Is it ethical to purchase a camera, the use it and return it

bob13bob · 01-22-2011, 05:19 PM

it's not ethical to sell a camera someone returned as new to someone else.

it is ethical to return a camera if it's within the return policy. That is why peopel pay more for a premium to return things.

Mountain Vision · 01-22-2011, 05:32 PM

It should have been resold as open box.

As far as ethics its all about intent.

reeftool · 01-22-2011, 07:29 PM

I don't think it's wrong to use something and return it if the store has a policy that if you aren't satisfied you can return something. I do think it is unethical to re-sell that item as new and as others have also mentioned, it should be sold as open box or refurbished.

**dcmsox2004** · 01-22-2011, 08:38 PM

..... a friends wife has no problem buying an expensive dress, wearing it for a night out, then returning it to the store.... albeit in almost unworn condition....
the retailer, can't, according to law, just put it back into inventory and sell it as new...
retailers have always had to deal with returns, for decades, and for a multitude of reasons... dissatisfaction, defective, etc...... but as long as they resell noting that the item is a demo, or open box, the consumer knows the situation and can make an educated decision about making the purchase of said item(s).............
there are some folks buying pentax bodies, assuming they're brand new, but in reality have already been taken around the block a time or two by someone else.... and that's the retailers fault for not making full disclosure.........
fwiw..... if i'm buying a new car, i don't expect it too have more than just a few miles on it, and would not accept it if it had 1,000 or so miles on it, from being test driven a few times after i've signed on the dotted line..........either it's new or it's used........ it ain't rocket science....
or is it?????? lol................

KxBlaze · 01-22-2011, 08:44 PM

It's common for a camera to have a few hundred actuations right out of the box but > 2,000 is very high. I think someone definitely used it and returned it. It's not unethical for someone to use it and return it (they may not have like it) but it is unethical for any store to try and pass that same camera off as new. Even though it is after the return period I would still call and complain.

Mister Pita · 01-22-2011, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by GregK8

I have a friend who purchased a camera and found that it already had over 2,000 shutter actuations on it. Someone obviously purchased it, used it through the return timeframe of the retailer then returned it. He's pretty pissed about this, as he discovered this after the return period for him expired.

I liken it to a woman that buys a dress, wears it to a party then returns it the next day.

There aren't enough facts available to determine if it was wrong. My son had a friend who bought lots of things just to use them for awhile, for free. Clothing, electronics, you name it. He had no intent to buy. That was wrong, and everyone else pays.

When a retailer accepts returns for any reason, they open themselves up to this abuse. If the original purchaser took the camera out twice to big events, had problems on the first go and confirmed them on the second, he wasn't wrong to return it. If he merely wanted to try out a camera he couldn't afford, that was wrong. Now, whether the retailer is wrong in representing that camera as truly new or refurbished is a separate issue. Just my opinion. You may feel differently.

**GregK8** · 01-22-2011, 10:13 PM

I was really interested in hearing what others had to say on this. I would agree that returning something because it turned out you didn't like it or it didn't work for you is fine. I kinda think that it should take far fewer shots then 1500 to determine that, but that is not really the most egregious occurrence here.

As others have rightfully pointed out, and it escaped me at first, is the behavior of this retailer. maybe it was an individual employee that made the determination to put it back into new stock and not the policy of the shop, but this camera should not have been sold as new. An open box with a 10% discount? at least the buyer knows and can make the choice.

Thanks for all your points of view.

SpecialK · 01-22-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

I would agree that returning something because it turned out you didn't like it or it didn't work for you is fine.

No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework.

If it functions correctly but you don't like it, sell it used.

**GregK8** · 01-22-2011, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework.

If it functions correctly but you don't like it, sell it used.

In my own personal matters, this is the approach I would take, but in the day and age where it is impossible to find a K-5 in a retail shop where I can pick it up and do a little bit of tactile evaluation, I think allowances can be made if a product clearly isn't as hoped.

RioRico · 01-23-2011, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by SpecialK

No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework.

But the retailer *has* already factored-in the probability that items will be returned. That factoring can consist of a restocking fee, or just an adjustment of price levels and profit margins to compensate for the returns. A retailer with a stated "no-fault" no-question-asked no-restocking-charge return policy has withdrawn 'responsibility' from the equation, of their own volition. They have calculated that the increased sales volume resultant from showing that they trust their customers, will offset the costs of handling returns, whether from trusty or untrustworthy customers.

And that's at the heart of return policies: trust. Mutual trust. The customer trusts that the retailer will cater to them, while the retailer trusts that customers won't f*ck with them too often. Sellers with no-fault return policies must find this a workable business model or they would use a different model, ie restocking fees.

