If you were going to make the trip all the way home for the item, you could have returned the first (expensive) one first, and then bought the second (cheap) one.
That would have been better for you, since you'd have been sure they were going to get let you return the first/expensive one, which isn't at all guaranteed. The way you did it, you could have been stuck with two of them.
Also, by returning the first/expensive one right away, and then purchasing the second/cheap one, there would be no reason for anyone to think you were doing anything strange.
That doesn't mean that a suspicious, paranoid clerk wouldn't still get all flustered by it. That's their nature.
Of course, in either case, the store wasn't going to lose anything. No loss if you returned the first/expensive one, and then bought the second/cheap one. And also, no loss to the store if you'd bought the second/cheap one, and then returned the first/expensive one (as you did).
No loss to the store, no fraud.
You're trying to use an old receipt on a newly purchased item to return it for money your not entitled to. That's fraud. Give your head a shake.
None of that is true!
How come you CT people are so paranoid?
You see 'fraud' in ordinary transactions - very delusional.
The poster wrote that they, "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund."
Nobody suggested they do otherwise - just that they do this BEFORE purchasing a second one at a lower price - partly to avoid the hysteria of CT people like you.
It's people like you who should be doing the head-shaking.
Pointless insults aren't going to change the fact that the customer was right, the clerk was wrong, and the CT person posting here is also wrong.
The customer did not return the "just bought item with his old receipt". They wrote that they "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund". Pretty clear, if you just read what was written.
When asked if "this was the original item purchased a month ago.", the customer was right when they said, "what difference does it make - same item unopened with receipt". There is no difference. Anyway, the customer was returning the old item (see above).
The clerk was also wrong to say "it will be fraud to return an item even if it was the same item with a different receipt." There would be no difference at all. No lose to the store if it was the identical unopened one from a month ago, or the identical unopened one from that day.
No difference, no loss, and therefore no fraud. Anyone who works at the returns desk should know that, and not have given the customer a hard time.
So, the clerk didn't know what they were talking about, and made a big deal over nothing, annoying a once-loyal customer in the process.
It has also sparked a debate here with other CT people who also don't know what they are talking about. The person who has been claiming that this is 'fraud' and 'theft' should also know better. Check out the Criminal Code before posting such nonsense. A little research goes a long way.
(Unless you are just being deliberately difficult - but it just makes CT look like a bunch of paranoid ding-bats).
The 'take-away' for customers: realize that you are dealing with people who don't know what they are talking about. Only give straight-forward answers to their pointless questions. Just say, "yes, this is the one I bought a month ago". Trying to use sarcasm or logic will just baffle them and make them suspicious.
Or, better yet, shop someplace where they have better customer service. Just about anywhere will be better.
Faker advocate obviously thinks it's ok to defraud retailers for $$ that the customer is not entitled to. They should probably read up on what fraud is....deliberately deceiving (previous receipt used on newer, less expensively purchased product) to obtain cash. No one put a gun to their head and made them buy the item the month before. Price paid, goods accepted. Now that it is on for cheaper, they want the difference back....it doesn't work that way. Some stores offer a week or two's grace, but far too many people try this kind of bullshit after that grace period. If you want something on sale, then wait for it to go on sale....it may happen, it may not....but if you try to deceive the store after your buyer's remorse....I'll nail you to the wall, every time.
It's faker advocates and their "suggestion" that fraud is ok that ruins it for the honest customer. Luckily, most people abhor the kind of behavior faker advocates endorse.
nobody said fraud is ok
but if the store doesn't lose anything then its not fraud
what is it with these ct people where they see 'fraud' inordinary transactions?
we read about it all the time on this site
now we have another story from a customer who was mis-informed by a returns clerk
the customer went all the way home to get the original item & return it, and still they were suspected of 'fraud' in a situation where no fraud could have taken place
now we have some misguided ct person posting here claming that they've gotten convictions in cases like this
its simply absurd
are there any links to the criminal code to back up this wild theory? no
are there ank links to news stories for convictions like this? now
because it's simply a bunch of crap