Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to attempt to swap a book at Waterstones with no receipt?

78 replies

WestleyAndButtockUp · 27/12/2011 07:57

I got two identical (new) books for Christmas. Will Waterstones take one of them and swap it for the next book in the series? All the same price.

Fairly sure both relatives got them from Amazon.

Is this unreasonable?

OP posts:
callmemrs · 28/12/2011 10:04

Chandon is absolutely correct though, that if you take this situation to its logical conclusion, the shop would go under. Any shop runs on the basis of buying in the stock it chooses, at the price it agrees to pay, and on selling on that stock for a profit.
I don't think anyone is denying that the shop has the right to refuse an exchange- of course they do. However, the point here is that the op wasn't giving the full facts. She was taking in an item and pretending it was purchased from that shop when in fact it hadn't been- thereby denying the shop the chance to decide whether to exchange or not based on the full facts.

PinkPepper · 28/12/2011 10:05

well when I was a bit younger I won a book in a competition, I didn't want it so took it to whsmith and they changed it fine. Maybe that makes me a bad person Confused but as long as they've sold a copy of that book, it's the same as that person bringing that copy back. Almost. Was a brand new book so not like not popular or anything, they were more than happy to swap it

RachelHRD · 28/12/2011 10:06

LoL Jennifer glad I didn't disappoint Hmm I agree that purposefully lying about it is a different matter.

DebiTheScot · 28/12/2011 10:12

One turned out to be from Waterstones so you did nothing wrong. It makes no difference which one it was.

I took a duplicate book into Waterstones last year and told them I didn't know if they could help but I had 2 copies but didn't know where they were bought and was there anything I could do? They said as long as it was in their system I could exchange it. I was honest and they didn't have a problem with it.

RachelHRD · 28/12/2011 10:14

Can I reiterate the basic maths here - the store exchanges book A retail price #14 for book B cost price #7 then sells book A for #14 - they will make a profit of #7 because they bought book B at cost - so no the store will not lose money or go under.....

thetasigmamum · 28/12/2011 10:15

I think it's very interesting that when some posters a advocating the morally correct course of action (essentially not lying either by omission or commission) other posters are referring to this as 'your perspectives'. The right thing to do is not a 'perspective'!

thetasigmamum · 28/12/2011 10:23

Rachel no, that's not correct. They have an extra copy of book A which they may not sell. They have given away book B thus forgoing its markup. At this point, they have a realised loss of say £7 and extra possibly unwanted stock. At sale time. It may be that they then sell the unwanted stock for full price but that is not a given. For them to realise a profit of £7 they will need to sell one extra copy of book A than they otherwise would have done. I don't know how likely that is but there are very few books which sell out their printing runs. So I'm thinking quite unlikely.

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 10:25

Rachel- a shop operates on the basis that it chooses what stock to buy in. If book A sells at the same price which book B would have sold for (if book B had been sold rather than exchanged) then yes, I think we all understand the basic maths!

The points people are making is that a) by not giving the shop the full facts, they are not able to make the business decision on whether to exchange based on full facts
And b) if you take this to its logical conclusion (ie it's ok to take items to stores where they were not purchased to try to get another item you want) then shops would go under. It is a practice which may the shop may be able to 'carry' on a small scale but not if too many people do it.

Those are the reasons people are questioning what the op did

mrsmaltesers · 28/12/2011 10:36

I once managed it in waterstones Only because my dad had bought me a grumpy old men book. Wtf???? It had des lynam on the cover. I presented a pretty good casae that why the fcck would i want a book with des lynam on the cover/grumpy men. The shop lady laughed (pityingly i think) and let me swap.

RachelHRD · 28/12/2011 10:41

No they aren't the only reasons people are questioning the OP - some were assuming that they were exchanging Book A for the same cost as Book B thereby forgoing a profit - I am pointing out that this is not the case. Yes there is a risk that they might not sell Book A but probably the same risk as Book B and a risk that all bookshops take when stock ordering.

I agree that it is wrong to lie but if a shop is happy to exchange without receipt then that is their choice and acceptance of the above facts. Not all stores will do this - I tried to exchange a top at H&M without receipt and they would only agree to it if I took a copy of my bank statement in to confirm the purchase!! I wasn't asking for a refund and it was clear that the tagged item was their current stock but they made it clear that they would only exchange on that basis and that they were making an exception by doing so.

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 10:49

Rachel- its not basic maths which is the issue. It's basic understanding of retail. Shops decide on their own risk when ordering stock and deciding on the retail price. A customer coming in and wanting an exchange without providing the honest facts about the item is depriving the shop of the chance to make their own 'risk' decisions. Well, not depriving them technically, because the shop is not obliged to exchange, but the intention of the op was to mislead the store.

You seem to be operating on the basis that it's your right, as customer, to decide that item A = same monetary value as item B. You are totally reducing the issue to a basic level of maths and ignoring all the other complexities of running a business!!

Original poster
WestleyAndButtockUp · 28/12/2011 10:50

JenniferEight says, "However to try and make the shop think it came from there when you know full well it didn't is wrong. As is lying by omission."

