Let's say product x is something you buy regularly and doesn't have an expiry date eg. toilet paper, nappies if you have a baby or cleaning products.
First I buy product x at full price when I need it. Keep receipt.
When this product goes on sale, I check how many receipts I have of this product at full price, buying the same amount of this product. Then I wait for this product to be selling at full price again and I return the products for full price. The point of doing is that I don't need to wait for these products to be on sale and can still pay discounted price. Is this smart, unethical or too much of a hassle?
Purchasing Items on Sale, then Returning with a Previous Receipt for Full Price. Smart, Unethical or Too Much Work?
ribenaboy on 26/08/2018 - 01:05
Last edited 26/08/2018 - 12:59 by 1 other user
Last edited 26/08/2018 - 12:59 by 1 other user
Poll Options
- 35Smart
- 291Unethical
- 254Too much trouble
Comments
- 1
- 2
I have returned a box of nappies to Woolies with a receipt from a few months ago.
Interesting, I guess it depends with the shop you buy from but it looks like Woolworths doesn't have a set date in which they can be returned https://www.woolworths.com.au/Shop/Discover/about-us/returns… I assume if its in resellable condition like it says in the link then they don't care either way, so I have trouble seeing it as being too unethical as long as the place allows for it.
Personally too much of an issue for me though and I'm unsure on what savings it would bring but yeah. Also not sure, but maybe good idea to make a poll as well?
Added a poll, thanks for the idea.
"I have returned a box of nappies to Woolies with a receipt from a few months ago."
Wtf are you smoking and can I have some please?
They prob just figured your kid outgrew them. Lol scummy trick.
@Seedy seed: Sure, but if the box/packet is still sealed it's not a big deal for WW, they'll just put it back on the shelf. It's not like a fresh/fridge/freezer item.
Woolies don't give a shit about what you return, they will return almost anything with a receipt. Its much easier for them just to honour returns rather then argue with customers
Not fit for purpose. You don't wanna know the purpose.
Did they sniff them or something to make sure they had not been used ? Lol.
Maybe just stock on these non-perishable products when they are on sale ;) then if for some reason you are overstocked, return items then :)
No ethical conundrum then :) .
BTW, IMO it depends whether the company you are doing this to is a large corporate who often does ethically questionable things..?. Or a small independent store etc.
If say it is Woolworth/coles, are you ripping them off 'kind of' , are they ripping farmers off on milk and other items, are they ripping off truck industry by using their monopolistic powers to force truck drivers to work longer and longer hours for less and less pay, were they selling us old fruit&veg while claiming "we are the fresh food people" , all of this is morally questionable, so maybe ripping them off slightly is OK.
@ribenaboy
From all your replies it seems pretty clear that you’re already doing this. So I’m unsure what the purpose of for your question? Either you want to take some stats on how many other people are doing it too or just wanting to find out if there are even better ways of doing this process?
Few reasons
Yes, to see how many people know about it, how many other people are doing it, see if others have other methods similar to save money
I overestimated ozbargainers' desire to avoid paying full price. I was mention other loopholes I've discovered but since everyone here are so ethical, I'll stay quiet.
Why do it when you can just lay-by
Because he needed the items before they were on special?
If the product doesn't deteriorate, why not just stash enough of it when on sale to see you through full price periods and then some?
Save time looking or waiting for a bargain.
You have to keep track of when it goes on sale to buy it at the discounted price, so you're doing the same thing as everyone else.
Plus you are buying it at the normal price, then returning it at normal price. So that's almost 3 times the amount of work.
I would say its 2 times the work, during the sale buy and refund straight away.
If you do your groceries weekly, it's not that much extra work.
I would say its 2 times the work
So then, not
Save time looking or waiting for a bargain.
?
how are you keeping money in the bank if you are buying it at full price? you are giving woolworths a temporary loan.
you are giving woolworths a temporary loan.
and free warehousing
From reading the comments on this thread, it sounds like everyone is stocking every product from the supermarket and buying multiples of the same product. I think that would be much more costly than if I purchase items at full price.
