Anyone deal with this website before? - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaobrien6 

Ok, first of all, that's not a criminal statute, that's a wikipedia page.  Second of all, nowhere on that page does it say that browsing in a store without buying anything is actually theft of services.  What I'm saying is that I believe you've made up a definition of a "service" that isn't necessarily the legal definition, and applied it to this situation.  You don't like the practice, I get it.  That doesn't make it illegal.

OK, here you go...

"Use or any benefit"... "without paying full retail value of such merchandise".  I know, picky cherry picky, impossible to prove with shopper taking the 5th, probably never been prosecuted to this degree, but that is the law.

Anyway;

Speaking of internet sales and general ethics.  Not too long ago I saw a GREAT deal on an eBay skateboard item.  It was buy it now so I immediately closed on it.  A few hours I got a message from the seller asking me if I would agree to cancel the transaction,  They said that they fat fingered the post from their iPhone when listing the item.  Buy it now at $50.00 should have been buy it now at $500.00.  In spite of the fact that I really liked the item.  I agreed to cancel the transaction because I couldn't enjoy it knowing I was taking advantage of someone in the process of obtaining it.. even if I had every right to and even though that person did something pretty neglectful.  That's just how I am.  And, I don't mind giving a little holier than thou guilt trip to people that do things I consider blatantly on the shady and dishonest side.

What???  That is about using theft detection shielding devices or theft detection device removers.  You can't just drop the beginning of the sentence.  The sentence is about removing those clunky things from dresses or those little magnetic stickers they put on shampoo bottles.  

Let's not get nuts here.  You can't go lopping off whole phrases just because the end of the sentence happens to appeal to you.  Talk about out of context!!

I know you suffer from migraines, maybe you need to wait until this one clears?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

 

Quote:

*720 ILCS 5/16‑25(a)(7) provides that "A person commits retail theft when he/she knowingly uses or possesses any theft detection shielding device or theft detection device remover with the intention of using such device to deprive the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment without paying the full retail value of such merchandise."

 

 

"Use or any benefit"... "without paying full retail value of such merchandise".  I know, picky cherry picky, impossible to prove with shopper taking the 5th, probably never been prosecuted to this degree, but that is the law.

 

That's not cherry picking; it's outright misinterpretation. That bolded part is a segment of a greater sentence that is about taking the theft detection device off. It seems like you're trying to convey it "use or benefit of the merchandise without paying = theft (even then it would be a stretch)," but that's not what it says. You missed the bit about "depriving the merchant permanently." Does trying a pair of boots on deprive the merchant permanently of the use, benefit or possession of the boots?

That's not even a stretch or prayer.

"Not stepping back from that.  If you go in and use stuff that doesn't belong to you that is displayed for potential customers.... and you have ZERO intention of buying ANYTHING from them you are not a "potential customer"."

Every single person who clicks on an Internet site or walks into a store is not a potential customer -- he/she IS a customer.  Even if they don't intend to buy anything right there and then AND even if they intend to use that store/Internet site to gather information for a purchase from another company.  Good businesses are happy to have someone come into their store or visit their website, even if that person is currently planning to buy from some other company.  Maybe the business won't get a sale this time, maybe they will.  But if the customer is happy with the store/Internet site then they will probably come back later for something else.  That's business, not abuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

It is called "ethics".  Some people and some businesses have good ethics.  Some don't.  I know how I want to live and be remembered by those I interact with.  If I'm going to  save a few bucks I don't plan to abuse others one iota in the process.

No it isn't. It's called naivity and/or all out stupidity. Why would you hand over all your buying power that early? Sure, maybe they'll make an offer right there, or maybe they'll take your tack and tell you to take a hike, theft of services, fraud, and what not. Why not try the boots on; make it clear that you like them and are ready to make the buy, but you're hesistant because of a better deal you saw? Now they've already invested in you, gotten to know you and should make an attempt to work with you. That's what a salesman is paid to do; there's no customer-backed guarantee of a final sale. I'm no hardened negotiator, but it seems to me that your method of verbal diarrhea runs counter to simple strategies.

Businesses aren't honest with consumers when it comes to making money, either. How many times have you seen the ol' "HUGE BLOWOUT SALE, EVERYTHING MUST GO. UP TO 97 PERCENT OFF," only to walk in the door, see one table of really cheap crap from five seasons ago and then 10 percent off on everything you'd actually want to buy. That sure as $#!! isn't honest, but it helps get customers in the door.