That might be a reference to me saying, "Neither they nor I mentioned where it might have been bought." TBH, I'm not sure why I wrote that on this thread.

In actual fact, with my incident (partly because of this thread) I showed the Waterstones' person both identical pristine books and told them the facts: that one of them had been bought from Amazon, and one from Waterstones', but I didn't know which one.

I have been wondering why I wrote "Neither they nor I mentioned where it might have been bought." I THINK it was because I was trying to simplify what I thought the discussion was about: the economic issue, because under the economic argument doesn't matter where it came from.

Whereas, of course, this discussion is about two different issues: the economic issue AND the intention issue.

The intention argument is all about morality, which IS about where the book came from, and lying with intention, and lying by omission.

In attempting to clarify one issue I blurred the lines of the other. Ultimately it doesn't matter though, because my anecdote is just one of thousands, and it's still allowed both tracks to be aired.

OP posts:
Original poster
WestleyAndButtockUp · 28/12/2011 10:54

And just for extra clarification, for those who haven't read the full thread:

After I wrote my OP about thinking both books had come from Amazon, I discovered from my relative that ONE of them had indeed come from Waterstones'.

OP posts:
RachelHRD · 28/12/2011 10:58

Read my last post callmers - the shop is not obliged to exchange without refund if they chose to do so then it is an acceptance of risk that they might not sell book A.

I have run my own business in the past so I am well aware of the complexities and as I have pointed out on a basic level they are not necessarily losing out on the option of making a profit and if they do not want to accept the risk of not reselling Book A they can have a policy to not exchange without receipt as H&M does. Their choice as it is when they order stock and take the risk of it not selling.

I am not advocating lying I am just pointing out that they are not automatically forgoing profit and they have a choice of whether or not to do it....

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 11:07

Yes Rachel- the shop has a choice- we are all aware of that. It is not a true choice if they are not in Possession of full facts though! It's really that simple!
Op was asking if it was reasonable to go in and not state that the books were from waterstones. Other People said 'no, tell them, they can make a decision based on full facts'.

(op has since said actually one book did come from waterstones and has amended the info given in original

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 11:09

Sorry - posted too soon there. Op originally said she wanted to go in and withhold the info that she believed the books were purchased elsewhere. Other posters have said no, that's not ok. Fine to be honest and ask, not ok to withhold facts.
Op has since amended the original post anyway

BertieBotts · 28/12/2011 11:17

I used to work in a bookshop and this wouldn't have been a problem at all, provided the book was one we stocked and was in mint brand-new condition. I think there is extra lenience on returns after Christmas as well - we used to accept receipts with dates back to 1 November up until the end of January (usually 30 day limit), for example. They're not going to give you cash, but store credit, so they're not losing out at all considering they will sell that book for the same amount. In fact they may end up gaining because if the store credit never gets spent, it is simply reabsorbed.

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 11:23

Bertie- you are describing a situation where the shop is deciding on the risk factors - and indeed as you say, they may make the judgement that a credit note won't be spent and then the shop comes out of it better. But again, this emphasises the point that the shop is in control- they are looking at the receipts to check the purchase was made, and then making a judgement call about exchanging. A customer attempting to mislead the shop is a different issue.

BertieBotts · 28/12/2011 12:18

I don't think it matters where the book came from in the first place, though. I don't think the shop would care, as long as it's one they stock and not damaged. Misleading is a different issue, yes, but I think it's completely irrelevant.

callmemrs · 28/12/2011 12:24

But it's up to the shop keeper whether it matters.
In some cases the exchange may make no difference, profit or loss, to the shop. But the point is, it's not the customers remit to decide that.

JenniferEight · 28/12/2011 12:28

I would also think that the next person to bring in the same book might NOT be able to exchange it because it would no longer be showing as recently sold on their system. So it's a cheek really. Even if they were the ones that bought it recently from that very same shop.

So that's not fair.

JenniferEight · 30/12/2011 15:16

Right.

I actually went in Waterstones today and as we were buying some board games, I mentioned the argument to the chap behind the till.

He laughed disdainfully at the notion that it was Waterstones' policy to accept returns from amazon. I said, you would lose money, wouldn't you, and he said Yes, and carried on shaking his head and laughing in a rather bitter manner.

See? Told you Smile

BalloonSlayer · 30/12/2011 15:25

You've made me feel guilty now Jennifer.

I have a kindle so won't be buying any more paper books. I went into Waterstones to browse the other day, to see if I could see anything I wanted to read so I could go home and order it on my kindle.

That's bad, isn't it?

JenniferEight · 30/12/2011 15:26

No BS I think it's a natural progression...there will always be people who prefer proper books. It's Ok to browse places and buy elsewhere, though strictly it shouldn't be but then things have really changed and I bet the people who own Waterstones have a huge part in the kindle business too.

Maybe.

OldLadyKnowsSantaClaus · 30/12/2011 16:23

But Jennifer, it wasn't a "return from Amazon". Yes, had op gone in and returned the book for a refund, Waterstones would be down in the deal. But Waterstones exchanged one £14 book (which had been bought there) for another £14 book, no problems.

Swipe left for the next trending thread