Obligations & Trust

[crich70]

I had an example of this just the evening before yesterday. I wanted to get a picture printed at Wal-Mart but I couldn't find any of my USB drives. Then I noticed that it is possible to upload a pic to the store online and get it printed at your local store that way. Great I thought. Well I uploaded the pic, picked the size and # of copies I wanted and placed my order. I got a receipt that said it would be ready at 10 am yesterday (Oct. 18th) at my store. I had to get some meds refilled and figured I could get the pics at the same time. Wrong! They had no record of the purchase at the store much less the pics even though I got there around 11 am. The sales lady checked online and it will probably be several weeks before I get the pics. So what good does it do to give me a receipt that says they will be ready by 10 am on Oct 18th? Not a big thing at only .40 with tax but come on if you promise a buyer something with a specific date and time especially something so minor (that required no shipping of physical goods) shouldn't you be held to keep your promise?

[Froide]

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:

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Well, all I can say to that, as one who has also lived 50+ years, almost 60 actually, is that some do indeed live a charmed existence. So lucky you..

Charmed? Hah! My existence is meager (but happy). Still, my experience with sellers has absolutely nothing to do with luck. It's called competence. I methodically research what I'm buying, and I'm never in a hurry to buy it. I know what I'm getting because I "trust" my own judgement.

I'm not "obligating" authorities to come to my rescue simply because I think I should be able to buy things willy-nilly with no negative repercussions for doing so.

When I take responsibilty for my own purchasing satisfaction, then the rare occasions when I do get disappointed won't cause me to overinflate the significance of such a trifling inconvenience. I'll deal with it (with the options at my disposal) and move on.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Froide

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:



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.

Your reasons are precisely why those rights are reserved.
I have seen one instance where I was GLAD the businesses have that right. Otherwise that blankity blank could have stayed. It was a child oriented restaurant. This guy came in wearing a t-shirt that said "I will f*** (full word) you until you find a boyfriend.

It has nothing to do with semantics which a business cannot do. Discrimination is illegal.
How would you phrase it?
Over here, everything has to be specified.
If the business did not have that right, then the children would be exposed to more perverts.
There wouldn't be anything in the stores. And let's not forget health issues. If I forget my shoes or shirt, then a restaurant has the right to not serve me.

Ok I think we are having a word problem.
How do your businesses specify keeping out the riffraff?

Rights over here are what people can do within the scope of the law.
Example: I have the right to go topless or bottomless (except in certain bars) if I so choose.
Businesses have the right to tell me I can't enter their place of business because of the lack of clothes.
Of course if someone complained I could be arrested for public nudity if topless. If I am wearing a short skirt and no bloomers, no crime has been committed (unless in certain bars) .

Spoiler:

you have to wear bloomers of some sort in a topless bar.

Then it would be public lewdness.

I'm think they can also refuse to allow someone in if they are totally stinky smelling.

Now a business can't refuse me because I am whatever color or religion I may be, because they would be breaking the law.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Froide

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.

Thank you Froide. I had an interesting post-script to the tale this morning. I woke up and checked my cell phone and there is a message from Wal-Mart telling me my pics are done. I'm glad it didn't take weeks but that means I have to make an extra trip out there to pick them up which means either $4.00 ($2.00 each way) or 2 cab ticket punches. Sigh. Sometimes you can't win.

[Froide]

Originally Posted by crich70

Thank you Froide. I had an interesting post-script to the tale this morning. I woke up and checked my cell phone and there is a message from Wal-Mart telling me my pics are done. I'm glad it didn't take weeks but that means I have to make an extra trip out there to pick them up which means either $4.00 ($2.00 each way) or 2 cab ticket punches. Sigh. Sometimes you can't win.

Thank you for the update. I'm sorry, though, the outcome wasn't more satisfactory and disappointed to learn how unreliable [that particular] Wal-Mart's photo developing service is, time-wise.

[Froide]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

It has nothing to do with semantics which a business cannot do. Discrimination is illegal.
How would you phrase it?

• RE: "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."

My interpretation:
This is mainly a demand-side issue regarding buyers' expectations of value and quality, and the buyers' perogative to take or leave the option to continue purchasing from a given supplier.

