A friend of mine (call him Bill) recently won a number of CDs from a radio contest.They were sent to his house; upon receiving them, he realized that hereally didn't like any of the bands or performers.
The next day, he took the CDs (still in their shrink wrapping) to a store and "returned" them. (He said he had lost the receipt.) The storeclerk scanned the barcodes and then gave Bill $90 in store credit, which he then used to get a bunch of new CDs.
When he told me this, I was appalled and told him that what he did was unethical. John said that it wasn't unethical because the store "tookback" merchandise which it would then sell. I said that his "returning" the CDs to the store would throw off the accounting; he said it wouldn't.Finally, I said that even if there were no financial harm done to the store,what he did was still pretty low.
What do you think?
13 comments:
I completely agree with bill, the one who returned the cd's. I have seen too many situations where the stores created very bad situations for the consumers. I have always been one to fight back against the corporate scum of America always trying to scrape up ever last penny they can get out of consumers by either cheating them or just plain "losing the paperwork." Overall, one batch of cd's is really not going to mess up a whole corporations stock or money. He returned the cd's without the receipt and got store credit. Firstly he really didn't even get to stick it to the man because he didn't get cash for the cd's. The store gave him credit thus limiting where he could spend his credit. Either way the store will be getting the exact amount of money back and will break out even. Overall I believe that there will not be any repercussions for the company that he falsely returned the cds to. Theses corporations overprice everything for the consumers always trying to make more and more money off of the people. When I heard how your friend said that he returned the cd's and got the ones he wanted i said to my self, another point for the people.
The fact that your friend won the CDs means that they are now his property, to do whatever he wants with. Technically he could throw them out the window of his moving car or play them on his CD player, but morally he should not sell them back to the supplier. Your friend won the CDs and they are his now, but he shouldn’t make a profit off of something given to him in charity. When someone gives you a hideous sweater, for example, for your birthday and they include a receipt with your gift, they are allowing you to return the gift in exchange for something better or for store credit. They spent money on you and realize that their choice may not always be yours, so they leave the decision up to you. Sure, money would be nicer, but they spent extra time picking out a gift for you. This friend, however, won these gifts on a radio show. He may not like what they gave him, but the radio show may have gotten the CDs as freebies from the artists, and in all likelihood they did not purchase them from the local CD store where your friend returned them. The store to which your friend “returned” the CDs and got store credit for them, just stole money. He got the CDs free of charge, lied about how he got them, and then made the store give in credit in return for CDs which he did not pay money for. That store now lost money, not because a product did not sell as well as they had hoped, but because some guy thought that he was above the rules and returned CDs which he did not buy from the store. Now the store has to sell the CDs, even though it is not their merchandise. Sure, the store clerk should have been firmer about the “no receipt—no credit” policy, but the fact of the matter is that your friend stole money from that store because the CDs were not his to sell.
I agree with Bill, what he did was not unethical. First of all, it is not his fault for not knowing the CD's he was going to recieve. It is the fault of them for not informing Bill of what he would win in entering the contest. Also, if it was the wrong thing to do, the store would have obviously not taken the CD's back. If it were going to throw off the account then it coulnd't have been done anyway. And since he returned them he got 90 dollars to spend on CD's that he really enjoyed. When you win a prize you should want it to be something you like, right? So, for Bill it only seems ethical to get himself a prize that he could really use and enjoy. Lastly, how could it be low if it didn't harm anybody, or harm the financial accepect of the problem? OVerall, what Bill did doesn't seem completely unethical.
Since he participated in the contest and got the cds for free returning them and lying about it was wrong. If he couldn’t go into the store and say I won these in a contest but i don’t like them can I get an exchange then his actions were not right. What he did was quite low in fact, if he didn't want them and since he didn’t have to pay for it. He could have at least given it them to someone who would actually appreciate them instead of being kind of deceitful in his attempts. There were other ways he could have went about the situation, even though he probably might not have known that he would get store credit. It didn’t mean he should’ve taken the credit and bought new cds, that’s like having someone take your Christmas present and then return it so they can get money. Its just not right, but like we discussed in class just about everyone would press the “red button”.
Hmmm... this is pretty hard but i do not think that what Bill did was morally "wrong". He won lets say ten CDs but he did not like any of them so he brought them back. He then used the $90.00 to buy TEN CDs. So basically the store still has the same amount of CDs it had and therefore did not lose anymony because someone had to have payed for the original ten CDs. Also, Bill WON the CDs and once they are in his possession they are rightfully his. He may do whatever he wants to do with them, he could have sold them, traded them or whatever else he chooses to do with them. If for instance he stole the ten CDs and kept the ones he won then that would be morally wrong because as we all know, stealing is against the law. So I believe that Bill did nothing wrong because the CDs were in his possession and he can do whatever he chooses to do with them.
