The other day we needed to return an item we received at Christmas (as we got two of almost the same thing) to Stupid Target. It wasn't an expensive item either, maybe $10 or $15.

Anyway their return policy is: No reciept - store credit (I can buy that) but you had to spend it right then. Gift receipt - store credit (which I can't understand) but you can spend it in X amount of time. A receipt, whether gift or not should entitle you to cash back. Isn't that the whole reason for gift receipts? In case two of one thing, wrong size, wrong color, wrong kind etc. But that's what it says right on the receipt.

BUT WHAT REALLY GOT ME! They wanted to scan my license for the return. I'm not sure what all info is in that bar code but to me it seems an invasion of privacy for them to want that info for their own purposes. If it were for a moving violation or something like that and they were a cop I could see it. But this is ridiculous. I know why they want to do it, but it still doesn't make it right.

AM I RIGHT?

Not entirely. If a place has a no cash return policy, then that should be honored and no exceptions to that rule. Same if the place has a no return at all policy (example is on sale merchandise), then that one should be enforced. If it is a gift, and the place sells a similar item, then there should be a holiday gift return policy that states store credit or a similar item. If the place has a time limit to which you can spend the credit, then that is their policy to enforce. As the consumer, it is our duty to allow the store to follow policy.

I have worked places that had written policies and they would not enforce them properly. One place, a woman brought back a pair of glasses she bought from a clearance table that had the policy of no returns clearly marked. I was forced to give her a refund because she spent a lot of money. Frankly, that does not matter. The guy behind her did not get the same treatment. He was insulted and I can not blame him. Not enforcing policy sets a dangerous precident. I also had times at Lowe's when people would bring back appliances that should have been checked under the factory warranty. That is why you have a warranty. To ensure the function of the appliance. If it continues, then the technician can delare it a lemon and order a replacement. Just because it malfunctions does not give you the right to return it. It could be, and often was, a loose wire or something.

Policy is policy. The consumer needs to learn this.

No.

I read somewhere that Target is considered to have the most restrictive return policies among retail chain stores. So, I am not surprised.

Telling you that you must take the return as credit and use it right then? That's ridiculous. What if you waited 15 minutes in line at customer service and no longer have the time to shop with your credit "right then?"

I also am opposed to the trampling of privacy by retail stores who try to have you give them all your personal information. They have been known to collect and then SELL this very same information to data collection outfits like Axciom, Choicepoint, etc. Swipe your license? They are obviously trying to cut down on retail return fraud, but I agree, that's going too far.

The key word in return policies is "reasonable"......Target's policies are far from it.

---------------

traxx - I would recommend calling Target corporate. It probably won't change your current situation, but policies change when customers keep complaining.

I too agree that if I have a receipt which clearly shows what was paid for the item, then I should get my money back regardless of gift receipt of not.

Many store policies are pretty annoying.

That is why I prefer to shop at Sam's for electronics. I have found they have a VERY liberal return policy.

I think you are Right in not wanting your personal private info scanned into their system just because you wanted to return a gift. You really weren't even a Consumer at that point - just a gift recipient.. I don't think a consumer who receives a gift for Christmas should have to mess with all of this.

Policy is policy? What ever happened to customer service? We all lose receipts, we all get gifts that we don't want.. we shouldn't have to have our personal info subjected to all sorts of fraudulent activity because we want a store credit.

They are trying to stop the fraud that has arisen and once again, innocent bystanders have to pay the price for all of the crooks.. but that is an invasion of privacy. Before you know it, we'll all have UPC codes on our foreheads or worse!

I can't believe you had to spend it right then though.. I've never heard of that. Must be a new policy.

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Brad, thanks for insightful reply. What is it you disagree with?

I gotta agree with Karrie, policy at the expense of the customer? Not right. Just because it's policy doesn't make it right. Some businesses used to have a policy that they wouldn't serve blacks. Policy is policy? Still doesn't make it right.

Anderson, you say that it's OUR duty as a consumer to yadda yadda yadda...who cares. I don't have a duty to that store. I have duty to my wife, I have duty to my children, I have duty to my work, but certainly not some store. Stores have a policy and we need to read and learn it? Only problem is I didn't buy it so I had no say in the matter. They ought to realize that when a gift is concerned. Now it seems that once they've got your cash they won't let you have it back no matter what.

I've thought about taking it up the ladder and complaining but frankly I don't have the energy for it (and isn't that their intention). I've never been a big Target fan before and certainly am not one now. I'll just shop elsewhere.

