nexus at Bestbuy Future Returns Will Be Declined for 90 d

[Jessicalt1]

And then what? You would be sued for fraud by Best buy, because it wasn't a stolen card, and you were the one that purchased it. Your credit card company would also refuse to intervene.

EVERY single retailer has a policy like this. Its why your receipts always say 'we can deny your return or exchange for any reason' or some such thing as that. In some cases, managers can manually authorize it, but in most they have no pull whatsoever. At the store I'm a manager, if a return gets denied, we have no recourse or way to override it. Unfortunately, these policies are actually necessary. Companies save tens of millions of dollars every year that would have been lost due to fraudulent or too frequent returns. My region of my company alone saves over $10 million per QUARTER through returns management.

There is a difference between fraud and a dispute. I have worked in both areas of a major bank. They have a dispute department specifically for this reason. They can put their return policy where every they want and as a consumer, it's your responsibility to read that, but as far as chargebacks go... if it's not printed within 1/4 inch of your signature, it's not properly disclosed and gives the issuing bank (consumer's credit card company) chargeback rights. There is a reason code specifically for returned merchandise that doesn't address anything other than they wanted to return and the merchant refused to do so, accepted the return, or did not refund their money in a timely fashion. THIS IS NOT FRAUD. It's supported by Visa, Mastercard, and federal regulations E and Z.

 

[odranoel]

No one is retroactively changing the contract. It says it right on the receipt and in the return policy that they can deny your return for any reason. If the consumer does not read that policy carefully enough, its their fault, not best buys.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

If I sign the signature tablet and am only then presented with a receipt, then I have been presented with terms after the sale. But even if you were correct, there is a deceptive practice when you put a big sign from the ceiling saying "returns for X# of days!" and then completely rescind that offer in the fine print at the bottom of a receipt somewhere.

 

[Droid800]

If I sign the signature tablet and am only then presented with a receipt, then I have been presented with terms after the sale. But even if you were correct, there is a deceptive practice when you put a big sign from the ceiling saying "returns for X# of days!" and then completely rescind that offer in the fine print at the bottom of a receipt somewhere.

No and no. The return policies are clearly spelled out. As are the exceptions. You have no recourse whatsoever.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[JoJoCal19]

All of those you cited are for damaged merchandise. If you tried to start a dispute because they wouldn't take something back and it wasn't legitimately damaged or defective, not only would the company sue you for fraud if your credit card company did it, the credit card company itself would refuse to get involved.

Starting a dispute because you want to violate their return policy will get you in a lot of trouble really quickly.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

WRONG. How do I know? Earlier this year my wife and I did a chargeback for $1500 for a service because I wasnt happy with the companies performance and how I was treated. They had no kind of satisfaction guarantee or refind policy. And this was through one of the largest cc companies in the US. The fact is you can initiate a chargeback for many reasons, one being if service or a product doesnt live up to expectations or promises. Many companies even promote these extra consumer protections. From what I heard AMEX is one of the best. The cc companies and banks do go out of thier way to protect consumers in reasonable circumstances.

The fact is the guy has an unopened Droid Charge that he wants to return within the stated return period but otherwise cannot because he iz blacklisted by an unwritten internal policy. He has every right to initiate a chargeback and I would put money on it that his cc company or bank will side with him. There is no charges of fraud for him wanting to rightfully return an item according to published policy.

 

[odranoel]

No and no. The return policies are clearly spelled out. As are the exceptions. You have no recourse whatsoever.

Show me. I haven't made a purchase at Best Buy for over a year, so show me a receipt that "clearly spell out" the policy. I think you're making things up.

And yes, one does have recourse, as has been explained ad nauseam: the credit card company. The recourse may or may not be successful.

You may not realize, by the way, that not all contracts are valid, and not every bit of fine print may be actually enforceable in a court of law.

But I really hope that you or someone close to you receives the same level of service you are advocating here.

 

[Droid800]

Show me. I haven't made a purchase at Best Buy for over a year, so show me a receipt that "clearly spell out" the policy. I think you're making things up.

And yes, one does have recourse, as has been explained ad nauseam: the credit card company. The recourse may or may not be successful.

You may not realize, by the way, that not all contracts are valid, and not every bit of fine print may be actually enforceable in a court of law.