Capslock118 · 01-23-2011, 11:14 AM

Everyone here seems to be making the assumption that
A: it's a used item and not a new item
and more importantly
B: if it was a used item, it only had one previous owner.

If the item is used, you can't assume there was only one prior owner. There could have been 5 prior owners, or any 1+n. If there were 5 previous owners who all returned the item within their return timeframe, then that 1500 shots is really 300 shots per prior owner.

So, to talk about if it's ethical to return an item after 'excessive' use has become moot, because you have no idea how many prior owners existed before you; assuming there ever was one.

SpecialK · 01-23-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

But the retailer *has* already factored-in the probability that items will be returned. That factoring can consist of a restocking fee, or just an adjustment of price levels and profit margins to compensate for the returns.

Of course, but the assumption of the OP was that the reseller did not do that, and sold a return as new. So, the seller had no loss to factor in.

JHD · 01-23-2011, 03:30 PM

What car dealership allows you to buy a car and return it for a refund within 10 days? What realtor sells a house with a money back satisfaction guarantee? Cameras are pretty cheap by comparison. Maybe nobody should offer a money back satisfaction guarantee on anything ever at all? That would solve all the problems for everyone.

dgaies · 01-23-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by JHD

What car dealership allows you to buy a car and return it for a refund within 10 days? What realtor sells a house with a money back satisfaction guarantee? Cameras are pretty cheap by comparison. Maybe nobody should offer a money back satisfaction guarantee on anything ever at all? That would solve all the problems for everyone.

GM, Chrysler and CarMax. Not saying whether or not I think it's a good idea, but it does exist in the auto industry.

JHD · 01-23-2011, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

GM, Chrysler and CarMax. Not saying whether or not I think it's a good idea, but it does exist in the auto industry.

I wouldn't make the mistake of buying one of those in the first place!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
(Aus) Tax return coming up...what camera gears are u getting?	raider	General Talk	3	06-29-2010 09:33 AM
Any aesthetic or technical or ethical reasons not to just use unsharp mask everything	BetterSense	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	09-12-2008 01:35 PM
May I return this DA*16-50	adonishong	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-17-2008 12:37 AM
Need advice on a 35mm FILM Pentax camera purchase	macdaddy	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	9	09-12-2007 08:08 PM
What Screw-Mount Pentax Camera To Purchase??	baltochef920	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	10	07-20-2007 12:00 PM

01-22-2011, 05:19 PM	#16
bob13bob Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 34	it's not ethical to sell a camera someone returned as new to someone else. it is ethical to return a camera if it's within the return policy. That is why peopel pay more for a premium to return things.

01-22-2011, 05:32 PM	#17
Mountain Vision Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: America's First Wilderness Posts: 529	It should have been resold as open box. As far as ethics its all about intent.

01-22-2011, 07:29 PM	#18
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	I don't think it's wrong to use something and return it if the store has a policy that if you aren't satisfied you can return something. I do think it is unethical to re-sell that item as new and as others have also mentioned, it should be sold as open box or refurbished.

01-22-2011, 08:38 PM	#19
dcmsox2004 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: rhode island Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,522	..... a friends wife has no problem buying an expensive dress, wearing it for a night out, then returning it to the store.... albeit in almost unworn condition.... the retailer, can't, according to law, just put it back into inventory and sell it as new... retailers have always had to deal with returns, for decades, and for a multitude of reasons... dissatisfaction, defective, etc...... but as long as they resell noting that the item is a demo, or open box, the consumer knows the situation and can make an educated decision about making the purchase of said item(s)............. there are some folks buying pentax bodies, assuming they're brand new, but in reality have already been taken around the block a time or two by someone else.... and that's the retailers fault for not making full disclosure......... fwiw..... if i'm buying a new car, i don't expect it too have more than just a few miles on it, and would not accept it if it had 1,000 or so miles on it, from being test driven a few times after i've signed on the dotted line..........either it's new or it's used........ it ain't rocket science.... or is it?????? lol................

01-22-2011, 08:44 PM	#20
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	It's common for a camera to have a few hundred actuations right out of the box but > 2,000 is very high. I think someone definitely used it and returned it. It's not unethical for someone to use it and return it (they may not have like it) but it is unethical for any store to try and pass that same camera off as new. Even though it is after the return period I would still call and complain.

