take

[road.not.taken]

and, honestly... as laughable as my point of view could ever be... you have to agree that the whole: boo hooo the bad singapore store wont do refunds (when the same store in wherever does) and i want my money back cause i just dont feel like i want my very expensive BAG! is funny to say the least...

There you go again You don't like Candy's attitude or what she's choosing to spend her money on, so you're condemning how others choose to spend their money? That's the epitome of self-involvement.

[hibri2]

There you go again You don't like Candy's attitude or what she's choosing to spend her money on, so you're condemning how others choose to spend their money? That's the epitome of self-involvement.

ok, seriously... i see your angle, and maybe its hard to express in a forum sometimes but... come on!

im not even talking about "candy", is absolutely beyond me what whoever decide to do with their monies!

im simply talking about the whole refund, using the current "rant" as an example to initiate a discussion about some point of view of mine shared by many others and which are maybe not popular and maybe different from the commonly accepted canons of free market.

if that was not clear enough, i have already clearly expressed that its not the intention to take this personal, how can it be?! none of you are my friends for me to be interested in "involving" me.

so, if a person expresses a point in a public medium and a member of the public debate not about the poster, but about something related to the post (in this case "refunds") how can that be, self-involvement?


for the sake of the debate, can you let me know the ideal case scenario? i mean, what im supposed to post or not in order not to make this a "self-involvement personal attack"?

if you see my post 0, i dont even quote candy, i think is pretty obvious im not really interested in her rant at all, im more interested in the refunds thing.

im a little lost of the ways it seems to be around here and im willing to acknowledge it could be my previous forum experiences which may not apply here, maybe the idea here is to be all a happy family were everyone agrees

note: im being sarcastic in the last sentence, the rest of the post is not really sarcastic...

[road.not.taken]

Few people would approve of mindless, detrimental consumerism -- but what most men (I assuming you are male) cannot understand is there are times when a well-placed, sincere: 'boy, that sucks! sorry that happened to you' is all a person needs and not some long, drawn out lecture about how they are wrong and they brought it on themselves and shame on them. This is one of those times.

[hibri2]

there are times when a well-placed, sincere: 'boy, that sucks! sorry that happened to you'

point taken, you are very much right in ways i can not really understand totally, but well, you do have five times the posts i have in half the time i have been a registered user, so you should know better.

would you agree with me that then it should be some kind of "rule" to expressively disclaim that in the title?

just like in other forums where they are requested to say if the post contains spoilers and such... considering that this "Strictly Speaking" is for "serious discussions" instead of for emotional support and all.

not some long, drawn out lecture about how they are wrong and they brought it on themselves and shame on them.

can i just say that i never said "how they are wrong"

i never use that at all, very strictly forbidden for me to judge an action between wrong and right. same applies to the "shame on them", i did not, ever! said anyone should be embarrassed or shameful of this.

so, well, i take this as my cue to move on.

thanks for the time invested in letting me know.

[Candy]

and, honestly... as laughable as my point of view could ever be... you have to agree that the whole: boo hooo the bad singapore store wont do refunds (when the same store in wherever does) and i want my money back cause i just dont feel like i want my very expensive BAG! is funny to say the least...

There you go again You don't like Candy's attitude or what she's choosing to spend her money on, so you're condemning how others choose to spend their money? That's the epitome of self-involvement.

Exactly!

Yes, and millions more who would find your post equally as laughable. Why is that germane to this conversation? If you don't like free trade or 'consumerism' as you deigned it -- that's fine -- but don't for a minute think you are not a consumer and therefore don't practice 'consumerism'. Did you buy the clothes on your back? The computer you type on? Your last meal? Ya, I thought so. So it's just the amount of things people purchase which you find objectionable. To a kid living off the garbage heaps outside of Manila you might appear to be a wild spendthrift -- its all relative. The store had a policy which they did not uphold, that should be the only point of discussion here, not where Candy or anyone else falls on your sliding scale. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, even if it offends or rankles.

Totally agree with you Road.Not.Taken, couldn't have put it better myself.

Hibri2,
There is plenty of commercialism and consumerism without adding refund policies too.
Walk into any shopping mall and you will see plenty of promotions and bargains to tempt every man, woman or child.

Refund policies are there for the consumer, for those who ....shock horror...decide for whatever reason they don't like, need or want this product.

Personally, I regretted making my purchase, I was angry because the policy of the brand was not upheld.

You are saying that people who buy products and changing their minds are irresponsible. How so?

What if I brought the bag and then realised that my money could have been better spent on my kids?