[Related issues already mentioned in this thread, that also affect the sellers, include: lemon laws, consumer protection laws, and escrow services. Another, as yet unmentioned related issue is the wisdom of the 4C's of marketing (rather than the 4P's) for encouraging repeat business from, building goodwill with, and encouraging referrals by satisfied customers.]

• RE: Now I don't know about Australia but here in the US, a business reserves the right to not serve a person.

My interpretation:
This is a supply-side issue regarding a buyer's perogative. You and I completely agree that there are multiple illegitimate reasons for businesses to refuse to serve, refuse admittance to, or even expel certain customers, as well as multiple legitimate reasons for doing so. You've provided some extremely colorful, illustrative examples of the latter. LOL. And !

[Related issues already mentioned or alluded to in this thread (by you and me): U.S. Civil Rights/anti-discrimination laws.]

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Froide

• RE: "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."

My interpretation:
This is mainly a demand-side issue regarding buyers' expectations of value and quality, and the buyers' perogative take or leave the option to continue purchasing from a given supplier.

[Related issues already mentioned in this thread, that also affect the sellers, include: lemon laws, consumer protection laws, and escrow services. Another, as yet unmentioned related issue is the wisdom of the 4C's of marketing (rather than the 4P's) for encouraging repeat business from, building goodwill with, and encouraging referrals by satisfied customers.]

• RE: Now I don't know about Australia but here in the US, a business reserves the right to not serve a person.

My interpretation:
This is a supply-side issue regarding a buyer's perogative. You and I completely agree that there are multiple illegitimate reasons for businesses to refuse to serve, refuse admittance to, or even expel certain customers, as well as multiple legitimate reasons for doing so. You've provided some extremely colorful, illustrative examples of the latter. LOL. And !

[Related issues already mentioned or alluded to in this thread (by you and me): U.S. Civil Rights/anti-discrimination laws.]

I thought you might like the examples.
Though I do have to say I find that one law amusing.
Woman in a regular bar has to keep her

Spoiler:

hooters

covered but she can show her

Spoiler:

doodah

to whoever she pleases. But in the other, she can't.

Spoiler:

saw way too many doodahs while bartending

She is getting drinks bought for her so what is the difference? (Never mind won't complete that thought. )

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Timboli,
Since this thread is in the lounge, why don't you tell everyone what started this thread?...

I think they are likely too intent on admiring themselves at the end of their own selfie stick than be able to provide any worthwhile whole of landscape comment on their own experiences.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Charmed? Hah! My existence is meager (but happy). Still, my experience with sellers has absolutely nothing to do with luck. It's called competence. I methodically research what I'm buying, and I'm never in a hurry to buy it. I know what I'm getting because I "trust" my own judgement.

Kudos to you. Everyone should be so lucky, intelligent and skillful, plus have the time and good judgment. Like I said, we ain't all born equal.

I'm not "obligating" authorities to come to my rescue simply because I think I should be able to buy things willy-nilly with no negative repercussions for doing so.

It is not about obligating anyone. They have a reasonable obligation regardless of how I feel or what my expectations are.

Fair is fair, you can't dispute what is good behavior and what is bad, if it is just a one way street.

When I take responsibilty for my own purchasing satisfaction, then the rare occasions when I do get disappointed won't cause me to overinflate the significance of such a trifling inconvenience. I'll deal with it (with the options at my disposal) and move on.

I always realistically move on, when the time is right ... just like finishing a conversation when the time is right, which many selfishly or stupidly fail at, believing they are the only qualified arbiter.

The only thing inflated here, is the notion that others can do whatever they feel like, and that no matter what happens, if you are a victim, it is your own fault.

I don't believe in such a robotic dog eat dog world ... Capitalism at its worst and human behavior at its worst.

Capitalism only really works to the benefit of all, if we are all equal. Nature & Nurture, plus Lady Luck & Gremlins, make sure that we aren't.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I think they are likely too intent on admiring themselves at the end of their own selfie stick than be able to provide any worthwhile whole of landscape comment on their own experiences.

Is that right?

So you are saying my topic has no merit on its own grounds?
Not worthy, at the very least of a Philosophical discussion?

You seem pretty narrow-minded I must say, and full of the wrong attitude.