You know what else helps get customers in the door? Low online prices. As I said before, the problem isn't all on the consumer; the problem is also that retailers aren't particularly adept at adjusting to a changing environment.

I'm reading the red as one possible infraction and the black bold as a different but similar infraction separated by a comma.  Say you take some batteries out of one display and put them in a battery powered electric razor display elsewhere in the store.. then use that to shave your beard, then put it back and leave without paying for it.  You've obtained use or benefit of merchandise displayed, held in store, or offered for sale in a retail merchandise establishment without paying full retail value of such merchandise. 

Let's hear from a lawyer or some retail security managers on the subject.  If I were on a jury that is how I would interpret that statute, the whole thing..

I agree that the best customer service is just to be nice and let the less scrupulous people do what they choose.  They can't know when people are lying or telling the truth about intentions.  Just be sure that they pay for anything they damage.. in fact help them just to ensure they aren't as  likely to mess the stuff up fumbling with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

No it isn't. It's called naivity and/or all out stupidity. Why would you hand over all your buying power that early? Sure, maybe they'll make an offer right there, or maybe they'll take your tack and tell you to take a hike, theft of services, fraud, and what not. Why not try the boots on; make it clear that you like them and are ready to make the buy, but you're hesistant because of a better deal you saw? Now they've already invested in you, gotten to know you and should make an attempt to work with you. That's what a salesman is paid to do; there's no customer-backed guarantee of a final sale. I'm no hardened negotiator, but it seems to me that your method of verbal diarrhea runs counter to simple strategies.

 

Businesses aren't honest with consumers when it comes to making money, either.

So, your rationale is that it is OK to be dishonest in all stores because you know some stores are dishonest to you?  Awesome!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

No it isn't. It's called naivity and/or all out stupidity. Why would you hand over all your buying power that early? Sure, maybe they'll make an offer right there, or maybe they'll take your tack and tell you to take a hike, theft of services, fraud, and what not. Why not try the boots on; make it clear that you like them and are ready to make the buy, but you're hesistant because of a better deal you saw? Now they've already invested in you, gotten to know you and should make an attempt to work with you. That's what a salesman is paid to do; there's no customer-backed guarantee of a final sale. I'm no hardened negotiator, but it seems to me that your method of verbal diarrhea runs counter to simple strategies.

I can afford to deal openly and honestly when it comes to hobby gear. I really don't care if people try to take advantage of me.  I do what research I can and make purchases based on what I know at the time.  But, I try to be honest in all endevours best possible.  I don't play games even if I know others are in the negotiations.  I'll walk away if I don't like the deal.  I won't lie to get a better deal even if I know they are lying to me.  That is all.   I can understand folks doing dishonest things when all else fails and they need to feed their children.  I can not understand people doing dishonest things for a new pair of ski boots.  Might that same person have two other perfectly good pairs of ski boots for sale?

When a person or establishment blatantly takes advantage of me or anyone else I'm aware of I just go out of my way to not do any business with them in the future.

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

You are using the comma as the END to a phrase and the beginning of a new phrase, but it is a list separator.  The list being:

possession,

use or

benefit

of any merchandise (now a new list:)

displayed,

held,

stored or

offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment without paying the full retail value of such merchandise.

Diagram the sentence.  You'll see.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by sibhusky 

You are using the comma as the END to a phrase and the beginning of a new phrase, but it is a list separator.  The list being:

 

 

possession,

use or

benefit

 

of any merchandise (now a new list:)

 

displayed,

held,

stored or

offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment without paying the full retail value of such merchandise.

 

Diagram the sentence.  You'll see.  

Back in to address this.  Use of comma seems the same as using the word "OR" to me.  If you remove the device and take it out of the store without paying for it that is stealing.  If you use it in the store and obtain any of its benefits then put it back without paying for it that is also stealing.

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 
 I can understand folks doing dishonest things when all else fails and they need to feed their children.  I can not understand people doing dishonest things for a new pair of ski boots.  Might that same person have two other perfectly good pairs of ski boots for sale?

 

When a person or establishment blatantly takes advantage of me or anyone else I'm aware of I just go out of my way to not do any business with them in the future.