PS. I'm not against stocking items, I do this alot too.
I only use this method to save money when things don't go on sale for a long time.If you aren't buying multiple things of a consumable item when its on a really good sale, then you just wasting money.
@Pacify:
As i said, i do stock, just not every single item, and no one knows when things go on sale.
Next post from OP.
My kid defecated in all the nappies, thankfully I kept the receipt/box and returned them 3 months later. Is this smart, unhygienic, mentally deranged, unethical or too much of a hassle?
I would totally expect someone to try this. I used to work at Target and do refunds, one day someone came in and tried to return a kids car seat they had purchased some 6 months or so earlier. It was stained, dirty and disgusting. Their reason for returning it? Their kid had grown out of it.
"Not fit for purpose"….?
@HighAndDry: Ahh but it was fit for purpose when they bought it, it would have been the right size or at least a better fit for the kid then. And given how dirty it was, it was clearly used so it was fit for some purpose.
@jeka1103: But the manufacturer should know that kids grow! And their warranties are for more than 6 months, how do they expect a baby seat that doesn't grow with the kid to even be useful for the full warranty period?!
… or so I'm sure their logic would go….
Things go on sale every few weeks (from Coles/WW). Why even the need to deal with it? Unless you like hoarding (both the product and the receipts), in which case would be an entirely different mental issue.
This is for situations when you really need something urgently and still want to pay a discounted price when its currently not on sale.
too much trouble / immoral
I suppose it is smart.
I always imagined the barcode changes though. Does the receipt always match the same product made several months apart?
Some products have the same barcodes from months ago. some have the same barcodes even when you purchase it from a different store. Eg Nappies
Barcodes for a product never change. It is the unique identifier for that product.
They are registered as part of a system.
https://www.gs1au.org/resources/standards-and-guidelines/ean…spaceflight and ribenaboy are both right - barcodes never change, but for some products the manufacturer will create separate versions with slight variations (e.g. to quantity or size) so that different stores can have "exclusive" products. For example, Brother make essentially the same printer with different model numbers so that Officeworks is not forced to price match (and conversely Harvey Norman does not lose sales to OW pricematching), while Woolworths stocks a 125g box of Cheezels whereas Coles stocks a 110g box.
Yeah, they do. They probably shouldn’t but they do.
I have a few years experience in a small retail store. It’s not unheard of for us to receive new stock in the same packaging but with different barcodes.
Sequence of events goes like:
Receive stock from wholesaler.
Unbox.
Find invoice and then start to zap products into stock system as received.
beep item not found. Do you wish to create a new product?
? We’ve had this item before ?
Go to shelf, find same item. Compare barcodesOptions:
1. Create a new item in database: this creates duplicate product records. It is not ideal as the computer treats these items as two seperate products.
2. Update existing product record wth the new barcode. This preserves the sales history.Option 2 is the best, but then you have to print new barcode stickers for any stock with the old label that you still have in stock.
And yes, the products are otherwise identical and delivered from the same wholesaler.
Again, it’s not a frequent occurance, but it’s common enough for us to have a process in place when it happens.
Too much trouble. Imagine keeping up with the receipts. It's rare for people just to shop for 1 item.
When you return things you get back what you paid, not the current price.. Why would you think otherwise? Sorry but I’m sure throughout our current capitalist society you are not the first to have thought of this.
That's why I said after the sale is over, when the current price is back to full price.
That's not how it works at all.
Any refund policy will state "purchase price".
Refund is off old receipt. Plus no need to wait for item to go back to full price really
If you have a receipt showing you paid $2 for a product, you get $2 for the product when you return it, it's that simple.
@ribenaboy: so why wait till sale is over before returning the items? You already have an old receipt with the full price on it….
Poll option "All of the above".
