Foster Farrar True Value

On the morning of [redacted] XX XXXX I went to Foster Farrar to inquire about a generator. A young employee assisted me in choosing one. I asked him repeatedly whether the generator could be returned if the box was unopened and he assured me that it could on two occasions. There were no signs indicating that generators could not be returned. And the receipt only indicated that there were No refunds on special orders, clearance it said nothing about generators or storm materials. When I went back to the store to return the generator several days later, box still unopened and with the original receipt, I was told I could not return it because it was "storm material." When I spoke with one of the co-owners he insisted that it could not be returned. I called over the associate who had originally helped me, who concurred with me (the customer) in admitting that he assured me that it could be returned if it were unopened. The owner said that he had been mistaken and should not have provided me with that assurance. The owner also admitted that I had come in before they had had an opportunity to print out and post signs saying that storm materials could not be returned. He was completely inflexible and admitted that 1. I had been provided with the wrong information by a sales associate in his employment; 2. there were no signs up saying I couldn't return storm related material when I purchased the generator; 3. the receipt itself says nothing about not being able to return a generator. Basically, he blamed me for buying a generator, not using it, and then wanting to return it, despite the fact that millions of people purchase items every day in this country and then return them. When a customer goes in to a store and asks a direct question to an employee who then provides him with information that directly affects the decision to purchase an item, one expects the store to understand that even the employee provided the wrong information the customer could have no possible way of knowing this.Product_Or_Service: [redacted] Generator [redacted]Desired SettlementI respect Foster Farrar as a local business and have used them in the past due to their professionalism. They are an important local business. When I spoke to the owner I suggested two options: 1. allow me to return the generator [redacted] or 2. provide the customer with credit towards a future purchase in the amount of [redacted] to acknowledge its error, in effect splitting the cost.Initial [redacted] Response ResponseMr. [redacted] came to us on the morning of [redacted] 2015 around [redacted] AM and willingly purchased a 3250 watt [redacted] portable generator, 1 heavy duty extension cord, 1, 5 Gallon plastic [redacted] container, 1, 5 Gallon plastic [redacted] container, and 2 quarts of oil. At this point in time the area was under media induced frenzy for an upcoming winter storm. At a time such as this storm supplies are in high demand, and limited supply. The sales clerk who helped Mr. [redacted] was new and not familiar with that area or our store and also the normal procedures we have in place when faced with a storm emergency situation. While Mr. [redacted] was making his purchase we were in the office printing up our signs to place about the store to inform shoppers of our storm policy. As a general rule however, power tools and power equipment are not returnable, but fall under the manufactures warranty and there procedures for return/replacement. Our policy regarding storm/emergency items is in place to protect us and our customers. We are a RETAIL Hardware store, NOT a Rental store. Mr. [redacted] purchased the above items with the full intent of returning them if he did not have to use them, which is why he was so emphatic about asking if he could return the items. Even though he did not use the items, he still received a benefit from them by having them in his possession, just in case in needed them. The store received a benefit when we sold the items to him in his need. Mr. [redacted] wants the benefit of having the items without the cost associated to ownership. My store needs to benefit by the sale of such items so we can pay for them, our employees, heat, electricity, insurance, rent, and our other costs. Mr. [redacted] plainly received a benefit by having the generator and other items at that time. The generator if not sold to him at that time would have been sold shortly after on that same morning. By returning it now, we lose any and all benefit we received from the sale and the lost opportunity to sell it to another customer who desired it on that day. We incurred costs associated to the sale of these items, which Mr. [redacted] seems not to recognize or care about. Generators are not a big selling item, unless an immediate or perceived situation arises such as the threat of a major storm with power outages occurs. This was his sole purpose in purchasing these items, for his protection. His request for a [redacted] credit is outrageous, he keeps everything plus we give him a credit for more??? We did not even profit half that amount on the sale of all the items he purchased. I can understand the panic Mr. [redacted] may have been in when he made this purchase, trying to do the best to protect himself and his family. But as a store owner I also have to do my best to protect my store and my family, which means selling the goods I have to make a profit to pay my bills. No store can afford to have merchandise bought and paid by them to be "lent out" free of charge and then be returned when the situation is over. