5 ms·

I remember reading in Reader's Digest in the 1990s that if you're in a store and you break something which the merchant asks you to pay for, you should offer to

I remember reading in Reader's Digest in the 1990s that if you're in a store and you break something which the merchant asks you to pay for, you should offer to pay their cost to replace the item, which is of course often much lower than the sticker price. Later in life I wondered whether this was really fair, as things cost money to order, process, and store. (Though this is normally baked into retail pricing in the markup and also there is normally an accounting allotment for shrinkage.) Later still I realized that this was perfectly fair! It's an opening point in a negotiation.

mtnGoat 2y ago
No it’s not fair at all, if you break something you don’t actually have to buy it. It’s the merchants liability for allowing things to be within reach of customers. Just walk out and don’t negotiate at all.
- rlpb 2y ago
  I imagine this being the case every time I am forced to walk through the retail area in an airport to get to my gate. They should expect some travellers to be in a hurry and they deliberately put things in their way. I understand their reasons but it should definitely be at their sole risk for any accidental damage.
- EGreg 2y ago
  Can a customer deliberately destroy something? The proverbial bull in a china shop?
  - mtnGoat 2y ago
    If it was done with malice, you could be prosecuted, malicious mischief is a crime. Damage by accident no, not in any of the 50 states.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      The crime isn’t the damage but the „leaving without paying for the damage“. If you damage something accidentally and replace the cost of the damage, it’s not a crime. If you just leave and refuse to pay, it is a crime.
      - EGreg 2y ago
        I thought the great-grandparent said it wasn’t? If it was accidental.
- outside2344 2y ago
  Exactly, they should have insurance to cover this
- echoangle 2y ago
  Is that just your own personal moral judgement or a legal assessment? Because I don't think this will actually work in practice when the police are called for property damage.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Police aren't showing up for this. The law generally puts responsibility on the party that should know better, which is the professional.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      Are we talking about the US now? Because I’m pretty sure that where I live (Germany), if the stuff you break is valuable enough, police will definitely arrest you if you try to leave without paying after breaking something. Is that not the case in the US?
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Depends on where you are. Many cities have under resourced police departments that have reputations for ignoring and refusing to investigate non violent crime.
  - mtnGoat 2y ago
    That’s a fact, not a personal opinion. Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property No need to downvote just because y’all don’t know the law, lol!
    - echoangle 2y ago
      > Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property Well that’s just wrong, the damage itself is not a crime but the leaving without paying part is. If I accidentally fall onto your parked car and leave a dent, do you think I can just leave because it wasn’t intentional?
- rileymat2 2y ago
  As a non-lawyer, when I had researched it, it is considerably more complicated than that, the answer seemed to be in which party was neglectful or negligent.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Yeah and the risk of damage is also baked into the retail price. However, I think in most retail settings, the marginal COGs of a single item will approach the actual cost of that item. If it's a pain to clean up, then I'd say a little extra cost would be fair.
nabilhat 2y ago
This isn't about Amazon's retail inventory. This is inventory owned by vendors, held in Amazon's care. Think about how this would play out in a consignment shop. In the case of a no fault accident like a fire, paying back a different amount might be negotiable. A customer causing loss of a product on consignment might or might not have a pursuable compensation path. Under these conditions, the consignor still has a duty of care for their consignee's inventory while it's in their possession. Negligence contributing to loss from external cause tends to undermine negotiation of liability. A consignor's own processes breaking a consignee's product is none of those things. Attempting to lowball repayment of loss entirely due to the consignor's own equipment and activities should be laughable. Successfully doing so with "show us your books" while actively competing with consignee's product shouldn't be possible without substantial regulatory influence on competing markets to constrain alternatives. There is no reasonable, functioning marketplace where this is feasible.

mtnGoat 2y ago

No it’s not fair at all, if you break something you don’t actually have to buy it. It’s the merchants liability for allowing things to be within reach of customers. Just walk out and don’t negotiate at all.

rlpb 2y ago
I imagine this being the case every time I am forced to walk through the retail area in an airport to get to my gate. They should expect some travellers to be in a hurry and they deliberately put things in their way. I understand their reasons but it should definitely be at their sole risk for any accidental damage.
EGreg 2y ago
Can a customer deliberately destroy something? The proverbial bull in a china shop?
- mtnGoat 2y ago
  If it was done with malice, you could be prosecuted, malicious mischief is a crime. Damage by accident no, not in any of the 50 states.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    The crime isn’t the damage but the „leaving without paying for the damage“. If you damage something accidentally and replace the cost of the damage, it’s not a crime. If you just leave and refuse to pay, it is a crime.
    - EGreg 2y ago
      I thought the great-grandparent said it wasn’t? If it was accidental.
outside2344 2y ago
Exactly, they should have insurance to cover this
echoangle 2y ago
Is that just your own personal moral judgement or a legal assessment? Because I don't think this will actually work in practice when the police are called for property damage.
- lupire 2y ago
  Police aren't showing up for this. The law generally puts responsibility on the party that should know better, which is the professional.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Are we talking about the US now? Because I’m pretty sure that where I live (Germany), if the stuff you break is valuable enough, police will definitely arrest you if you try to leave without paying after breaking something. Is that not the case in the US?
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Depends on where you are. Many cities have under resourced police departments that have reputations for ignoring and refusing to investigate non violent crime.
- mtnGoat 2y ago
  That’s a fact, not a personal opinion. Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property No need to downvote just because y’all don’t know the law, lol!
  - echoangle 2y ago
    > Unless the damage was done in malice it’s not a crime. It’s the owners negligence for not protecting their property Well that’s just wrong, the damage itself is not a crime but the leaving without paying part is. If I accidentally fall onto your parked car and leave a dent, do you think I can just leave because it wasn’t intentional?
rileymat2 2y ago
As a non-lawyer, when I had researched it, it is considerably more complicated than that, the answer seemed to be in which party was neglectful or negligent.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

Yeah and the risk of damage is also baked into the retail price. However, I think in most retail settings, the marginal COGs of a single item will approach the actual cost of that item. If it's a pain to clean up, then I'd say a little extra cost would be fair.

nabilhat 2y ago

This isn't about Amazon's retail inventory. This is inventory owned by vendors, held in Amazon's care. Think about how this would play out in a consignment shop. In the case of a no fault accident like a fire, paying back a different amount might be negotiable. A customer causing loss of a product on consignment might or might not have a pursuable compensation path. Under these conditions, the consignor still has a duty of care for their consignee's inventory while it's in their possession. Negligence contributing to loss from external cause tends to undermine negotiation of liability. A consignor's own processes breaking a consignee's product is none of those things. Attempting to lowball repayment of loss entirely due to the consignor's own equipment and activities should be laughable. Successfully doing so with "show us your books" while actively competing with consignee's product shouldn't be possible without substantial regulatory influence on competing markets to constrain alternatives. There is no reasonable, functioning marketplace where this is feasible.