Fraud. Financial gain by deception. You’re presenting the original receipt for the discounted item.
I maybe missing something here so basically
Buy at full price - store for a while
Buy at discount price
Return for full price?More effort when you can just buy and store the discounted stuff
You don't save time as you still need to keep an eye for the discount plus doing the return
Keep money in the bank - you just spent money buying at full price?
No. I think what OP is saying is;
Buy items at full price, keep the receipt.
Use items as normal.
Wait for sale.
Buy same items again.
Return new items with old receipt.Maybe I got it wet as well? It’s all very convoluted and seems a waste of time.
Ah man that sounds even worst! Using the product then returning the discounted one for full price. Reminds me of Costco how people would use the TVs then return it few years down the track for full refund then upgrade to new TV. Or in US buy for the Super Bowl then return afterwards for full refund.
People abusing it makes everyone else suffer for their own gain.
Same at Aldi, during the Winter snow sale.
People buy the snow gear, use it (for however long) and then return it for a full refund. They have been a bit more strict on the returns in recent years. A guy I know used to do it. (was gonna say "friend", but thought better of it)
Because driving around everywhere to return products when I could have bought them discounted a while later saves me money. Yeah nah.
This is why we can't have nice things. If you abuse this, and then it gets taken away, you're screwing the people who are genuine.
Change of mind policy is not law.
It's fun to find loopholes and exploit them, but don't abuse them too much.
lol ceebs with all that
nappies if you have a baby
I buy nappies but don't have a baby. Am I doing something wrong?
No, you're just an old fart.
They could be a NASA astronaut about to drive cross country. True story, and the more boring half.
I read the story about that austronaut. Theres dedication right there.
Username checks out
Isn't it just easier to get a job?
Ain't no one got time for dat.
How much have you saved?
You’ll be screwed if you buy up and then they change the product.
If you have a valid receipt, they will have to refund you the money even if the product is no longer selling.
Only if the product is defective.
Depending on the product and the store's policy. You can return a product for change of mind
@ribenaboy: true, but change of mind policies and people that abuse them are among reasons that prices are high. It costs money to restock, to manage the refund process etc.
I wouldn't say unethical, but definitely too much trouble. Just buy as needed at full price, then stock up when its on special.
Way too much trouble….most stuff in woollies is <10 dollars, the things that's on cycling specials are usually non-essential and you have to keep receipt,seek out future special and return the thing for likely a few dollars of saving. Probably doing 1 hour of over time nets more money for the whole year.
How much is your integrity worth to you? 50 cents?
Let's not be too generous here
Is it just me or does the title & story don't match up?
Its to much time that you're wasting. It wouldn't be worth it. Especially at a Woolworths or Coles.
I can understand if you are talking about purchasing a major appliance & it goes on sale the next day. Some large stores have a price guarantee & may give the difference back. That will most likely be a one off time as well.
It would add up, especially for nappies and stuff worth over $30 which can be 50% off, but still hardly worth the effort I reckon.
Yeah that is a good discount but still not worth the time to keep on doing it. Stock up i say.
It is smart but it's just too much effort.
I hate queuing for refunds. In my experience it takes about 5 minutes to get a refund and I would only do that if I was at the store spending money on other things otherwise it just isn't worth the effort getting in the car and going back to the store for a few dollars.
I would have to weigh up the time expended against the expected refund to figure out if it's worth it or not.
You buy at $10 then return at $10 they scan the receipt so it's now void so you can't use it again on the discounted items.
I don't get any off itwho said anything about using a receipt more than once?
Let me make it simpler for you.
I buy product for $10 now because I need it now.
I now have the product and a receipt for $10.
Product goes on sale for $5.
I buy this product for $5 and refund it using my old receipt for $10.
So at the end, I only paid $5 for the product.Keep the receipt in your wallet do the grocery shopping. When your done wheel the trolley to the smokes part and say I need to return this with the old receipt.
