Sucky customers or sucky company?

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

I'd say the guy gets to keep the ring for what he paid for it. Tough shit for the store. Next time be on the ball and know exactly what each item is supposed to cost.

At my store, if an item is priced lower than it should be, we have to sell it for that price and eat the difference. If there's an expired sale sign left up and the customer questions it, we have to sell for the price on the sign and eat the difference.

We don't get to request the item back, and do the transaction over again for the correct price.

It is not the customer's fault the store fucked up, and it shouldn't be his problem.

[DevilBoy]

I guess meeting halfway is the best way to go on this.

I agree.

Yes, the store screwed up and gave him the wrong ring.
Under most circumstances, the store should assume the loss and allow the customer to keep the item that he left the store with.
However, the ring that the customer received was a considerable difference in price, a difference too large for the store to just grin and bear it.


Yes, the guy may not have been able to tell the difference... and after all, the store did sell it to him.
He did no wrong and only left with the item that was given to him.
However, he got something that was worth considerably more than what he paid and was notified of the store's error.
Therefore, it would be morally wrong for him to keep it... seeing that he had not rightfully paid the correct amount for it.

This wasn't a can of beans, a boxed DVD set, a pair of shoes or some other random and mundane retail item here... a store eating the cost of things like that has nowhere near as big of an impact as something like a very expensive piece of diamond jewelry does. $600 is too much.
This wasn't bait and switch... it wasn't false advertising... it wasn't intentional at all... it was a mistake.
Store employees are human beings and human beings are not infallible.
We make mistakes from time to time... even the best of us.


There is error and minor suck on the behalf of both parties, albeit unintentional.
"Splitting the difference" is the fairest solution that I see. This way both parties admit that they were in the wrong and assume responsibility for their actions.

[Captain Trips]

Let's turn it around here. If he had gotten a ring that was worth LESS than he paid, you can bet he would have run to them and insisted he either get what he paid for or a refund of the difference, right? Who would have been in the right then?

For those that said "the store screwed up, they should give it to him" how would you vote in the scenario I presented above? Wouldn't you also say "the store screwed up, they should give it to him" or would you say "he screwed up, he should give it back?" Think about it, and answer honestly.

How I see it is this: the store screwed up, they did find out (within 30 days - heck, within ONE day), admitted a mistake was made on both sides (if it was the wrong ring, he shouldn't have accepted it) and asked to work with him to make it right. He refused. HE refused to do the right thing - give back something that shouldn't have belonged to him. He's lucky it went to Dr. Phil -- any court would have told him to give it back to the store and accept in return what he ACTUALLY paid for! Sorry, folks, I disagree with you all -- the store was in the moral right here.

[Crazeyal]

I'm feeling "halfway" is the way to go on this too. The company made a mistake. Legally, they are entitled (IANAL) to the merchandise back. This puts them in the situation of causing "stress" to the client, thereby potentially damaging them. Which costs money (with the right lawyer representing you... oy!!)

As far as "putting the shoe on the other foot... Getting less than you paid for is a common practice of scammers and thieves. The whole thing is a bad situation, but it's STILL $600... Given that the money would probably come out of someone's PAY... makes me more likely to side with the shop..

[MystyGlyttyr]

We have scammers all the time sending us boxes of paper, toner cartridges, and whatever else and then trying to bill us stupidly high amounts of money for it. When we don't pay, they start screaming about suing. Until we pull out our VERY detailed records of how and where we order our paper and their company isn't on it, and we make mention of the law wherein if a company sends you something you didn't request, you are under no obligation to pay for it. So basically it's like "Thanks for the free paper!" (Though their paper is crap...we usually put it in the play area for the kids. Go figure.)

My family personally has some strange magazine company that apparently signed us up for like, ten subscriptions to completely insane magazines that none of us would possibly sign up for. The cost of these subscriptions would probably end up totaling something like $400 altogether. But we did NOT ask for them (I really don't think my 62-year-old white Republican gun-loving father ever wanted to read Ebony or American Cheerleader magazine), we do NOT want them, we've asked not to receive them, and yet they keep throwing them at us. So we just keep tossing them out every week...and if the company ever tried to demand payment from us for something we did NOT order, we'd laugh right in their faces.

So, yeah...I don't really feel like a store that "accidently" (and there's really no evidence it WAS an accident and not some kind of scam by the store, yes I am completely cynical) throws something at you that you didn't ask for should be allowed to demand you pay for what you didn't want. To me, that doesn't change just because in this particular case, the guy happened to benefit from the error.

All that being said though, I'd like to see how the company has handled mistakes of this nature in the past, both for overages and underages. Like, did they jump within one day of giving someone an undersized diamond, or did they just kinda let it pass? Then we could really make a judgement call as to their motives.