But I really hope that you or someone close to you receives the same level of service you are advocating here.

Return & Exchange Policy - BestBuy


Oh, and it also spells out, clear as day, that all returns are tracked and can be denied over it.

When you return or exchange an item in store, we require a valid photo ID. Some of the information from your ID may be stored in a secure database used to track returns and exchanges. Based on return/exchange patterns, some customers will be warned that subsequent purchases will not be eligible for returns or exchanges for 90 days. Customers who are warned or have been denied an exchange/return may request a copy of their Return Activity Report by calling 1-800-652-2331 or by mail at P.O. Box 51373, Irvine, CA 92619-1373. Please be prepared to provide your transaction ID, ID number, full name, address and phone number.

Valid forms of ID accepted are: US, Canadian or Mexican Driver's License, US State ID, Canadian Province ID, Matricula Consular, US Military ID, Passport, US Laser Visa, or US Permanent Resident Card.

As for your other part; good luck trying to convince a court of your case if you haven't even bothered to read the return policy.

 

[odranoel]

Return & Exchange Policy - BestBuy


Oh, and it also spells out, clear as day, that all returns are tracked and can be denied over it.



As for your other part; good luck trying to convince a court of your case if you haven't even bothered to read the return policy.

Two problems. First: your link is to a Best Buy web page, not to an actual receipt, which is what you have been holding to be the contract between the customer and the store.

Second problem: Your quote states that "Based on return/exchange patterns, some customers will be warned that subsequent purchases will not be eligible for returns or exchanges for 90 days."
That is, you make a return, and you are then warned that any purchases you make after (subsequently) would not be eligible for return. Which is what I've been saying all along. The line you quote does not, however, say "prior purchases will not be eligible for returns or exchanges." I suppose we could play lawyer and ask to what the word "subsequent" refers. The plain language seems to suggest that it refers to the return or the actual analysis of the return/exchange pattern; so a customer may be warned that the next purchase he or she makes will not be eligible for return. I suppose one could make a plausible case that "subsequent" refers to the purchase of the item itself. So if I buy items A, B, C, D, and E, but return B, C, and D, I would not be allowed to return item E, but could return item A. I think that is a tortured reading, and the language is in any case ambiguous. And ambiguities in a contract favor the non-drafting party (the customer).

 

[wpbfjr]

buy the second of three returns, the consumer has had the fine print of the best buy receipts in their hands, and has effectively been put "on notice" of bb's return policies.

wpbfjr on the road

 

[Droid800]

Two problems. First: your link is to a Best Buy web page, not to an actual receipt, which is what you have been holding to be the contract between the customer and the store.

Second problem: Your quote states that "Based on return/exchange patterns, some customers will be warned that subsequent purchases will not be eligible for returns or exchanges for 90 days."
That is, you make a return, and you are then warned that any purchases you make after (subsequently) would not be eligible for return. Which is what I've been saying all along. The line you quote does not, however, say "prior purchases will not be eligible for returns or exchanges." I suppose we could play lawyer and ask to what the word "subsequent" refers. The plain language seems to suggest that it refers to the return or the actual analysis of the return/exchange pattern; so a customer may be warned that the next purchase he or she makes will not be eligible for return. I suppose one could make a plausible case that "subsequent" refers to the purchase of the item itself. So if I buy items A, B, C, D, and E, but return B, C, and D, I would not be allowed to return item E, but could return item A. I think that is a tortured reading, and the language is in any case ambiguous. And ambiguities in a contract favor the non-drafting party (the customer).

Eh you're still wrong. There's nothing ambiguous about saying that you may be denied a return if you return. Things too often. All of those policies are posted in giant signs in the store. And that's still ignoring the part where all receipts say that returns can be denied for any reason.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Jessicalt1]