01-22-2011, 09:19 PM	#21
Mister Pita Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: ILLINOIS Posts: 52	Originally posted by GregK8 I have a friend who purchased a camera and found that it already had over 2,000 shutter actuations on it. Someone obviously purchased it, used it through the return timeframe of the retailer then returned it. He's pretty pissed about this, as he discovered this after the return period for him expired. I liken it to a woman that buys a dress, wears it to a party then returns it the next day. There aren't enough facts available to determine if it was wrong. My son had a friend who bought lots of things just to use them for awhile, for free. Clothing, electronics, you name it. He had no intent to buy. That was wrong, and everyone else pays. When a retailer accepts returns for any reason, they open themselves up to this abuse. If the original purchaser took the camera out twice to big events, had problems on the first go and confirmed them on the second, he wasn't wrong to return it. If he merely wanted to try out a camera he couldn't afford, that was wrong. Now, whether the retailer is wrong in representing that camera as truly new or refurbished is a separate issue. Just my opinion. You may feel differently.

01-22-2011, 10:13 PM	#22
GregK8 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Western New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 614 Original Poster	I was really interested in hearing what others had to say on this. I would agree that returning something because it turned out you didn't like it or it didn't work for you is fine. I kinda think that it should take far fewer shots then 1500 to determine that, but that is not really the most egregious occurrence here. As others have rightfully pointed out, and it escaped me at first, is the behavior of this retailer. maybe it was an individual employee that made the determination to put it back into new stock and not the policy of the shop, but this camera should not have been sold as new. An open box with a 10% discount? at least the buyer knows and can make the choice. Thanks for all your points of view.

01-22-2011, 10:40 PM	#23
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: I would agree that returning something because it turned out you didn't like it or it didn't work for you is fine. No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework. If it functions correctly but you don't like it, sell it used.

01-22-2011, 11:11 PM	#24
GregK8 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Western New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 614 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework. If it functions correctly but you don't like it, sell it used. In my own personal matters, this is the approach I would take, but in the day and age where it is impossible to find a K-5 in a retail shop where I can pick it up and do a little bit of tactile evaluation, I think allowances can be made if a product clearly isn't as hoped.

01-23-2011, 10:41 AM	#25
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by SpecialK No, it's not. The retailer is not responsible for you liking something, or you ignorantly buying something without doing the homework. But the retailer has already factored-in the probability that items will be returned. That factoring can consist of a restocking fee, or just an adjustment of price levels and profit margins to compensate for the returns. A retailer with a stated "no-fault" no-question-asked no-restocking-charge return policy has withdrawn 'responsibility' from the equation, of their own volition. They have calculated that the increased sales volume resultant from showing that they trust their customers, will offset the costs of handling returns, whether from trusty or untrustworthy customers. And that's at the heart of return policies: trust. Mutual trust. The customer trusts that the retailer will cater to them, while the retailer trusts that customers won't f*ck with them too often. Sellers with no-fault return policies must find this a workable business model or they would use a different model, ie restocking fees.

01-23-2011, 11:14 AM	#26
Capslock118 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Haven, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 173	Everyone here seems to be making the assumption that A: it's a used item and not a new item and more importantly B: if it was a used item, it only had one previous owner. If the item is used, you can't assume there was only one prior owner. There could have been 5 prior owners, or any 1+n. If there were 5 previous owners who all returned the item within their return timeframe, then that 1500 shots is really 300 shots per prior owner. So, to talk about if it's ethical to return an item after 'excessive' use has become moot, because you have no idea how many prior owners existed before you; assuming there ever was one.

01-23-2011, 11:40 AM	#27
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: But the retailer has already factored-in the probability that items will be returned. That factoring can consist of a restocking fee, or just an adjustment of price levels and profit margins to compensate for the returns. Of course, but the assumption of the OP was that the reseller did not do that, and sold a return as new. So, the seller had no loss to factor in.

01-23-2011, 03:30 PM	#28
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	What car dealership allows you to buy a car and return it for a refund within 10 days? What realtor sells a house with a money back satisfaction guarantee? Cameras are pretty cheap by comparison. Maybe nobody should offer a money back satisfaction guarantee on anything ever at all? That would solve all the problems for everyone.

01-23-2011, 04:14 PM	#29
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by JHD What car dealership allows you to buy a car and return it for a refund within 10 days? What realtor sells a house with a money back satisfaction guarantee? Cameras are pretty cheap by comparison. Maybe nobody should offer a money back satisfaction guarantee on anything ever at all? That would solve all the problems for everyone. GM, Chrysler and CarMax. Not saying whether or not I think it's a good idea, but it does exist in the auto industry.

01-23-2011, 04:19 PM	#30
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by dgaies GM, Chrysler and CarMax. Not saying whether or not I think it's a good idea, but it does exist in the auto industry. I wouldn't make the mistake of buying one of those in the first place!