I've read the other posts in this thread, concur with many responses, e.g., those citing the purpose of consumer law and escrow services, and am sorry to read about crich70's unsatisfactory Wal-Mart experience. I am equally displeased with many moves B&N has made regarding NOOK Store products. Nonetheless, the post that moved me to enter this conversation is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinisajoy
Let's see I buy a product from a business. I trust it will work. The store is under no obligation to sell me anything else.
Now I don't know about Australia but here in the US, a business reserves the right to not serve a person.
|
I perceive the meaning of, "The store is under no obligation to sell me anything else", very differently from, "
here in the US, a business reserves the right to not serve a person".
Regarding the latter: Eek!
I acknowledge and have no qualms about the fact that modern-day USA commercial establishments can legally decline to serve people who have, for
legitimate reasons, been barred (e.g., for stealing, behaving inappropriately, making excessive returns), cut off (e.g., for inebriation or having already bought a maximum amount of some limited-quantity item), or do not meet government-approved, published guidelines that apply equally to everyone (e.g., minimum age to buy tobacco or alcohol, dress code to enter certain retail establishments or educational institutions, or height requirement for amusement park rides). Nonetheless, reading that line makes me cringe and shudder, in remembrance of America's ugly, not-so-distant past, when hateful signs bearing such warnings as, "No Blacks Allowed/No Chinese Allowed/No Jews Allowed", were commonplace, allowable by law, reflective of
illegitimate reasons for not serving prospective customers, and led to a culture wherein (for some people) "never leave home without it" applied not to an American Express card but to publications such as
The Negro Travelers' Green Book.