Eh you're still wrong. There's nothing ambiguous about saying that you may be denied a return if you return. Things too often. All of those policies are posted in giant signs in the store. And that's still ignoring the part where all receipts say that returns can be denied for any reason.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Again, if it's not printed within a 1/4 inch of your signature (and this is a Visa reg) then it's not properly disclosed. Therefore, the consumer cannot be held accountable for a return policy that is printed on the back of a receipt, hung above the door, or printed online. Who actually goes online to read a return policy prior to making a purchase? And why would you? You'd expect to be notified at signing, which you are not. When you sign a receipt, you're signing on the electronic card reader... which doesn't spell out ANY terms and conditions prior to signing. It just says "Sign here" and you do. Then you're presented with terms and conditions on the back of a receipt, which doesn't follow any regulations. The merchant runs the risk of a chargeback, and it's a cost of doing business. You can dispute items for a number of reasons: cancelled services, not as described, returned merchandise, and your favorite word: fraud. Visa and the Fed accounts for all of these actions and offer more protection for a consumer than they do for a bank or a merchant. So the person who was denied a return has every right to pursue a chargeback and the Fed, Visa, and the bank would support that.

 

[odranoel]

Eh you're still wrong. There's nothing ambiguous about saying that you may be denied a return if you return. Things too often. All of those policies are posted in giant signs in the store. And that's still ignoring the part where all receipts say that returns can be denied for any reason.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

You're not arguing in good faith. I asked you to "show me," so you posted the online policy. I pointed out that the online policy was not what you were arguing, but treated it as though it were representative. Now you want to say that it isn't.

1) The online policy says "subsequent purchases." You did not address that aspect. The online policy specifically says that they can tell you, based on return patterns, that products you buy going forward will not be eligible for return. Not products you already purchased.

2) We have been discussing the scenario that a previous poster bought items A, B, C, and D, returned items A-C, and was then denied return on D. Once again, what you posted states that subsequent purchases may become ineligible for returns. But D is not a purchase subsequent to the ban, and cannot have its terms retroactively changed - again, this follows from the text you posted.

3) If a customer purchased A, B, and C, returned those items, then bought D without being "warned" that they would not be able to return it, per the language you posted, then again Best Buy would've failed to live up to the terms as outlined.

4) I have some receipts sitting right here, from various stores, none of which say "returns can be denied for any reason." So produce some receipts for me with this language, since you say they "all" have it, but none in my possession do.

 

[Droid800]

You're not arguing in good faith. I asked you to "show me," so you posted the online policy. I pointed out that the online policy was not what you were arguing, but treated it as though it were representative. Now you want to say that it isn't.

1) The online policy says "subsequent purchases." You did not address that aspect. The online policy specifically says that they can tell you, based on return patterns, that products you buy going forward will not be eligible for return. Not products you already purchased.

2) We have been discussing the scenario that a previous poster bought items A, B, C, and D, returned items A-C, and was then denied return on D. Once again, what you posted states that subsequent purchases may become ineligible for returns. But D is not a purchase subsequent to the ban, and cannot have its terms retroactively changed - again, this follows from the text you posted.

3) If a customer purchased A, B, and C, returned those items, then bought D without being "warned" that they would not be able to return it, per the language you posted, then again Best Buy would've failed to live up to the terms as outlined.

4) I have some receipts sitting right here, from various stores, none of which say "returns can be denied for any reason." So produce some receipts for me with this language, since you say they "all" have it, but none in my possession do.

Best buys receipts say it. I've never said all have it; I said most do. (And most every major retailer does)

And again, still doesn't change you being wrong. Best buys receipts all say, just like the return policy I posted for you that you apparently believe doesn't exist, that returns can be denied for any reason. And if you'll read their policy again, it says specifically that if you return too often they can deny your return. You are purposely ignoring that part because you know it proves you wrong.

Your point three is nonsense. It says it on the receipt AND its posted in giant signs at all best buy customer services. If a customer doesn't pay attention, its their fault.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Jessicalt1]

Best buys receipts say it. I've never said all have it; I said most do. (And most every major retailer does)

And again, still doesn't change you being wrong. Best buys receipts all say, just like the return policy I posted for you that you apparently believe doesn't exist, that returns can be denied for any reason. And if you'll read their policy again, it says specifically that if you return too often they can deny your return. You are purposely ignoring that part because you know it proves you wrong.

Your point three is nonsense. It says it on the receipt AND its posted in giant signs at all best buy customer services. If a customer doesn't pay attention, its their fault.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Regardless of the signs posted or the online policy, if it's not in writing where the customer has signed agreeing to such, then it's not valid. Period.