Why couldn't they just have bought the gift at Wal-Mart? I wouldn't be having this problem now. Plus they've never asked to scan my license.

I ran into a similar problem with the "On Deck" sport memorabilia store in Quail Springs mall. I received two identical OU shirts from there for Christmas. When I went to exchange it I couldn't find anything that was in my size that I liked so I asked for a refund. Well, since the only receipt I had was from my mother-in-law's credit card, they insisted that I needed her card to put the refund back on it instead of cash. This was over 30 days from the purchase so the store already had the income in-hand. I ended up exchanging the shirt for a handfull of crap I didn't want or need just to end it. I've bought plenty of stuff there in the past, but as a result of my last experience, I'll never shop there again. Retailers need to understand that a poor return policy drives away customers and the only way to handle it is to vote with your wallet.

__________________
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
Albert Einstein

Not really.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, everything carries with it an implied warranty of fitness and suitability for purpose. In short, if you sell a hair dryer, it'd better dry hair, or its a breach of a warranty even if there was no express warranty in place.

The UCC was put together in the 1960's and passed by (as I recall) all fifty state legislatures (or corresponding bodies) to unify the disparate state contract law rules that had emerged to that time, and also to protect consumers from unscrupulous vendors who could say they were selling just about anything, and once you bought it, you had practically no recourse except the goodwill of the vendor if you discovered it didn't work as advertised.

It isn't a perfect law, because many vendors (particularly software vendors) have managed to include clauses in their written warranties (or license terms in shrinkwrap or clickthrough agreements) that expressly disclaim any warranty for suitability of purpose. And some states interpret the details of their laws more favorably for businesses than others, and as such you'll see such agreements often have clauses that state "the terms of this warranty shall be interpreted under the laws of the state of (whatever)."

Some vendors provide warranties that expressly disclaim or liquidate the damages arising from a breach of an implied warranty, if one is deemed to exist.

The point here is that while it's all well and good to have "store policy," the policy doesn't mean a thing if its contrary to public policy or law.

Sadly, though, some consumers have really abused return privileges to the point that stores are now tracking "habitual returners," and that's why they're getting information on who is returning things and why. Personally, I think it should be against the law for a retailer to require you to provide a name an address in order to get a proper, legitimately claimed refund on a purchase...just my $0.02.

-SoonerDave

Again. I repeat. That is why you have this thing called a warranty.

Mr. Anderson,

Surely you don't really believe that a consumer should buy, for example, a DVD player and when he gets home and it doesn't work, deal with the manufacturer?!?! They would more than likely tell you to exchange it if its within the store's return policy period. To use your own argument, that's why the store has a return policy!

I would hate to deal with retail cashiers who care only about "policy." That's why I bypass people, apparently like yourself, and go to the management who have room to be reasonable. Too many anal-retentive types who care only about "policy" run off a lot of dollars by their superior and arrogant reliance on "policy" rather than reasonable customer service. Remember, you're not doing the customer a favor for being there - the customer has choices - and is doing you a favor by choosing to shop at your store. What part of that is so difficult for "Policy Nazis" to understand? Mr. Anderson, I'm sure you're a very nice person, but your postings in regard to retail make you out to be the ultimate retail clerk from Hell - almost a parody. My guess is you are better than that and only being oppositional.

---------

Exactly. It's just like having to sign to get sudaphedren. They end up punishing the honest consumer when the abuser can find a work around. The same with Sony when they got all that bad press for their Sony Music CDs installing unseen software without the consumer's knowledge in order to stop piracy.

By taking all these hard line policies they're running off the honest consumer while the ones that they mean to punish go unscathed because they can find a work around.

And you're right, too many places ask for too much personal info these days. I pay cash for 99% of the things I buy (that's no exageration). They have my money so they shouldn't need my phone number, zip code etc. And don't think I'm niave I know the reasons they want all that stuff, but if it's not to protect them such as with someone writing a check, then they don't need it.

If the manufacturers warranty states to take it to an autorized repair facility, then, yes. That is exactly what should be done. As a retailer, I would "laugh you out of the store" for trying to get a refund on an item with a warranty a reputable manufacturer honors.

The same day the item was bought?
Just trying to understand you, Mr. Anderson. Surely that's not what you mean. And it needs repeating: Remember, you're not doing the customer a favor for being there - the customer has choices - and is doing you a favor by choosing to shop at your store. Sending them home with a broken item and then expecting them to deal with the manufacturer as opposed to a return is surely not what you're talking about. Surely.