[wagegoth]

and part of me says.... was it really a mistake... or a scam to get him to pay for a bigger diamond?

My first thought. Or the alternative, it was the ring he ordered with the right size diamond, but someone was trying to score some extra money.


Back in 1995, I was pregnant with our first son. We had to get a new car and we decided to lease a Jetta. That was when they were first advertised for $199 a month plus tax, which would work out to about $216 a month. We check out the car, first going to a dealership in SF that had a large inventory in stock, as we didn't want to wait. For some reason, the monthly lease rate starts rising, getting up to about $225 plus tax. There are no extras on the car (there were like five versions at different rates; we were looking at the $199 version, the one right in the middle), no special orders, we're looking at one on the lot marked with the special $199 rate. We left.

We ended up getting the car from another dealer that gave us the $199 advertised rate. Then the salesman from the first dealership calls and tries to ream out my husband for not getting the car. At which my husband, who was probably double the size of the salesman, started laughing at the salesman over the phone and hung up.

[Misanthropical]

If he paid more than the ring is worth I doubt very much the store would have called him and told him to come in for a refund.

So, he should not be under any obligation to pay them more for their mistake. The transaction was completed which makes the ring his free and clear. The store should have just ate the cost.

[Primer]

I claim that we do not have enough information to make a ruling. $600 may not be a "considerable difference" if it's a $60K ring.

Knowing the markup on fine jewelry, especially custom-made jewelry, $600 may be anything from a drop in the bucket, to practically the whole cost (not retail) of the ring, even if the retail is "only" a few thousand.

IMHO, the store should have eaten the difference, which was actually more likely closer to $200. Yeah, it sux, but I'll bet a similar mistake does not get made.

[wolfie]

I had a situation of a similar nature many years ago. I bought a sewing machine at Sears, with the "family" of machines having 3 models (10, 12, and 14 different stitches). I bought the 10 stitch, and the salesperson went to the back room to get it.

When I got home and unpacked it, it was the 14 stitch model. I immediately called Sears, and when transferred to the department got the same salesperson. After I explained the situation and asked how to go about exchanging the one I got for the one I had paid for, he said to come in on a particular day when he'd be in, and he'd take care of it. Exchange happened as arranged.

I suspect that he didn't report the error (IIRC, it was roughly a $50 difference) to his superiors (reason for wanting the exchange to be on a day he was working, so nobody else would be involved), because after the exchange the inventory would have matched and his mistake in picking up the wrong box (model number was around 10 digits, differing only in the last 2, which would be "10", "12", or "14") would have disappeared.

[Aethian]

I think he should have given that ring back and gotten the ring he paid for. What about the other guy that was suposed to get that ring? What if it was only in for a cleaning/resizing? He now has to buy another ring. Not only that but what if it was a diamond from a reletive?

I think the guy should have given the ring back.

[draftermatt]

I think he should have given that ring back and gotten the ring he paid for. What about the other guy that was suposed to get that ring? What if it was only in for a cleaning/resizing? He now has to buy another ring. Not only that but what if it was a diamond from a reletive?

I think the guy should have given the ring back.

That's a lot of what ifs though.

In the same vein, if he should give it back because someone else was attached to it, why do his and his fiancee's feelings about the ring mean less?

I get what you are saying, and if that were the case I would hope they would say "hey that's someone else's ring, it wasn't a new ring" and then the guy would probably give it back since it wasn't his fiancee's anyway. But if they made a deal to split the cost I doubt it was somebody else's ring.

[dendawg]

Well, it looks like this one's been settled.

http://drphil.com/slideshows/slidesh...42&showID=1187

it ended up in court, and the couple got a continuance. They no-showed for the continuance, and the jewelry co. got a default judgment for $800. They all show up on Dr. Phil and agree to a $320 settlement.

Personally, I think the verdict is bullshit. The jewelry co. fucked up, and should've just eaten the cost. IMHO, this can only hurt them in the long run.

[Geek King]

Personally, I think the verdict is bullshit. The jewelry co. fucked up, and should've just eaten the cost. IMHO, this can only hurt them in the long run.

Agree with the verdict or not, they blew off the court date. That is an automatic victory for the party that does show up. You never blow off a court date unless you are in a coma or being held hostage. It is nearly impossible to get a no-show verdict like that overturned otherwise.

[Record Store Tough Guy]

Let's turn it around here. If he had gotten a ring that was worth LESS than he paid, you can bet he would have run to them and insisted he either get what he paid for or a refund of the difference, right? Who would have been in the right then?

The customer. Both situations deal with a mistake made by the seller. In either situation, the customer is right. Most consumer laws fall squarely on the side of the customer in these types of situations. It's what keeps companies from shady practices that defraud or otherwise take advantage of consumers.