Fredrick's Hallmark

Revdex.com:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The response neglected to address three critical facts in support of my complaint.

First, the store accepted return of boxed Christmas cards from other customers on the date in question. I do not know why my return of boxed Christmas cards would not be processed in the same manner. The same sales person attempted to make my return, but had difficulty reading the receipt. At that point, another employee came over and refused the return. The initial sales person had no knowledge about the return policy. If such a policy was actually in place, it is odd that all staff would not be aware of the policy.

Second, when the cards were purchased, they were rung up incorrectly by the scanner. That in and of itself suggests, at worst, deceptive business practices--and, at best, sloppy business practices. The cards needed to be re-rung when they were purchased. However, I do not know why they would be deemed non-refundable (or "non-fundable" as referenced in the store's response to my complaint). The sales associate who refused to process the return indicated that the cards had been sold at an incorrect price, and noted that the cards had been purchased for less money than should have been charged. If indeed the cards were sold at an incorrect price, they were not sale cards, and therefore, any arguments about their "non-fundable" status by the store would be irrelevant, unless the store is saying that all Christmas cards were "non-fundable".

Third, although reference is made to a sign on the register, I did not see the sign (and the store accepted the return of the customer in front of me). I question whether the sign existed at the time of the return and what the sign actually said. The sales receipt, which could have easily contained qualifying language limiting returns, said nothing about the merchandise being non-returnable. Signs limiting the return of the cards do not appear to have been posted where the cards were displayed.

I did destroy the cards in the store. (The response to my complaint references that I destroyed a card: that is inaccurate--I purchased several boxes of holiday cards.) I had no need for them, which is why they were being returned. The fact that the cards were destroyed is irrelevant. I did not throw the cards in an employee's face, and if video indeed exists, video will confirm that the store is not being truthful. I did not call the store, and that component of the store's response is also inaccurate.

Finally, the store's threat of contacting the police is inappropriate and without merit. The store is a public place, and I have committed no crime. The threat of calling the police solidifies the unfairness of how I was treated. It is proof that the store has violated State and Federal public accommodation laws, in that it treated female customers differently than male customers and is unwilling to hold out a public premises without discriminating against who is allowed to frequent those premises. The threatened police intervention and disparate treatment that I received is under the State of Wisconsin and Federal Equal Rights Division's jurisdiction. However, the Store's comment concerning police intervention is telling, especially in light of the circumstances above, that there was no legitimate business motive in not accepting my return.

Regards