 

 

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

crg, I think you're really starting to reach here in order to defend the indefensible.  You have intimated that the OP is a sleazebag, and now you're intimating that the OP is somehow dishonest in the whole endeavor, because he wants to sell some old boots?!?  He wants to sell his old boots.  So?  Is he supposed to give them away in order not to be dishonest in your eyes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Back in to address this.  Use of comma seems the same as using the word "OR" to me.  If you remove the device and take it out of the store without paying for it that is stealing.  If you use it in the store and obtain any of its benefits then put it back without paying for it that is also stealing.

 

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

But in this (very hypothetical) case, how was the item in any way "used"?  What benefit was obtained from trying something on?  A ski boot does not have any benefit unless taken out of the store, and then to a ski slope and skied with.  Trying a boot on for size is part of the buying decision process, or even "just looking" process; the use of the ski boot happens once someone has taken it off the premises.  

So if someone grabbed a pair of boots, ran out the door yelling "just gonna try them on the slopes, bring them back later," without the consent of the proprietor, that is indeed theft.   But trying them on in the store?  Perfectly legal, and accepted by almost every retailer in the world, who wants potential customers to try things on, otherwise they have little chance of a sale.

OK, I have have spoken, now the thread is over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck it 

http://www.snowinn.com/ski-store/nordica-hell-and-back-hike-pro-11-12/32681/p?utm_source=google_products&utm_medium=merchant&id_producte=170655

 

This price is unbeleievable.

I bought some dynafits from them last fall. Stuff arived on time (which form spain to UT is a week or more) and the price was right. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Back in to address this.  Use of comma seems the same as using the word "OR" to me.  If you remove the device and take it out of the store without paying for it that is stealing.  If you use it in the store and obtain any of its benefits then put it back without paying for it that is also stealing.

 

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

If you're separating two clauses, one with a bunch of commas, you'd use a semi colon (to prevent the very type of misinterpretation you're feigning). That sentence is quite obviously one continuous line of thought; methinks you're arguing just to argue and don't actually believe what you're saying.

It doesn't really matter anyway. Even with your strange reading of the sentence, you're still not gaining any benefits of the product (the only benefit of ski boots is skiing in them; my store doesn't have a ski hill inside, and I'll bet the OP's doesn't, either).

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

So, your rationale is that it is OK to be dishonest in all stores because you know some stores are dishonest to you?  Awesome!

 

I can afford to deal openly and honestly when it comes to hobby gear. I really don't care if people try to take advantage of me.  I do what research I can and make purchases based on what I know at the time.  But, I try to be honest in all endevours best possible.  I don't play games even if I know others are in the negotiations.  I'll walk away if I don't like the deal.  I won't lie to get a better deal even if I know they are lying to me.  That is all.   I can understand folks doing dishonest things when all else fails and they need to feed their children.  I can not understand people doing dishonest things for a new pair of ski boots.  Might that same person have two other perfectly good pairs of ski boots for sale?

 

When a person or establishment blatantly takes advantage of me or anyone else I'm aware of I just go out of my way to not do any business with them in the future.

 

 

I'm done with this thread.  That is all from me

Way to go the low road and misconstrue what my whole statement.

Well, good for you. Other people (most other people, I'd bet) prefer to actually be savvy and save money. If you have no need for saving money, good on ya. Doesn't change the world from turning around you, though.

Also, your definition of dishonest needs a tweak. Not using exhaustive honesty does not = dishonest.

Like I said, you're just arguing to see yourself in print at this point. And that's clearly why you're "done with this thread."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puck it 

Just picked up the Bushwackers from a NH store. Great price $330. It seems like a better built boot then the Nordica and it seems stiffer. Only a little tweeking inside ankle and toe box needed. Nothing hot water should not help.

I think you should go back and try on the Nordicas one more time.     

I have gone into a store to try on boots that I saw on the internet and ended up buying from the store ... not because the price was better, but because I liked the boot fitter.  He recommended different boots that I hadn't considered and they fit right out of the box.  I hadn't planned on spending the money that day.  In fact, my credit card was still in a plastic bag in the freezer at home.  (Long story!)  I drove home, got my card, drove back, and discovered that even frozen credit cards are still viable tender.  I came home with the boots.  No regrets!  I still maintain that good service from a knowledgeable professional trumps "just looking" any day of the week.