I don't pretend to be an expert in the retail sector (or in law or statistics, either, by the way). In fact I've never worked in retail at all. I have, however, been a consumer for many years, and know how a good store operates, and what makes a good return policy, from the customer's point of view.
The retailer's perspective is not as familiar to me as it is to the self-appointed CT Representatives who post so vociferously on this site (apparently, a few summers on the Returns Desk makes one a legal expert). So, I've recently been trying to see things from the store's point of view.
Based on things I've read (here and elsewhere), it appears that retailers make arrangements with manufacturers regarding things such as refunds, exchanges and warranties. As you know, I am especially interested in refunds for defective goods.
Apparently, CT has entered into agreements with some manufacturers such that the manufacturer is not obligated to provide a refund to the store if an item turns out to be defective.
With this in mind, I can see how a store would be reluctant to provide a refund to a customer who was unlucky enough to pick a package containing a defective item. If the store provided a refund to the customer, the manufacturer would refuse to provide a matching refund to the store, leaving the store 'holding the bag' for the defective item.
This raises the question of why the store would be so foolish as to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. Is it because the goods can be purchased at a lower price under these terms? If so it is plainly greed on the part of the store. Does the store simply hope to side-step the expense of processing a refund? It seems a small price to pay to retain customers.
Regardless of any reasons CT may have had in making such a fool-hardy arrangement with a manufacturer, there should be some ways for the stores to avoid being stuck with defective items, so that they are less reluctant to provide reasonable refunds to customers who deserve one.
For instance, the store could simply refuse to stock the items that fall under these ridiculous refund arrangements, since they know they will be faced with angry consumers demanding a refund.
Another idea might be to renegotiate the arrangement with the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer provides refunds to the store (or at least exchanges) for out-of-the-box defects.
Any similar measures would protect the store from having to 'eat' the cost of a manufacturing defect.
In any case, the only option that should not be pursued, is to demand that the innocent customer bear the full cost and inconvenience of trying to obtain a refund (or even an exchange or repair), simply because of the absurd arrangement that CT voluntarily entered into with a manufacturer.
Why should the customer have to pay for CT's dumb mistakes?
Luckily, consumers (at least in Ontario, and presumably other provinces), have finally been supported by Consumer Protection legislation that defines the sale of a defective item as a misrepresentation on the part of the retailer, and allows the customer to cancel the 'consumer agreement' (i.e., purchase transaction) and obtain a refund from the retailer.
Now, it is up to CT to figure out how to get their money back from the manufacturer.
Whatever, as long as they leave the innocent customer out of it.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lawguy
Bookmarks