No effort just looks strange but would a checkout chick care? I doubt it.
PMSLI think another way of looking at it to make it more clear:
But item for $10
Weeks later same item goes on sale for $5
Your now thinking dammit, I'm going to exchange the original sale and get your $10 back
Now you purchase the item on sale for $5So you save $5
Your confusing yourself with trading different item at different price which in reality all your doing is getting a refund on the same item.
Waste of time and no point in my opinion.
Really not worth the effort…
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Yes stocking up is the best solution to save money but sometimes you really need a product right now which you haven't stock. Also you don't know when the next sale will be for the product. This is just an alternate solution.I think it depends on how much the saving works out to be.
Your example of nappies where the savings could be up to $10 a box, then the effort may become worthwhile. But if you're talking about lower value items like detergent or toilet paper, you'd have to be buying and using an awful lot to make it worthwhile.
If you're that desperate for cash maybe you should save money by not having an internet connection. You'd gain more than by taking stuff back and swindling the shops.
so not paying full price equates to being desperate for cash?
Doesn't that make everyone on this site desperate?We pay for things upfront where there are actual discounts and claim differences through legitimate ethical means like price protection afterwards (if said bargainer can be bothered I don't).
So no.
I bought sunscreen just before summer last year and it went on sale the next day.
I returned it for the full refund and walked down the isle and purchased one for half price.
Right, and nobody could claim that this is immoral, surely?
There is no real difference between that and what the op is suggesting, other than swapping the order of 2 steps. Either way, the outcome is the same. So no, I don't think it's immoral at all.
Whether it's worthwhile really depends on the price difference. If it's more than a say $5 (to cover the hassle and time to get the refund) and you're going to supermarket anyway (so no extra travel cost or time), then I'd say smart. Less than that amount and it's probably not worth bothering with.There is no real difference between that and what the op is suggesting, other than swapping the order of 2 steps.
Except OP is using the originally bought goods (A), then buying the product again (B) at discount and returning (B) at full price of (A) immediately. He's passing off 'B' (the discounted product) as 'A' (product bought at full price). It's straight up fraud.
But product A and B are utterly identical and interchangeable. That's the fundamental premise of industrial mass production and supermarket shelf products, it's all the same. There is no distinction between Nappies A and Nappies B, where A and B are the exact same product. They're bar-coded the same, packaged the same, presented the same, and counted the same, so to both the consumers and the supermarket itself they are identical and interchangeable. It would be fraud were they different in any meaningful way, or he was returning something else, but they are not. When returning he's returning an identical one of those items, in original condition, bought from that store, and getting the money he paid back, I simply don't agree with the conclusion that it's fraud. I simply see arbitrage … or am I supposed that to think that arbitrage is fraud too because it's not the exact same security that's bought and sold?
@nickj: They're not, for any number of reasons - date of manufacture, use-by date, etc, but most importantly - they are just in reality not the same goods. It doesn't matter how many words you write trying to argue why you consider them to be the same, they are plainly not.
If the shop asked OP: "Are these the ones you bought with this receipt", OP couldn't answer "yes" without lying. That's the key test.
Arbitrage is fine. This isn't it.
@HighAndDry: It's not just that I consider them the same, the supermarket itself also considers them the same. In the way they count them in inventory, price them, scan them, and so forth. They don't ask that question because they have POS software to check that the returned item is the same, under their definition, and guess what: It is!
Besides, product B should have a later date of manufacture and later use-by-date then product A, so if seriously you want to distinguish between two identical products on a shelf, then surely B is preferable to A?
Someone returning a shelf product they bought to the same store, and getting their own money refunded, does not seem wrong to me. To be wrong it requires a differentiation between product A and B that simply does not exist, for all practical intents and purposes (and the practical definition is the one that matters to me), to either the supermarket or the consumer.
a differentiation between product A and B that simply does not exist, for all practical intents and purposes (and the practical definition is the one that matters to me
You're restating your previous comment, and you can repeat this as much as you want - reality disagrees with you. I'll repeat this, which is the only relevant point:
If the shop asked OP: "Are these the ones you bought with this receipt", OP couldn't answer "yes" without lying.
