Money Moral Dilemma: You tore it, should you pay?

pineapple

I'm sure fessing up is the right thing to do and I don't think they would make you pay - but I'll hold my hands up here and admit it's happened to me and I've been too much of a coward to say anything.

boliston

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

So Beatrice is liable because she negligently failed to remove her necklace.

You would have to ask is it normal practice to always remove a necklace before putting on a garment.

(As I'm not a necklace wearer I would not be able to advise)

relaxtwotribes

Moving the hypothetical situation along a little, Beatrice doesn't pay for the damaged top. She leaves the shop and enters another, trying on a different top. Should she now remove her necklace before doing so? If she doesn't and another rip happens, is she negligent now, even though it is not her normal practice to always remove a necklace before putting on a garment?

boliston

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

Moving the hypothetical situation along a little, Beatrice doesn't pay for the damaged top. She leaves the shop and enters another, trying on a different top. Should she now remove her necklace before doing so? If she doesn't and another rip happens, is she negligent now, even though it is not her normal practice to always remove a necklace before putting on a garment?

If the necklace was made of shark's teeth, then yes

ricard

I have heard previously that you should only have to pay the cost price of the damaged item. However, there is also the issue of ownership of the damaged goods. Surely if you have paid for them they would now belong to you.

If you tell the shop about the damage or they notice it and they ask you to pay, you could ask them for evidence of the cost price. As this would quite likely not be readily available they may well decide it is more trouble than it's worth to pursue the matter.

boliston

ricard wrote: »

I have heard previously that you should only have to pay the cost price of the damaged item. However, there is also the issue of ownership of the damaged goods. Surely if you have paid for them they would now belong to you.

If you tell the shop about the damage or they notice it and they ask you to pay, you could ask them for evidence of the cost price. As this would quite likely not be readily available they may well decide it is more trouble than it's worth to pursue the matter.

If ownership of the damaged goods was retained by the shop then they should only charge you the cost prices LESS the residual value of the goods on the basis that they could still be sold at a discount in many cases.

kickintheteeth

no way, i wouldn't pay. the garment proberly cost them a £1.00 to make (by a little kid!) and charge you £15.00 for it.
businesses do expect losses for returns, theft and faulty items.

relaxtwotribes

kickintheteeth wrote: »

no way, i wouldn't pay....
businesses do expect losses for returns, theft and faulty items.

Yes, businesses do that, because it's a fact of life. But are you so weak-willed as to allow your own moral standards and values to be determined by that fact.

They add a margin to the price of goods to allow for such things, therefore, the people who end up paying for Beatrice's top are all MSEs.

Several high profile retailers have gone bust (Woolworths, Zaavi, Ethel Austin) ending the jobs of many thousands. Would you enquire into the business's financial status before deciding whether to pay for the ripped top (rh.)? Don't bother answering.

sarstematt

Flickering_Ember wrote: »

Same here.

Legally, IF a store chooses to make you pay for damage, they can ONLY charge you the wholesale price of them item(s), NOT the retail price.

If the customer is allowed to pay wholesale price because she caused the damage, Would the dress then become hers?? She may start to make an habit of causing damage to get the prices cut.

cabusty

I agree with JuliaMarsh,im suprised how many people would own up&even want to pay. You've ripped it so what, get out of the shop & get on with your life!!