Ethical question -- Okay to rely on "Free Returns"?

[bushmaster1313]

You see something you like in an online auction and the return policy is plainly stated as "Free Returns."

However, even though you think there is a realistic chance you might want to keep it if it turns out to be really nice and exactly what you want, you know there is a high probability that you will not want to keep it and that you will most likely rely on the "Free Returns" policy to send it back for a full refund.

Ethical problem or is it just taking the offer of "Free Returns" at face value.


Inquiring minds want to know

[P.S., when I put something up for sale online I do not offer free returns because I do not want the hassle. Rather I make it clear that I will refund the purchase price if the item is not as depicted or described].

 

[richardbrentm]

Your policy is the same as mine which is, no returns unless I have made a mistake in the listing....period. The only way I could possibility consider a free return policy would if I was grossly overcharging in the first place. If you are selling an FFL item the hassle of taking a weapon back would just be too much. I believe in 100% honestly in the listing, with great high res photos and a "no return" declaration!! Buyers remorse shouldn't have to be the sellers problem!
Ethics has nothing to do with a business transaction as long as you are being transparent and honest.
Sent from my P01M using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Demond]

Ethically, it's a dick move.

If you buy something and there is something wrong with it, or it was misrepresented. I have no qualms about sending it back.

To do it because of buyer's remorse, is just plain mean to the seller. Someone had to pay to ship the item to you, and someone has to pay for return shipping. It's not cheap to ship a firearms.

Dick move 100%.

 

[bushmaster1313]

If you buy something and there is something wrong with it, or it was misrepresented. I have no qualms about sending it back.

To do it because of buyer's remorse, is just plain mean to the seller. Someone had to pay to ship the item to you, and someone has to pay for return shipping. It's not cheap to ship a firearms.

Dick move 100%.

OP here. From my perspective I do not want to be involved on either end of a firearm return. Absolutely way too much hassle.

 

[Onomea]

If, quoting the OP, "you know there is a high probability that you will not want to keep it and that you will most likely rely on the 'Free Returns' policy to send it back for a full refund," yes, it is unethical to purchase the item.

 

[mmb617]

Don't get me started on people who routinely buy stuff then decide they don't want it and return it for no reason other than they've changed their minds. We all pay for that mentality in the end.

 

[M29since14]

I tend to agree with mmb617 and others. Yes, if you don't think you'll keep the item, why on Earth would you order it?

On the other hand, as an occasional seller, I'd rather put up with the hassle of getting a gun back (of course in the same condition it was when shipped) than have someone think I was screwing them and being upset with me about the transaction. If my pictures and representation were/are accurate, then they'll be paying all the transportation and FFL charges, but otherwise they WILL get their money back. I have no qualms about this policy. When I buy a gun on-line, I expect the same from others. I will not buy or bid on a gun offered by a "no returns" seller.

Not long ago I ordered a used rifle from a dealer in Michigan. It had scope bases already installed. When the rifle arrived I removed them so that I could install bases that I preferred. In doing so, I found threads in two of the four holes were stripped. I called the seller to see what he would say. He claimed he was not aware of the matter, and I did not doubt him. He'd have no reason to remove the existing bases before selling the rifle.

He said send it back. Fair enough, but I wanted to keep the rifle. I proposed that I take it to a gunsmith to have it repaired by threading the holes to 8-40 (the next larger size). Would he pay half of the cost? He agreed. I got the rifle expertly repaired locally, and I am happy to have it. The dealer made his sale, his reputation is intact (at least with me), and he didn't have to hassle with a return. That's an example of a reasonable and honorable way to do business, as far as I'm concerned. I'd buy from him again without hesitation.

A good transaction should be beneficial to both parties. Contrary to what some may think, that is not an impossibility. Ordering stuff you're pretty sure you don't want is not a good transaction. It's just plain dishonest.

 

[Absalom]

I don't see the "ethical issue" at all, unless I were to order items and send them back just to annoy the seller and cause him expenses.

A seller adopts a free-returns policy, which is not that common, for a reason. It is part of his sales tools, not a gift to humanity.

If a commercial seller has a product for sale whose features he doesn't find that marketable, and he tries to entice me to give it a try by promising I can return it at no disadvantage to me, I see no problem taking advantage of that.

I may be old-fashioned, but I tend to take people at their word. Any suggestion that this is unethical seems bizarre.

 

[Onomea]

... I may be old-fashioned, but I tend to take people at their word. Any suggestion that this is unethical seems bizarre.

Perhaps it depends on the type of seller? Rereading the OP, the seller is an "online auction." I'm guessing it is something like ebay or one of the online gun auction sites where most sellers are private individuals.

I think such sellers, ones who would offer free returns, are trying to establish with potential buyers that the seller's confidence is so high that their item is exactly as described, and that it will fully satisfy their buyers, that they will offer free returns because they expect no requests for free returns.

If my hypothesis is correct, it seems unethical to me to buy the item expecting to return it.

On the other hand, I have no qualms returning items for refunds to Amazon. Usually these returns are free to me, and sometimes a few dollars are deducted from my refund for shipping, which is fine with me.

I figure Amazon's business model accounts for returns.

Even so, I don't think I have ever ordered anything from Amazon with the expectation I would return it. (Thinking about it, my wife does, as part of Amazon Wardrobe, a program Amazon has where they encourage you to order several items of clothing and choose among them, returning the unwanted ones for free.)