I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying that at the very least own up to the fact that it's both - technically and strictly - wrong. I'll equate it with piracy - I do it (less now, not because of morals but just because I don't have time) but I completely agree it's wrong in several aspects.
I'll give you a (hopefully) better example - imagine this was swapped around. The customer, buying something (say a TV), opens a box, inspects the contents, turns it on, etc, makes sure everything is fine, closes it up, and tells the salesperson "Yes I want to buy this one." They don't check the serial number. Would you think it perfectly fine - ethically and practically - if the salesperson then goes to the back, gets another box, and sells that to the customer instead?
@HighAndDry: For the record I have never done this, but I have returned item A on receipt A, then 5 minutes later purchased item B on receipt B, at a lower price. Item A and B were utterly interchangeable, and may even have been the same item. It seems a very long bow to try to claim that A and B are different.
I truly hope all the people claiming some terrible wrong here are living the most exemplary and flawless lives. No eating meat (animal suffering), no fossil fuel (no mains electricity, no petrol car, no air travel), no consumption or any contribution to climate change, zero waste lives, championing equality for all, paying more for more ethical products, and so on and so forth. Because those things are like planks of wood versus a speck of dust in the ethical scales compared to this, they involve actual demonstrable harm and suffering, unlike this. To do so would be very hypocritical, which is a form a lying or misrepresentation, making those people guilty of the very same offence which they find so objectionable.
It seems a very long bow to try to claim that A and B are different.
When they are in reality, actually different goods?
I truly hope all the people claiming some terrible wrong here are living the most exemplary and flawless lives.
That's not necessary. I just admitted that I pirate stuff on occasion. But I do it knowing that it's not 100% on the up and up. Self-awareness does not necessarily have to be accompanied by sainthood.
@HighAndDry: I'd describe them by saying they're the same good (e.g. both packets of the same type/make/model of nappies), but different instances of that good (i.e. composed of different atoms). People buy the functionality of that good (e.g. ability to absorb a baby's waste), they don't care which specific atoms they buy (at least I don't, and I don't think I've met anyone who does).
For the record, I also live a morally flawed life (wouldn't pass one of those tests, would like to, but don't even come close), but (to me) the supposed offence here sits somewhere between really really insignificant and non-existent.
I'd describe them by saying they're the same good (e.g. both packets of the same type/make/model of nappies), but different instances of that good (i.e. composed of different atoms).
Again then, I'd point to the receipt and note that it refers to particular instances of a good (aka the goods which you bought on this date for this price), and not any undefined instance of it.
I'll also try to distill the ethical issues with what you're doing:
In any ethical dilemma, especially one where you're technically in the wrong, you can't justify your actions by unilaterally imposing an interpretation which is favourable to yourself: there's too much self-interest for that interpretation for it to be anything but biased; and
There is definitely going to be bias caused from self-interest considerations, because as it's a zero-sum game, if there weren't you wouldn't favour one interpretation over another, and consequently if it's favourable to you, it's unfavourable to the other.
I'm really getting tired, but again, let's suppose your logic was right. What's stopping you from buying A from shop X at a lower price, then returning it to shop Y as though it was B for a higher price, if "the goods are the same" as you say?
Why stop there? Why not just steal the item and return it for the full price?
What the OP is proposing is definitely immoral. Just because the amount to benefit is much smaller does not make it less immoral.
I definitely think what he is doing is immoral, borderline fraud. Though I doubt any of the big stores would do much about it.
Not even "borderline". It's fraud.
fraud
noun
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
- 1
- 2
I'm not sure I understand, how are you returning the products at full price? Don't most places not allow you to return things purely for change of mind, and even the ones that do usually only do it for a few weeks or a month?