To think they should have reduced the price of the shoes in Tesco?

[Rewd]

A pair of childrens shoes from tesco, they were the last pair in my sons size and there was some damage to them.

By damage I mean messy glue around the joins and some black marks which looked like permanent marker on the white of the shoe which didn't budge when I tried to clean it with a wipe.

I took them to a till and explained that they were the last pair on the shelf in that size and asked if the store would consider selling them at a reduced rate because they're not in great condition. The woman on the till quite bluntly said no. I said no problem I'll put them back then.

As I turned to return them to the aisle she called over her supervisor and repeated my request to her, to which she said to me "well we're not going to reduce, there's not much wrong with them is there" in a really shitty tone.

Was I being unreasonable? As far as I was aware it was common practice to sell damaged stock at a reduced rate, and if not common practice then a gesture of good will.

Was I being unreasonable?

YANBU op. MN is really weird at the moment. Earlier it was apparently fine for a woman's dog to be off lead and chase 2 young girls down the street and back one into a corner and bark and growel at her. According to most on MN it was the 11 year old girls fault for running away and a non event .

I mean, I don’t necessarily think they should give you a discount (in answer to your thread title). It’s at their discretion really.

But I’ve often asked for discounts on marked/damaged items of clothing in Sainsbury’s. It’s totally normal for them to give you 10% off, as long as you accept the item is then non-returnable. It’s not a big deal or an unusual request (as some people are making out). It’s just a 10 second chat with someone on customer services, and I’ve never been refused.

I don’t buy clothing at Tesco so don’t know what their policy is. But I expect you’d have had more luck at customer services. The checkout assistant isn’t really the person to ask.

They shouldn't have been rude to you but as a retail assistant you get sick to the back teeth of customers asking for large discounts for tiny flaws. However that's no excuse for rudeness.

If the item was damaged or not in perfect condition then you were absolutely within your right to ask for a reduction in price. I thought this was standard practice.
Up to them if they give it to you.
Not nice they were so rude. You should have walked back over and told them you heard them being so rude.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

I'm baffled as to why anybody wouldn't just either think "It's only a little mark and they're cheap - I don't care" and buy them; or otherwise think "I'm not buying that pair - they've got defects" and walk on by.

Why would anyone have to pay full price for something that it is not in perfect condition? Even if still wearable/usable?

(of course, you do not have to buy them, but if you do want to buy them, or you need them and they are the last pair)

@Meraas

OP, I think you’re getting a hard time. I think you’re getting snippy replies because you made the cardinal British mistake of asking for something, whereas Americans have a ‘you don’t ask, you don’t get’ approach.

This 100%. Why is asking for something (totally reasonable) perceived as such a criminal offence?! PP are bending over backwards to justify their answers

"The shoes were not damaged"
"Why did you want to buy them?"
"How much discount did you expect"
"There is no chirpy way to say no"

Neither party is unreasonable imo. You were fine to ask, they were fine to say no. Might have been a bit rude but that's down to the oodles of cheeky feckers who mark things and try to get a discount! Just chalk it up as one of those days.

YWNBU to ask at all.
My mum has grabbed herself some bargains over the years by pointing out things like this, you will often see things sold for less with a tag on them explaining what is wrong with the item too, matalan often do this.

Not the same thing exactly but years ago my DS had a pair of school shoes from clarks and within 3 months they were falling apart at the seams on both shoes, my mum insisted we take them back despite not having a receipt to even prove they weren't years old.
I cringed handing over these well worn shoes while my mum went into detail about how she expected more from clarks shoes etc etc.

To my shock they didnt ask for a receipt, they apologised and handed over a brand new pair of shoes interestingly enough the new pair didn't fall apart so maybe clarks knew there was a problem and that's why they did it without fuss but my point is you never do know unless you ask these things

They also have the right to unfortunately say no though

@Whatthecluck your mum sounds fabulous

Ywnbu to ask - they weren't unreasonable in the the reply by the way it's written, however tone of voice accounts for a lot and we weren't there. Impossible to say they weren't rude on this basis. It irks me when people are rude to me for no reason, so I get it op.
Ps - they sell those exact shoes in primark for £6 ❤️ got them for my ds for nursery x

It's amazing how often people on Mumsnet are spoken to in A Tone or with a Rude Expression. I have a friend who's always seeing "dirty looks" from strangers that I don't see.

Usually find you get a better result with these things by asking if they have another pair through the back, as these are damaged, then see if they offer to reduce.

Why would anyone have to pay full price for something that it is not in perfect condition? Even if still wearable/usable?

(of course, you do not have to buy them, but if you do want to buy them, or you need them and they are the last pair)

Why should anybody feel obliged to sell goods for a lower price, if a potential buyer points out a perceived fault or blemish - especially if they are just an assistant and not authorised to change the price?

Also, if something is in very short supply, that fact in itself can increase its imputed value. It may well be that you could have had a better one or more choice had you arrived earlier - but you didn't do that. If there are several to choose from, you're free to select the one you believe to be 'best', but if there's only one left (and if you've already asked an appropriate/authorised person whether they might reduce the price, if you want to, and been declined), your only choice is to take it or leave it - and to get there earlier next time.

In fact, it could be argued that you've already had a financial benefit by holding on to your money until the last possible minute; people who bought weeks earlier, when there were more left to choose from, had their pick of the stock but might not be using it until the same day as you (e.g. first day of term for uniform, Christmas crackers etc.), but have not had the use of their money for those extra weeks, as you have - may even have been paying interest for their purchasing well ahead of time if they used a credit card.

Stop being so sensative and move on with your life.

good for you for asking - and good for you for walking away without them.
it's the shop's policy not to reduce.

tbh if I were desperate for shoes I would get them, shoes get dirty quickly and a small mark will become invisible soon.