I Love Petsmart!

The only thing is, i didnt break a law, so how does law have anything to do with this.

Part of the thread got a little off topic, as many threads that get over 60 posts tend to do. It came up whether a retailer is required by law to honor a price that was mistakenly advertised or labeled below the price the retailer wanted. It is only a little bit off topic, and is pertinent to your situation, krib. Because if the law required Petsmart to sell you those fish at the price they mislabeled, then this whole conversation is kind of moot. But, the law doesn't require the stores to honor mistakes, so it comes back to a moral issue about what is right and wrong.
 
What an interesting topic.

I myself work in retail while attending uni so I know a lot about the ins and outs. Our laws are similar to whats described above, but we usually honour mistakes out of good will, as someone mentioned above. Another policy we have is where if the item scans at a higher price than is on the shelf, the customer recieves that item for free, or if they have multiple items, the first free and the rest at the lower price. I frequently work at the customer service counter dealing with refunds etc, and therefore I have to deal with scammers all the time trying to twist the policies to their advantage. Unfortunately for them, I know my #### so no one gets to pull fast ones on me....I have plenty of examples if anyone wants to hear them!

I can tell which of you have never worked for a large company - the ones of you going 'but thy make a bajillion dollars every week, and make huge profits on every item. It's just not true. I will put it in perspective with an example.

There are two major retail chains in my country, I work for one of them. MAJOR company. The kind people say are 'loaded' all the time. On a good week, my store will do about a million dollars in sales. That's just one week, of what we sold through the registers. However, last year, our store got to have a party, because for that whole YEAR, we'd finally cracked the one million profit margin. I.e., despite the sales per week, once you take out cost of items from wholesalers, wages, losses, etc, this store as a part of a major retail company, only made one million dollars profit for a whole year. Not what a lot of people would expect I'm sure.

Before my current job I also worked for a small fruit business, who unfortunately went broke because of a drought - the cost price of produce was so huge (e.g. a cabbage at the bulk market was going for $9!) that in order to keep customers my boss was selling a lot of things at cost price, because the cost was already so ridiculous. So another example that businesses do not mark up extravagantly.

Ok, Azaezl's pogo stick example. This is extremely likely that this is a case of simply getting rid of stock off the floor, so they mark it down ridiculously just to shift it. Stores frequently do this with stock they've had a long time, slightly damaged or is discontinued, etc - basically they want it gone to make room for new stock, and they don't care what they sell it at. Also, my store frequently marks down food items APPROACHING the useby date so that stuff will clear first - it's below cost, but the store would rather get a little money back on it and shift the stock rather than throw it out and get nothing. So your example doesn't really hold up.

Coming back again to losses. Stores calculate the losses through stocktake, which depending on the store is done every few months. We count the floor stock (what we have) and backorders (what we've had in the past) and compare it to the register sales - subsequently we can calculate our losses (through staff/customer theft, register operator errors etc), where the major losses are, etc.

The OP's guppies will be a part of Petsmart's losses for this period. Becasue it's pretty hard to steal a fish inconspicuously, I'd say these losses will come back on employees. I agree with the posters who say this was dishonest of the OP. I agree there's a huge difference between realising you've been incorrectly charged after you've left the store, and deliberately not saying anything when an employee makes a mistake. I try to help and be honest with employees and treat them with respect because I've been on the other side of the counter myself and I know what its like. Not to mention in the case of fish stores, I've frequently seen people bitching on this board about how hopeless and uneducated these store employees are. The OP had the perfect opportunity to provide this employee with some information about the differences between male and female guppies, yet they chose to take advantage of them instead, rather than educate.

I think that's about it from me...

P.S. Others posted while I was typing, and I agree the point of this thread is about the morality of the OP's actions, rather than the legalities. I just wanted to use my experience to clarify some points made in argument about businesses by previous posters.
 
Not to mention in the case of fish stores, I've frequently seen people bitching on this board about how hopeless and uneducated these store employees are. The OP had the perfect opportunity to provide this employee with some information about the differences between male and female guppies, yet they chose to take advantage of them instead, rather than educate.

haha, very true. Somehow, that seemed really funny to me
 
Like i said, i didnt even think about educating him, and i was more focused on keeping ym angelfish company, becasue it was lonely after i got rid of it's friend.
 
um...

if you were trying to get your angel a bit of company, i would have gotten a bigger fish :p

lol, if your angels big enough, he might eat the guppy
 
What a very interesting topic.... also good to see that it didn't turn into a big flame-fest. Really nice mature debating going on *nodnod*

Anywho.... I gotta agree with Bignose and Southerncross.

Sure Petsmart should train their employees better so they don't make as many mistakes, but gotta agree that when you knowingly take advantage of someone's ignorance like that.. it is stealing, no matter how small.