I think that you were totally right because #1 there WOULD be financial harm because a)- there is a lower chance that someone will buy the old CD's that he left in the store b)- the store will most likely get stuck with the old CD's instead of the new ones that he took. #2 even if there wasn't financial harm to the store, there is a financial GAIN to Bill because he basically just made ninety dollars that he doesn't even deserve. #3 it is just wrong to return a gift even if it's from somebody that we don't know because the person that sent it out or bought it took from his own money and time to give it to YOU. #4 Overall, he simply just lied by saying that he lost the receipt and that shows that inside of him, he had a will to do something that he knew was just wrong so he had to make up a lie like that just to cover for himself...
Of course what Bill did was low and shady, but it was his CD’s to do so. Since he won those CD’s as his own, he is allowed to do what he wants with it. If he broke it then that would be his choice to break them. If he wants to sell them then I think he has a right to sell them or return them. My friend received a gift, a coach purse that she did not like. The next day she sold it on EBAY in exchange for money. I thought her idea was smart, because she did not like the purse and she got money for it. It was also her purse to sell and her choice to sell it.
The situation is actually a strange one. At first I thought that it was completely unethical to return cd's to a store that did not sell them too him. But then I began to think about it a little harder and decided that maybe it wasn't so unethical in the first place. Even though he may have cheated the store out of 90 dollars originally, but what if they sell those cd's? Then the money would be repaid. Of course, there is no guarnetee that the cd's will sell which may be the cause of the ethical dilema. Also, isn't the sales clerk who accepted the fake return transaction just as guilty as your friend for accepting the cd's without a recipt? Moreover, he is in just as much fault because without accepting the returns, your friend probably would not have pushed the situation and accepted his prize. In conclusion, if it is unethical to return the won cd's to the store then it is unethical to accept them without following the proper return proceedures.
Bills actions were unethical. It is as simple as that. He returned the CDs to a store where they don’t belong. There were other things he could’ve done. For one thing, he could’ve talked to the radio station. I’m sure some the radio station would be quite accommodating to the situation. They would’ve most probably given him a gift card or another group of CDs. As per his excuse that the store “took back” the CDs, technically they did not. Taking back would be to regain possession of what was yours to begin with. The CD store never even owned the CDs returned to them! Plus, it is like robbing the store of money. Bill never bought the CDs and he got new ones worth $90. This was a temporary loss for the store, even though they may regain it by the sale of the traded in CDs. The worst part of all is that Bill lied. He already had CDs and instead of being grateful, he complained.
I do not think that what Bill’s actions were unethical. It is not his fault that he did not like any of the CDs that he has won and he should enjoy the music that he has. By returning the CDs he gave the store more CDs to sell and gave himself music that he enjoys listening to. The store did not even lose any money because they gave him a store credit, not cash. The store credit allows Bill to purchase the CDs that he wants so he is just making an exchange. The store is likely to sell the music that he returned because people go in everyday looking for different types of music. If this was wrong or there was a problem with this action, then the store would have either said something or would not have exchanged the CDs for him. By pursing the exchange, the store probably had in mind that they would be able to sell them again. Because of these points, I believe that Bill did not do anything morally wrong. It is not as if he stole the CDs and then tried to return them to the store. By winning the disks, they became his in a way that is totally legal.
I dont think that it was that bad of a thing to do because the man is not stealing yet he is returning things to a place were they dont belong. So what he is doing is obviously wrong yet i might do the same thing. I would do this because even though the store did not sell the cds to me i gave the store brand new cds in exchange for currency. The store could easily sell those new cds that some people obviously listen to. No one is really hurt here because the store has no clue that it was tricke; and the man got to listen to music he enjoyed(what one does not know does not hurt them). Win win situation.
What Bill did is in all technicalities illegal- he did not purchase the CD's from the store, so how can he return them at the same store? However, he hasn't created a problem at all, in the grander scheme of things, the store will notice absolutely no profit loss. He has received ten free CD's, and its true that he has every right to do what he wants with them...but that doesn't justify his action. Since the gift was not from the music store itself, he has no right to swindle them into exchanging CD's. Perhaps if he told the cashier what happened, and his desire to exchange them, the store would have allowed the transaction. But he did lie to get CD's he liked, and therefore his action can be deemed unethical.
Excellent job philosophers! This post is now closed!
Post a Comment