An example of items I have returned to Amazon are a red dot sight that was faulty, a set of earbuds that did not fit me, some shoes that did not fit properly, a portable TV that I did not like. In most cases I wind up buying something else from Amazon as a replacement.

I was hypothesizing about the OP, and what sort of hypothetical buyer it night be who would be tempted to buy something he thought he was most likely to return, but thought there was a chance that he might keep...

Perhaps a highly discriminating collector of some sort? Still, if the seller is simply an individual trying to establish his honesty with buyers, I think it unethical to buy expecting to return the item, taking advantage of free returns.

 

[Ματθιας]

As stated, it has nothing to do with ethics. The seller is offering "free returns" for a reason - it is part of their business model. Why not use the service they are offering?

I worked in autoparts for the longest time. People and businesses buy parts they know they are going to return all the time.

Say they have a car coming in or it is a mobile install and there are two or three windshields, clip kits, and moldings that can go to that vehicle. To save time, all of the variations were/are ordered and the unused parts are returned. Sometimes, EVERYTHING gets returned. Was that unethical?

Same thing with parts like brake pads/shoes. If two different types of pads are called for depending on when the car was manufactured (fords come to mind), again, both sets are ordered, one will be returned. Was that unethical?

It's NOT unethical, it's just doing business. As the guy who dealt with returns, I can say it was a pain - but processing returns was part of the job.

 

[Absalom]

Perhaps it depends on the type of seller? Rereading the OP, the seller is an "online auction." I'm guessing it is something like ebay or one of the online gun auction sites where most sellers are private individuals.

I think such sellers, ones who would offer free returns, are trying to establish with potential buyers that the seller's confidence is so high that their item is exactly as described, and that it will fully satisfy their buyers, that they will offer free returns because they expect no requests for free returns.
....

I understand your point. I just think that this situation where it is applicable is very rare, because "free returns" as a policy necessitates a procedure in place where the seller mails you pre-paid shipping labels or facilitates a cost-free return elsewise.

In other words, he has to be set up for it as part of his business practices. That pretty much eliminates the individual private seller.

Amazon has perfected this. You don't even have to re-pack stuff. Just get the return scan label online, dump the stuff on the counter of your nearest UPS store, and walk out with a receipt. They'll box it and ship it. For Amazon, that seems to be most cost effective.

 

[rwsmith]

I wouldn't rely on it...

The condition should be clearly stated and thoroughly. If you have questions ask the seller. I'd return only if I didn't get what I paid for. It's good to have such a policy if you need it but I don't count on using it.

 

[snubbyfan]

Yesterday we finally received a shirt from Amazon that my wife had been ordered for me for my Birthday.
It looks faded because we washed it once and it faded.
I can live with that but the fit was odd so we laid it out on a table and found out why. It's lopsided with the right side longer than the left side.


Amazon said "free returns" so we wanted to return it. They refunded our money and didn't want it back.
Know anybody that's 5'8" tall and 155 pounds that's lopsided? I got a shirt for them.

 

[Onomea]

Snubby, just start working your right side more and your left side less. The shirt will even up soon. (Yeah, you'll be lopsided, but life's all about compromises, right?)

 

[snubbyfan]

Snubby, just start working your right side more and your left side less. The shirt will even up soon. (Yeah, you'll be lopsided, but life's all about compromises, right?)

Looks more like it was made for this guy.

 

[BigBoy99]

No returns means nothing. I sold a new item on eBay with a no return listing on the item. A month later I get a package in the mail and it was the item I sold. The item was broken and the buyer claimed it was damaged in shipment. The box I used to ship it was used to send it back and there was no damage to the box sufficient to break the item. He had broke it and sent it back and claimed to eBay that I sent a "defective" item. Of course eBay sent him his money back so now I have a broken item and no money for it.

 

[Ziggy2525]

You see something you like in an online auction and the return policy is plainly stated as "Free Returns."

However, even though you think there is a realistic chance you might want to keep it if it turns out to be really nice and exactly what you want, you know there is a high probability that you will not want to keep it and that you will most likely rely on the "Free Returns" policy to send it back for a full refund.

Ethical problem or is it just taking the offer of "Free Returns" at face value.


Inquiring minds want to know

[P.S., when I put something up for sale online I do not offer free returns because I do not want the hassle. Rather I make it clear that I will refund the purchase price if the item is not as depicted or described].

Ethics and Morals are different things, right? If a seller offers a no questions asked return policy, then returning it wouldn't be an ethical issue, but it might be a moral issue for you.

What would you think if the roles were reversed and they did the same to you? Things can be ethical, but not moral.

 

[Onomea]

...Things can be ethical, but not moral.

This is a distinction of which I was unaware, Ziggy. Thanks for the education!

What's The Difference Between "Morals" vs. "Ethics"? | Dictionary.com

 

[bushmaster1313]

What would you think if the roles were reversed and they did the same to you?

If it was me and I offered free returns I might be bummed at losing a sale — but it was my choice to give the buyer the option.

 

[Ziggy2525]

If it was me and I offered free returns I might be bummed at losing a sale — but it was my choice to give the buyer the option.

So, going back to the question in your OP about the ethics of the return. IMO, doing the return is ethical and moral.

It not an ethical issue because you're not breaking the law and you are following the rules the auction seller set. And it's not a moral issue since you're not lying about why you're returning it and it passes the "do unto others as they would do unto you" golden rule test.