Anyway, just for the record, and Cinisajoy, who loves to push buttons and insinuate things, despite our truce, knows that I posted the following in another, related topic. Where I invited her and others therein, to participate in if they wished. It in no way needs to be part of this conversation though, else I would have linked back to it. And it is not like that conversation hasn't been front and center of late. You'd have to be not paying attention to miss it.

Taken from here.

This situation, and the comments from others here, plus thoughts that have been rolling around in my head for a long time, inspired me to start an Obligations & Trust topic, that some of you might like to read and or have your say in.

Of course, what I am saying there extends well beyond just ebooks.

P.S. Some would say, that including a link to that other topic, in the first post here, would be like unjustly influencing the jury. I agree, this topic should be discussed on its own merit.

P.S.S. My belief, is the meat of that topic is best left there, as the meat of this topic is best left here. So while everyone is welcome to post in either place, unless warranted, I won't be responding to comments better left at those respective topics. Sorry, but I am too logical to do otherwise ... and it is hard enough keeping up with relevant things.

So as they say - Choose your words wisely!

[Cinisajoy]

I will just say that a little context would have been nice so the others would know why you think a company is obligated to you.
The product to which you are seeking was NOT available when you purchased the other 3.
The company did not sign a contract with you that said they would sell you the 4th object when and if it became available.
Only if you had both signed a contract specifying that you would get the fourth part would the company be obligated to sell it to you.
Otherwise, you are on your own to get it. Did you get it in writing that you could buy the 4th piece to the puzzle?

Though Timboli I must say you have me almost wanting to read this book. I might if it was reasonably priced.

Folks, I think the lesson here is make sure what you want is completely available when you buy it, so you don't get stuck missing a piece for whatever reason.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Timboli

The only thing inflated here, is the notion that others can do whatever they feel like, and that no matter what happens, if you are a victim, it is your own fault.

I only take issue with those who believe that if you are a victim (of the heinous crime of causing someone to be unsatisfied with a shopping experience), it can NEVER be your own fault.

If you want to be "equals" with sellers, then do so. Only give your business to those who do right by you.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Timboli

Is that right?

So you are saying my topic has no merit on its own grounds?
Not worthy, at the very least of a Philosophical discussion?

You seem pretty narrow-minded I must say, and full of the wrong attitude...

I'm sorry but I am not going to engage with you in your so-called "philosophical" discussion as you have demonstrated completely a one sided attitude. You conveniently forget, omit on purpose or perhaps regard as acceptable behaviours the very widespread customer practices which break the trust that businesses place in them, for example:

- Customer insurance claim fraud
- Customer warranty claim fraud
- Customer shoplifting (including payment for some goods but not others hidden during a shop)
- Customer indebtedness, including dishonoured instruments (cheques, cards, etc.)
- Customer exaggerated sense of entitlement (e.g. not recognising the rights of the seller, demanding supply not in the original purchase agreement, lying to gain advantage).

As others have said, it is in fact a two way street and most of us have no real problems with suppliers. So, as I said, I will leave you to your predetermined and unshakable "philosophy".

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I only take issue with those who believe that if you are a victim (of the heinous crime of causing someone to be unsatisfied with a shopping experience), it can NEVER be your own fault.

If you want to be "equals" with sellers, then do so. Only give your business to those who do right by you.

While I do agree that sometimes the buyer is at fault to a degree (like buying the wrong thing due to not being clear what they want) sometimes it is the fault of the seller too. Some sellers don't know what they are doing. Case in point: Back when I got my first computer. It was a Color TRS-80 and in order to print something out I needed a printer (dot matrix back then). Well I got the printer and when I got home there was no cable for connecting it to the computer. That was an extra purchase apparently. Well I went back to the store and told the manager what I wanted. He didn't know what I was talking about. I had to look it up in the catalog myself. He'd started out as a TV repair business and then added on Radio Shack when personal computers came out, but he didn't know anything about the product (computers) he was selling. And as far as only doing business with those who will do right by the buyer that's not always practical either. I mean you don't always have someone around to tell you which business is known for doing fairly by the customer. And if you are new to an area you won't know that seller x is fair while seller y is a skunk in how he treats his customers. Not to mention if seller y is the only one local who deals in a given service a person may not have a choice then either.