------------------------

I meant EXACTLY what I said. For some reason, you people will not accept the fact that there are people in this world that accept the fact companies have policies and enforce them. Yes. Even after one day. Now. Move on!

Now that is ridiculous. Why would retailers even offer 30-90 day exchange/ refunds with receipts if they wanted you to return a broken item to the manufacturer the same day you bought it? No way! If I bought an item at any store, took it home and it didn't work.. there is no doubt that I would have a working item that same day if I returned it.

Just try to let some clerk tell me to send it to the manufacturer .. I worked retail for 13 years.. the customer is always right. I was in the Union but even with that protection you still had to appease the customer to keep your job ..

If you want to survive in business, you have to remember that the customer pays the bills, keeps the business profitable. Yeah, you might win one battle by 'enforcing the policy' but you lose big time when that same customer tells every person they know about their horrible experience at a particular store..

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

No retail chain store, Mr. Anderson, not ONE has a policy of telling a customer to take a broken product to the manufacturer as opposed to returning it to the store within their return period. Being so big on, "policy," what's wrong with a customer utilizing the return policy?

I know you have been through a rough time, but you are again, sounding like a very angry, lonely, frustrated man who is throwing out things that make no sense. With this issue, it's not a matter of opinion. It's common sense and standard retail policy and practice. All retailers would expect you to return a broken product if you just made the purchase. Your whole view on this is taking the "policy" thing to extremes, to where - frankly - you are coming across as eccentric and bizarre. Kinda like I do sometimes. That's when I know it's time to take a break from the computer.

-------------

More than once I have reminded a customer service rep at a retail store that they can either allow me to exchange a item without my receipt OR I can simply buy another one, put my broken one in the new box and bring it back with my new receipt.

This usually makes them agree and allow me to exchange.

I guess Anderson's views explains why he has always been the worker and never the decision/policy maker.

When I get someone like him I just laugh and tell them "I refuse to accept a 'no' from someone who doesn't have the power or sense to give me a 'yes.'"

EXACTLY. I suspect I'm one of the more annoying credit card payers, because I refuse to sign those digital signature capture boxes that most retailers have these days. You know why? That's a legal representation of your signature, but there's not one element of information from any of those retailers about how that signature is safeguarded. It is ripe for abuse.

The software in most of the point-of-sale devices I've read about that include the signature capture devices integrate the signature into a "virtual document" that is digitally signed, thus making an electronic document representing the transaction. That's fine, as far as it goes. But that knowledge still doesn't give me a warm-fuzzy that my signature, which is discretely captured, is stored in a manner that could not be digitally co-opted into any other document, thus leaving me with the potential burden of proving that I didn't electronically sign something. Mind you, this isn't about photoshopping a picture, but refuting the authenticity of an electronic document with a digital representation of my handwritten signature. That's a dangerous, powerful thing to have, and until I feel better about how that capture is secured, I insist on signing the paper charge receipt. So far, everyone but Mathis Brothers has an means to allow conventional signature of a paper receipt.

Sorry to digress onto a semi-unrelated topic, but the issue of personal privacy et al is a biggie these days, but I think nothing could be more important than protecting the integrity of your handwritten signature.

...

And if I buy something, take it home, and it's broken out of the box, and the retailer refuses to take it back, it's a classic example of precisely what the UCC iss for. It probably sounds silly, but the old, original People's Court (back when Judge Wapner ran the show) was replete with cases where annoying store owners wouldn't refund money for legitimate purchase returns because it was their policy to offer either "store credit" or "no refunds." Excepting in rare circumstances with special situations involving customer damage or something similar, Wapner would slap the owners with the UCC, tell them their policy was worthless, and give the customer their money back.

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of store owners realize that such a belligerent "policy" will put them out of business in short order, under the heading of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

-SoonerDave

I'll give you one example that'll make your head spin, at least a little. It isn't precisely about a DOA product, but in the vein of an unreasonable vendor.

I moved into a new home several years ago, and we ordered some custom drapes from a particular vendor (let's just call them XYZ drapes). XYZ sent out a decorator, we told them what we wanted, and after an hour or two sorting through fabrics and colors, we figured out all the details and placed the order.

A few weeks passes, and my wife calls me at work with a stricken sound in her voice - the drapes were wrong. I'm thinking they weren't cut right, not long enough, but when I got home, I was aghast to discover they'd made them with the COMPLETELY WRONG COLOR FABRICS. And they were HORRENDOUS.