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the [redacted].)The [redacted] continues to ignore certain basic facts about this case:PART 11. It admits that its employee provided the customer with mistaken information by assuring him that the generator could be returned. The fact that the employee was new, as the business states, cannot be the fault of the customer. Simply put, an employee of the business provided erroneous information which, if it had been correct, would have resulted in customer not purchasing the item;2. The business admits that there were no signs posted (because they had not yet been posted and were being printed) indicating that storm related products could not be returned;3. No where on the printed receipt did it state that generators could not be returned. That is to say, the store may have a policy about not accepting for return any storm items, but that policy was1. not posted for the customer to be able to make an informed purchase; and 2. not communicated by the employee (who actually communicated the opposite; that a generator could be returned).A customer has a basic right to correct information before making a purchase. If customer asks an employee a direct question that directly affects a decision on whether or not to purchase something a good business should stand by that. Moreover, if there is a policy but it is not clearly posted, how is a customer supposed to make an informed decision about a purchase?B. MotivationThe business continues to assert that they are not a rental business and that because I purchased a generator and then did not use it that is somehow deceptive. Millions of transactions are conducted every day in this country by customers who decide not to use an item purchased. I was told that if the box was not opened I could return an item without question. Since when do businesses start to judge motivation of customers as an evaluator of whether or not a product should allowed to be returned.C. ResolutionI continue to reiterate my respect for this business as a local business. I have used them in the past for previous purchases and they have always provided excellent, informed, and knowledgeable service. I proposed two possible resolutions. 1. Allow me to return for refund the unopened generator, given that I was provided with false information and could not have known the store policy since it was not posted OR 2. If they do not want the generator back because they fear not being able to sell it provide me with store credit towards purchase of another item at the store. This would mean not only that the full cost of the generator would remain on me but that I would also be committing to purchasing another item at their store as a show of good faith if the store is willing to provide some credit. Basically, I proposed a full refund for return of the unopened generator (close to [redacted] which they could then try to resell OR I proposed keeping the generator and getting a [redacted] credit towards an additional item at the store (basically, I would have paid [redacted] for the generator, but would get a credit towards a new purchase for [redacted] essentially sharing the burden of this affair with the store with each of us having to shell out something). The store's unwillingness to consider either option, or even to come back with a counterproposal as a sign of good faith says quite a bit about their opinion of their customers, given that it has already admitted that its employee provided erroneous information and did not have its policy posted.I continue to remain hopeful that an amicable solution can be resolved for what otherwise has been a very strong local business. Final [redacted] Response I read Mr. [redacted]'s reply, and it is nothing more than a restatement of the original, just in a different form. He seems totally unwilling to move from his position or compromise in any form. Mr. [redacted] must come to the realization that as a business we have costs and expenses, and we do not make anything by lending out goods for free when someone wants to have them on hand just in case something happens. We sold the items to Mr.[redacted] in good faith, not having any knowledge of his plan to return them, if it turned out that he did not need them. By doing so, we were unable to provide a willing customer the same item, which we did have calls for on that day. If Mr. [redacted] was so inclined, he should have incurred some cost of his own and rented a generator for the day, and not try and push those costs off on to us. We do not rent items, we only sell them. The only exception we have to that is a carpet cleaner rental program we have with Bissell. When and if Mr. [redacted] is willing to see and admit to himself that we have cost associated with the sale of this item, and he is willing to cover those cost, (a restocking fee). Then, maybe, a compromise of some sort can be reached.Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the [redacted].)It is indeed ironic that the business in question accuses the customer of "restatement of the original" when in fact it is the business which has restated its position again now for a third time (once in person when I came into the store, and now twice in person). Since the very beginning, the store has insisted (and does again in its latest reply) that this dispute is entirely the fault of the customer. Not once has it addressed the issues at hand in any way that would acknowledge its own liability: 1. An employee provided erroneous information to a customer about the return policy. Had I been provided with the correct information, I would not have purchased the item; 2. there was no other way for the customer to know about the return policy because the store admits that it was not yet posted as a policy since signs were not posted until after the purchase. In its insistence that they are not a rental store, this store is distinguishing itself from every other business that sells products in [redacted] by insisting that it has a right to determine the motivation of a customer in purchasing a product, and then to deny the right of a customer to return an item based on that determination. We would be in complete agreement were signs clearly posted that any generator purchased before a storm were not returnable and were the employee of the store had clearly stated that fact. Neither one of these conditions were met. The stores position seems to be that the customer ought to have been a mind-reader and known this policy, even though it was not communicated to him, even when he asked an employee directly above it. It is furthermore ironic that the business suggests that it is first up to me to "see and admit to myself" that they have costs associated with the sale of this item. Not only have I recognized this from the beginning, but it was me who initially suggested that if they will not take back the product then they should at least provide some form of store credit as a gesture of the fact that they have engaged in a business practice that is less than ethical. An upstanding business would 1. "admit to itself" (to use the words of the business) that it is its responsibility to admit to its own responsibility if an employee tells a customer that a product is returnable when directly asked such a question. It is not the customer's fault that the employee was wrong; 2. "Admit to itself" that if there are no signs posted about the non-returnability of items there is no way for such information to be known to a customer. From the very beginning I have sought an amicable solution to this issue. I reported this to Revdex.com rather than going to small-claims court or resorting to talking about this in any public forum that might affect the reputation of a business that in all my other encounters I have had nothing but excellent, courteous service from. Why the business is insisting on a zero-sum solution in which the customer is entirely wrong and it is entirely right, when the facts demonstrate that the customer was given - both explicitly and implicitly - false information about the returnability of the product is curious. So we are left with the following. The business seems to want me to admit and take full responsibility for this transaction without taking any responsibility upon itself for misleading a consumer. As far as I can tell, this is the logic of the business: A customer goes to a local menswear store to purchase a raincoat before a big storm. He ends up not using the coat. Before buying the coat he looks around and there are no signs that say "No return today on raincoats". Then he approaches an employee and asks if the raincoat can be returned if it is not used. The salesperson say "of course, no problem". It turns out that the salesperson was misinformed, but naturally the customer doesn't know this. Under what circumstances would a store then argue with the customer and say: You bought a raincoat because you thought it would rain. It didn't rain and you did not wear it. So we aren't taking it back because we don't rent raincoats. And you need to recognize that we have a cost of doing business and because you bought the coat we could not sell it to someone else. The customer would rightly say: but I asked an employee whether it could be returned if it was not unwrapped. He told me it could be. And there were no signs posted that said it was a final purchase..." The business then replies to that: Too bad. Our employee was wrong. Our signs weren't yet posted. But that's the cost of doing business with us. Recognize your responsibility for buying a coat before a storm. You are completely responsible. We are not because we have costs. Perhaps this sounds reasonable in the business's mind, but every time it is repeated it sounds more insulting to the consumer. It has now taken three backs-and-forths for the business to even come up with the idea of a restocking fee in order to take back the item, but it has not yet proposed what that restocking fee might be for me to be able to determine whether it is reasonable. The total cost of this purchase was approx [redacted] (generator for [redacted] plus extension cord for [redacted] and oil that the employee assisted with for [redacted] plus tax). I remain available should the business wish to contact me. In fact, I would love to be able to return to them to purchase a BBQ, since they sold me an excellent one years ago that has now run its course. In every interaction with the owner and Revdex.com I have explained that I believe they are an important local business, one that I have used in the past and would like to be able to continue to use in the future if, as a consumer, I could at least be treated with a small degree of respect, or at least the same respect with which I hold them. I am happy to pay a restocking fee of [redacted] plus a pledge to purchase a bbq from them come spring as a sign of my good faith if they are willing to take back these items. However, I do not think it is reasonable for me to have to pay more than that to return an item that I was explicitly told I could return to begin with, prior to purchasing it.