Fashion Joy

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/08/30) */ The Layaway receipt is for holding the item or items for the customerOn the receipt, it has been stated that No exchanges or refunds 30% Deposit, weeks limitedNo Cancellations We can not be responsible for layaway items over weeksThe policy on the wall is for the purchase receipt which is different from the layaway receiptWhat the customer had signed and read in our store is the layaway receiptThe receipt is good for days is for purchase receipts, and also if the items were purchased on 7/24/at 5:PM then the 8/date that the customer had written would still be invalidThe store layaway policy does not contradict itselfit simplifies the matter at hand because the customer had read and signed the Layaway receiptAnd in regards to the matter of the worker saying that she is the owner; that is falseOur employee would never say that because it would be falsifying employee statusThis is no cause for layaway advertising because we have the customer's signature on hand that she agrees and adheres to the layaway policyHorrible customer service is a gross overstatement on the customer because our employee did everything in her power to help the customerTherefore, the customer should be no entitled to a deposit entitlement because it clearly states in statement one that there are no exchanges or refunds

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/30) */
The Layaway receipt is for holding the item or items for the customer. On the receipt, it has been stated that 1. No exchanges or refunds 2. 30% Deposit, 4 weeks limited. 3. No Cancellations 4. We can not be responsible for layaway items over...

4 weeks. The policy on the wall is for the purchase receipt which is different from the layaway receipt. What the customer had signed and read in our store is the layaway receipt. The receipt is good for 7 days is for purchase receipts, and also if the items were purchased on 7/24/2015 at 5:01 PM then the 8/10 date that the customer had written would still be invalid. The store layaway policy does not contradict itself. it simplifies the matter at hand because the customer had read and signed the Layaway receipt. And in regards to the matter of the worker saying that she is the owner; that is false. Our employee would never say that because it would be falsifying employee status. This is no cause for false layaway advertising because we have the customer's signature on hand that she agrees and adheres to the layaway policy. Horrible customer service is a gross overstatement on the customer because our employee did everything in her power to help the customer. Therefore, the customer should be no entitled to a deposit entitlement because it clearly states in statement one that there are no exchanges or refunds.