6 ms·

Simple: in Australian we require proof of purchase. Typically the receipt from the store you bought it from, and the item must be returned to that store. Austr

Simple: in Australian we require proof of purchase. Typically the receipt from the store you bought it from, and the item must be returned to that store. Australia’s largest home / hardware store also checks the items your taking against your receipt and stamps your receipt upon exiting the store, thereby reducing the incidence of thieves walking in empty handed and taking the item again while claiming they’ve already paid for it. Why doesn’t Home Depot do something similar?

michaelmrose 9y ago
Home depot can look up the purchase same store if you can provide the card you paid for it with at the same store, the physical receipt, an electronic copy of the receipt that is automatically offered with each transaction which must be declined by the customer each and every time, your pro extra number (electronic purchase tracking), the order number if ordered online or special ordered. It is even possible to return without a receipt provided you don't make a habit of it sufficient to get flagged. Categorically the only people on earth having trouble with this lose receipts, say no to electronic copies of the receipt, and come back in all the time without receipts. Home depot has about the friendliest return policies of any major retailer I've ever shopped with.
bruce_one 9y ago
That doesn't provide 100% of the picture though. Assuming the "largest home / hardware store" means Bunnings, this w/e I returned items to a different store but with a receipt - so that was simple, but different to what you've stated. Not long ago I return $175 worth of goods without receipts (after return $300 with receipts, because apparently I lost some...) to a different store to the one I bought from. They checked my ID and I assume I'm now on their loss prevention records; but from what I know that's not likely to be an issue until there's an obvious pattern of abuse. Bunnings definitely have people returning items that they've stolen from one store and returned to another without a receipt, but they have a loss prevention team to try and reduce that. It's the trade off of reduced friction (and increased purchases) vs theft - eg I wouldn't have bought everything I did if I was concerned that the returns process wouldn't be seamless.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I've had only excellent experiences with Bunnings staff on both returns and warranty claims.
idonotknowwhy 9y ago
Thanks mate, I never actually knew why the security guard at JB HiFi always needs to stamp my receipt.
ajdlinux 9y ago
I returned a ~$150 item to Myer a few months ago, with nothing but a transaction ID provided to me over the phone by American Express (the account had been closed and I had no access to the credit card statements). It turns out that the credit card network's transaction ID is completely useless to store staff and doesn't correspond to anything they can search up. They went ahead and decided that the fact I could give them an ID number at all is sufficient proof of purchase and happily exchanged it. (Of course, in this case I was returning a defective item and they're legally obliged to replace it - perhaps they're stricter on change-of-mind.)
toomanybeersies 9y ago
Yep, as someone living in Australia, this whole article and thread baffles me. Why would a store ever accept returns without a receipt? The whole process is even more convenient now that email receipts are becoming common.
DrScump 9y ago
Why doesn’t Home Depot do something similar? Generally speaking, it's illegal to detain someone from leaving without probable cause of a crime. (In contrast, Costco is empowered to do so via their membership agreement.)
- DannyBee 9y ago
  IAAL :) "Generally speaking, it's illegal to detain someone from leaving without probable cause of a crime. (In contrast, Costco is empowered to do so via their membership agreement.)" This is commonly thought but not quite right, either on facts, or on law. First, people cite a membership agreement. Let's take a look: https://www.costco.com/wcsstore/CostcoUSBCCatalogAssetStore/feature-pages/info/member-benefits-costco-services-7_13.pdf https://www.costco.com/wcsstore/CostcoUSBCCatalogAssetStore/... https://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html https://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html Nothing there. Maybe it's elsewhere. Can't easily be found (not good for Costco!) It does say they can adopt rules at any time. But false imprisonment requires voluntary consent, which is knowing. So that would not help them. Besides that, false imprisonment, in most states, is both a felony and a tort :) The answer to the question "are you likely to be able to sue costco successfully for trying to check your receipt when you don't want them to" - no, unless you revoke consent and they don't revoke your membership and kick you off the property :) The answer to the question "can they legally detain you" - also no if you revoke consent (and the first person to say something about the 4th amendment here loses, since we are talking about private actors). Voluntary consent is definitely a valid defense to false imprisonment. However the idea that consent in the membership agreement overrides anything that later happens is, at best, laughable. Imagine the membership agreement says "you unconditionally consent to costco locking you up in the backroom until they get bored". Do you think I don't have a false imprisonment claim, if, when they try to do so, i say "I do not consent to this", and they do it anyway? How is that voluntary consent? Even if i did consent, i clearly and unequivocally revoked it. Maybe i breached a contract. Irrelevant, however. Remember, it's both a tort and a crime. Even if they have an argument about the tort (they don't really), they don't about the crime. There is plenty of precedent on revocation of consent all the way up the Supreme Court (United States v. Drayton, etc). Saying "no" to a receipt checker and walking away almost certainly counts as proper consent revocation. Now Costco certainly has the right to revoke my membership and remove me from their property. But they can't certainly can't detain me though once i've revoked consent. It even may have a reasonable argument that the first time it tries to detain me, it was within the consent (depends on what happens in the above story). The second i revoke my consent by saying no, sorry, it's clearly false imprisonment (in states that don't have a shopkeepers privilege).
orionblastar 9y ago
Wal-Mart gives gift cards instead of money if you don't have a receipt for a return. Toys R Us used to give Jeffery Dollars for returned toys. The system at some stores make it hard to return stuff, while others make it easier. If the customer is happy they will return later to buy more stuff if not happy the go somewhere else like a competitor.