One of my uncles was a big time shoplifter.. and he would use that same technique as people have described.... switching high price tags with lower ones.
 
The more I read of this very interest thread the more my way of looking at it is changing (I will hold fast however and say that Krib was not stealing).

Now, MORALLY, I'm thinking that doing so with foresight of the knowledge that the price is lower than that known, and that possibly an inexperienced member of staff was also possibly taken advantage of in doing so...

... would I have done the same thing? I have to be honest, and as much as I hate to say it, even with the new knowledge I have gained through reading this thread and having the possiblity of now readjusting my morals, I WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOO! :rolleyes: :blush:



Andy
 
I would be very interested to see what age range was arguing each viewpoint. I think bignose hit the nail on the head. I also think as a younger man I might have done what krib did.

I'll leave you with this food for thought:

IF you are religious, whose viewpoint would the clergyman/woman take? (Disclaimer - let's not turn this into a religious discussion, as that too often gets out of control and misses the point of the question posed. Thanks)
 
I'm glad the legalities of the issue have been cleared up at this point.

Can I assert that legislation's purpose it to protect those that need protecting against things that are "wrong" being done to them?

This is why swapping labels, walking out with the fish under your coat, or using fake money, are all wrong. We know they are wrong because our society, in the form of it's own legal system, has dictated it as such.

Bignose is quick to separate the issues of what is morally right and what is legally permissible. I suggest however that this is a red herring. Central to the issue is the legality. The OP did nothing legally wrong. They did *not* steal the fish. Who is anyone else to provide an imaginary benchmark that they have created themselves, and to measure the OP against it? If anyone wants to live their lives according to a moral code tighter than that provided by law then by all means do so. However, that gives them no right to get up on a soap box and start delivering public judgment.

A good example of how egocentric this is, is to consider why the moral kangaroo court in this thread have decided that it's OK to realise afterwards and not rectify the mistake. What do they think gives them the authority to make that distinction? It surprises me that they have done this to be honest, because it separates them from the position that under all circumstances they should act in such a manner that they don't knowingly prejudice the retailer- it suggests that it's OK to take advantage of the retailer's mistake after a certain point has been passed.

For the record my thoughts are these:

1. It is not the OP's responsibility to ensure the sales staff is either diligent, or well trained, it is the retailer's.
2. It is not the OP's responsibility to safeguard the financial interest of the retailer, it is the retailer's.

Incidentally, if I saw Zebra Plecs for sale with and at the cost of commons- I'd buy every one they had and order and pay for another 100 more.

I'm not saying that there isn't a moral grey area here, and I'm also not saying that Krib12 shouldn't think about what they have done and decide whether they think it was right- but I am saying that the shaming and finger pointing that has gone has been a bit fierce.
 
I would have taken them for cheap, too.

It would be rather stupid not too. :good:

It's not stealing, that's like saying buying a 2nd hand fish-tank for cheap is stealing.

"steal Pronunciation[steel]
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch."

He had permission, it is NOT theft. :good:
 
I think we all agree (eventually) that this is not theft. The argument continues however that this may be construded morally as theft or very close to it...

This is where BigNose point origintes from (I hope I have you right there BN). This point I now agree with, which makes me even more immoral than before this thread started becasue I would still act as our friend Krib did!.

Shame on me! :shifty: BUT... I would see that as getting a bargain (all be it a crafty one), and therefore I take the moral highground (with myself, LOL).

Andy
 
I don't think it is morally incorrect.

If the shop does not give then staff enough training to be able to tell the stock apart, then it's their fault.

They wanted to save a few bob by not giving training, but end up losing money because their un-trained employes give out bargains. ;)
 
A convincing point Esfa.

Some years ago, I went overdrawn in a bank account. The bank, wrote me a letter saying they had moved £160 from one account of mine to another to cover this. Only thing is, that despite the money materialising in my one account, it was never debited from the other. "Bank error in your favour, collect £200"- it really happened.

I kept the money, and that's fine by me, and I have a little chuckle to myself every time I think of it. Suffice to say the profits of the bank were still in the £bn that year.

Anyway, I am sure in due course Bignose will be back, and will explain what it is that qualifies him to cast moral judgment over the OP, and why the moral code that he has chosen voluntarily to adopt has more meaning/relevance than the law, as a benchmark of acceptability.

Again, I reitterate that my view is that there is nothing wrong with Krib thinking about what they have done and deciding for themselves, nor in anyone trying to encourage them to consider it- but forcefully and unwaveringly telling them what they should and shouldn't do, above the law of the land, is a bit judgmental.

Edit: I can see why Bignose made his post. Krib is obviously young and still developing their moral code, Bignose obviously an adult, and trying to do Krib a favour. I hope, in my naughtiness and desire to play Devil's advocate back, that I have not totally undermined that effort.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top