What about hard sell tactics? (You don't think a consumer should change their minds after being pressurised into buying the product?)

Are you saying that if you brought something...for example a laptop (lets not use a handbag, its obvious you wouldn't relate to that) which gave you problems from day one. Would you not go back to the store and ask for a refund ? Or would you rather go through the whole warranty service with endless calls to the service centres, long queues and having to lug your laptop to the service centres which are often located out of the way?

Would you rather waste your time, money and energy on all that hassle, when it is clearly not your fault?

Refund policies are to give you the option to not have to go through all that hassle. It is there for the consumer and shops which endorse it should follow it through. It is a consumer's right. It is for a consumer to decide if they really want to spend their hand earned cash on that particular product. It is also piece of mind for consumers that if there is a valid reason they have a right to getting their money back.

BTW its fine by me if you don't use that option, but don't throw a tantrum just because I choose to exercise my rights.

[Plavt]

the whole refund concept just makes me sick as its another way to feed up the vanity and empty consumerism of those people who just dont know what they want, less than all... what they need.

Sometimes we buy things that turn out to be unsuitable. For example I have bought the odd book and later found it too basic for my needs so what's wrong with having a refund policy so long as the item has not been damaged?

buying more crap made easier because when the novelty wears off, we can get refund to go and buy some other crap.

I am not sure there is any validity in this statement since most places that have refund policies will only refund within a given time frame at least where I live.

[road.not.taken]

Here's a good example: my friends bought a iPod dock here and the salesman swore up and down it was suitable for a nano. They get it home -- it's not good for a nano. It says all over the instruction manual: NOT FOR iPOD NANO.

They brought it back to the store which wanted to give them a store credit since that was their 'policy'. They said absolutely not, you sold us something we can not use, we want our money back. It took some time, but eventually they were given a complete refund.

[sundaymorningstaple]

There is a common thread running through the following quotes:

Here's a good example: my friends bought a iPod dock here and the salesman swore up and down it was suitable for a nano. They get it home -- it's not good for a nano. It says all over the instruction manual: NOT FOR iPOD NANO.

Mis-represented by the Sales personnel

Are you saying that if you brought something...for example a laptop (lets not use a handbag, its obvious you wouldn't relate to that) which gave you problems from day one. Would you not go back to the store and ask for a refund ? Or would you rather go through the whole warranty service with endless calls to the service centres, long queues and having to lug your laptop to the service centres which are often located out of the way?

malfunctioning equipment

What about hard sell tactics? (You don't think a consumer should change their minds after being pressurised into buying the product?)

Hard sell? Usually these are high value sales and are protected by a legal "Cooling-off" period. All of the above reasons are valid reasons for having a refund policy.


However, the following is only because she foolishly bought something and later decided that she didn't want it.

What if I brought the bag and then realised that my money could have been better spent on my kids?

Absolutely nothing wrong with the product which was willingly purchased. Hardselling a Coach bag? Hardly, if one wasn't in the market for a high priced bag they wouldn't have been in the store in the first place.

The same thing goes with finding out that her spouse takes issue with the wasted money.

These are not the fault of the product or the store which is what the refund policy should be for. It is obvious that you both feel differently but if your way is to believed, then people can take it one step further (and I know that there are those who do just that) and use something, keep the tags on it and hidden and return it after the party or whatever. As long as they don't dirty it then it should be okay right?

Sometimes some people try to abuse the system and then try to justify it and when we get called out then we get defensive - human nature I guess......

[road.not.taken]

Yes there are two different scenarios: faulty equipment or service, and a customer who simply changes there mind. But if the worldwide store policy is that refunds are made, regardless of the reason -- then this conversation is over. Even it there are those who feel the money is 'wasted' because it was spent on something they don't value.

There are always people who abuse and take advantage -- doesn't matter if there is a stated store policy.

[micknlea]

Don't you believe that that is not hardsell in shops for handbags and the like. The sales assistants hassle and annoy you until you buy something just to get rid of them, I don't usually fall for it myself but I know people who have done, and get home and instantly regret the buy. You can just be browsing if you enter a shop you know, not everyone goes in with the intention of buying. Sometimes you can just put up with it and learn from the lesson, but in a case like this, then I am sorry but should be able to get a refund.

I know why they have these stupid policies in place, and yes it is for the reasons as pointed out by SMS (the one use and return idea - believe me having worked in these places I have seen some pretty awful jobs at trying to pretend items were never used) but that happens the world over and hmmm, they still have refund policies.