michaelmrose 9y ago

Home depot can look up the purchase same store if you can provide the card you paid for it with at the same store, the physical receipt, an electronic copy of the receipt that is automatically offered with each transaction which must be declined by the customer each and every time, your pro extra number (electronic purchase tracking), the order number if ordered online or special ordered. It is even possible to return without a receipt provided you don't make a habit of it sufficient to get flagged. Categorically the only people on earth having trouble with this lose receipts, say no to electronic copies of the receipt, and come back in all the time without receipts. Home depot has about the friendliest return policies of any major retailer I've ever shopped with.

bruce_one 9y ago

That doesn't provide 100% of the picture though. Assuming the "largest home / hardware store" means Bunnings, this w/e I returned items to a different store but with a receipt - so that was simple, but different to what you've stated. Not long ago I return $175 worth of goods without receipts (after return $300 with receipts, because apparently I lost some...) to a different store to the one I bought from. They checked my ID and I assume I'm now on their loss prevention records; but from what I know that's not likely to be an issue until there's an obvious pattern of abuse. Bunnings definitely have people returning items that they've stolen from one store and returned to another without a receipt, but they have a loss prevention team to try and reduce that. It's the trade off of reduced friction (and increased purchases) vs theft - eg I wouldn't have bought everything I did if I was concerned that the returns process wouldn't be seamless.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I've had only excellent experiences with Bunnings staff on both returns and warranty claims.

idonotknowwhy 9y ago

Thanks mate, I never actually knew why the security guard at JB HiFi always needs to stamp my receipt.

ajdlinux 9y ago

I returned a ~$150 item to Myer a few months ago, with nothing but a transaction ID provided to me over the phone by American Express (the account had been closed and I had no access to the credit card statements). It turns out that the credit card network's transaction ID is completely useless to store staff and doesn't correspond to anything they can search up. They went ahead and decided that the fact I could give them an ID number at all is sufficient proof of purchase and happily exchanged it. (Of course, in this case I was returning a defective item and they're legally obliged to replace it - perhaps they're stricter on change-of-mind.)

toomanybeersies 9y ago

Yep, as someone living in Australia, this whole article and thread baffles me. Why would a store ever accept returns without a receipt? The whole process is even more convenient now that email receipts are becoming common.

DrScump 9y ago

Why doesn’t Home Depot do something similar? Generally speaking, it's illegal to detain someone from leaving without probable cause of a crime. (In contrast, Costco is empowered to do so via their membership agreement.)

DannyBee 9y ago
IAAL :) "Generally speaking, it's illegal to detain someone from leaving without probable cause of a crime. (In contrast, Costco is empowered to do so via their membership agreement.)" This is commonly thought but not quite right, either on facts, or on law. First, people cite a membership agreement. Let's take a look: https://www.costco.com/wcsstore/CostcoUSBCCatalogAssetStore/feature-pages/info/member-benefits-costco-services-7_13.pdf https://www.costco.com/wcsstore/CostcoUSBCCatalogAssetStore/... https://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html https://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html Nothing there. Maybe it's elsewhere. Can't easily be found (not good for Costco!) It does say they can adopt rules at any time. But false imprisonment requires voluntary consent, which is knowing. So that would not help them. Besides that, false imprisonment, in most states, is both a felony and a tort :) The answer to the question "are you likely to be able to sue costco successfully for trying to check your receipt when you don't want them to" - no, unless you revoke consent and they don't revoke your membership and kick you off the property :) The answer to the question "can they legally detain you" - also no if you revoke consent (and the first person to say something about the 4th amendment here loses, since we are talking about private actors). Voluntary consent is definitely a valid defense to false imprisonment. However the idea that consent in the membership agreement overrides anything that later happens is, at best, laughable. Imagine the membership agreement says "you unconditionally consent to costco locking you up in the backroom until they get bored". Do you think I don't have a false imprisonment claim, if, when they try to do so, i say "I do not consent to this", and they do it anyway? How is that voluntary consent? Even if i did consent, i clearly and unequivocally revoked it. Maybe i breached a contract. Irrelevant, however. Remember, it's both a tort and a crime. Even if they have an argument about the tort (they don't really), they don't about the crime. There is plenty of precedent on revocation of consent all the way up the Supreme Court (United States v. Drayton, etc). Saying "no" to a receipt checker and walking away almost certainly counts as proper consent revocation. Now Costco certainly has the right to revoke my membership and remove me from their property. But they can't certainly can't detain me though once i've revoked consent. It even may have a reasonable argument that the first time it tries to detain me, it was within the consent (depends on what happens in the above story). The second i revoke my consent by saying no, sorry, it's clearly false imprisonment (in states that don't have a shopkeepers privilege).

orionblastar 9y ago

Wal-Mart gives gift cards instead of money if you don't have a receipt for a return. Toys R Us used to give Jeffery Dollars for returned toys. The system at some stores make it hard to return stuff, while others make it easier. If the customer is happy they will return later to buy more stuff if not happy the go somewhere else like a competitor.