We told them there was a mistake, a problem, this wasn't right, no one in their right MINDS would have ordered drapes like this, and guess what...the response from the owner was what you might expect from someone else in this thread - in effect, too bad - they were customs, you're stuck. It was their decorator's fault - one, I found out, this person had made before (overheard someone talking about it in their office, saying "she did screwed it up again?")

I could not imagine the runaround I was getting, moreover that the owner was not the slightest bit willing to fix their mistake.

After a week's worth of pointless phone calls, I called an attorney friend of mine and asked if they would object if I put their name on the "CC:" line of a letter I planned to write to the owner politely demanding a refund on their mistake. I advised him that the best interpretation of the problem was that there was a "misunderstanding" of the terms of our agreement for the drapes, and on that basis requested an immediate refund of the monies I had paid.

With a "cc" line to "John Doe, Attorney At Law," and a certified, return-receipt-requested letter to the owner, I was called two days later asking when they could pick up the drapes and give us a refund check - which they did.

The frustrating thing is that I can't fathom how an owner, barring the notion that we were somehow trying to rip off a drapery studio, wouldn't even try to make things right until I tossed them my vague but polite legal threat. It should never have come to that. But, as some would probably contend, better fight and alienate a customer than to go against policy. To each his own, I suppose.

-SoonerDave

Just to throw in my own couples of pennies, I don't think it should be required at all for a business to refund or return an item, unless it was broken out of the box or the completely wrong thing (such as with the drapes example above).

Although I do agree this would be awful customer service and a few chains would go out of business if they didn't offer a feasible return policy.

I also think that people who complain about not being able to get a refund from a gift should either just get another item or take the gift with grace. You didn't pay any money for it, you aren't out anything. Or just ask the gift-giver to return it for you, if they have to be there. I don't think its unreasonable at all for a business to not want to give you cash for an item bought on someone else's credit card, even if you do have the receipt.

Anderson, I'm guessing you're one of these that (if your still in retail) likes to go to work, receive a paycheck and visit with coworkers but not deal with the customers. Telling a customer to deal with the manufacturer (even if bought on the same day) instead of you is just saying "I don't want to be bothered with this, let's make it someone else's problem." Why would someone go through the manufacturer if it was bought on the same day or just the day before? Dealing with a refund on a damaged-out-of-the-box item like that would take weeks. Why do that when you can get instant satisfaction by taking it back to the dealer and getting refund?

You people are just so impatient...It's not a big deal at all if you bring home that camcorder you bought for your kids graduation and it didn't work.....Just call the manufacturer, obtain a shipping container, ship it off and in 6 to 8 weeks you have your new camera

Then all you need to do is gather a couple hundred kids, have them put on gowns, head down to the Ford Center and recreate the graduation...Not a big deal people

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

The broader issue here is when a new product failure crosses the line from "new purchase/take it back" to "new purchase/call the manufacturer." That's why most places have some sort of return policy, and that makes sense. I think most retailers try to be reasonable about such things.

I had ordered a new (at the time) high-end TV about twenty years ago, and four days after I set it up, it stopped showing things in color. In my view, that was a premature failure, and I hadn't signed up to pay substantial $$$ for a "repaired" TV. Fortunately, the store - which is now defunct - agreed with me and delivered a replacement....(and that TV operated flawlessly for twenty years - it finally died last summer...)

Now, had that been a month or so, they'd probably have a case to tell me to get warranty repair on it....Guess that's a gray area that each vendor has to deal with on their own....

At the other extreme, my mother-in-law tells me of a story about a new car they bought, and from day one - literally - it was in the shop for repairs - some substantial (think this was in that time when GM basically had drugged monkeys for quality control) over the first two or three weeks. Real, legitimate stuff - engine problems, tranny problems, and finally she'd had enough - she'd been able to drive it a grand total of one day in that time. As she explained it to us, after what looked like her fourth week of new repairs, she took the car in, found her salesman, handed him the keys, and something to the effect of "You can have that piece of junk back, and if you expect me to pay so much as one blessed penny for it, give it your best shot." They took the car back and didn't give her the slightest hassle about it.

-SoonerDave

It really shouldn't even be a dispute that a product should perform in the purpose in which it was intended for a reasonable period of time. The question becomes when (as I think SD was articulating) is the retailers obligation met?

I personally like many major retailers 90-day policy. I often buy gifts weeks before I ever plan to give it to the recipient.

I understand that certain electronic should have shorter return periods.

Even Ross recently began offering cash back on returns. This was one reason I refused to shop there until now.

Of course you can't beat Sam's Club. They will literally take back anything, anytime.