As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return policy. Does the fact that the owner didn't say it was spilled upon make him dishonest? I don't think so. Was the customer service clerk happy to give him a new camera, without the need for an explanation? Yes he was. I don't see the problem here.
I don't see how this is very different from a situation where I buy a camera, use it for two weeks and then decide I don't like it, or discover a model I like better. If that happened I would bring the camera back to the store, tell them I didn't like it and get a full refund. The store would be left holding a camera that they can no longer sell as new and will take a hit as they'll likely resell it as a used/opened item at a discount. In fact that scenario is actually worse for the retailer. In the first scenario, retailer gets a full credit from vendor or mfr. In the second, they absorb the cost. In both cases they are willing to do so in the name of customer service. I'm not advocating, what you mention Bill, where people return an 11ft board, or all their old deck lumber, or pieces of a product that they used to assemble a whole. That's fairly ridiculous and I can't really fathom why any business would allow that kind of return. But if the retailer makes the rules, and I abide by those rules (notice the rules do not require an explanation of why the item is not working), then I don't see a problem. What I see happening here is that there's an idea being expressed that an individual has to own up to each and every mistake they make, otherwise they're dishonest and not trustworthy. Is that reality for any one of us? Let's say there's a police officer sitting at an intersection and you run the red light, but he's looking down and doesn't see you. Do you stop and turn around and say "Please Mr. Police Officer, I ran a red light, write me a ticket?" By all rights you should get a ticket and those funds go to supporting the community infrastructure, but since you escaped notice now there is not as much money in the till. On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM, William Robb <war...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > Subject: Re: Leica M9 > > > Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble. > > You can read it as justification if you want to. I read it as an > accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working. > > > That's like saying that any car that suffers a minor accident should always > still be drivable. Most times it will be, but sometimes it won't be. > Would it not be more honest to go through ones insurance company when one > causes an accident? > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
