Best Buy bag check article
Basically, the guy feels that, since the receipt check at the door is technically voluntary in nature, he shouldn't have to put up with it.
Then he goes and buys expensive electronics components and acts all offended when Best Buy want to make sure he paid for them.
While the Best Buy employees did overreactand apparantly violated store policy when he refused to produce his receipt, the guy's still a jerk. 10 seconds of receipt check would have saved him quite a lot of headache. That is, unless his hobby is complaing.
I think the Best Buy employee on the second page summed things up pretty well.
X
I've worked in retail and I will agree the "customer" will always be there to lie, cheat, and even steal their way to a better deal. On the bright side, where I worked we seemed to have more guests than "customers".
X
It was a very similar situation, though he was buying a small refridgerator (the small dorm room type) and didn't want to show his receipt when he left.
In the end, I think that Best Buy did call the police, and Liddy explained to the police that Best Buy had no right to search him (there was no sign posted at the door saying that they will examine receipts when you leave), and the police let him go on (without showing his receipt, if I remember right).
The guy in the story was a little abrasive, but was within his rights. I show my receipt when asked, but there is never more than one person ahead of me. As for the few times I go to Sam's Club (a warehouse club that checks receipts for everybody when you leave), I amost always put the receipt in my mouth (and give it a lick), or, while they are looking, scractch my crotch or butt(inside my pants), with receipt in hand, before handing it to the door lackey. But I do show it to them.
As for the few times I go to Sam's Club (a warehouse club that checks receipts for everybody when you leave), I amost always put the receipt in my mouth (and give it a lick), or, while they are looking, scractch my crotch or butt(inside my pants), with receipt in hand, before handing it to the door lackey. But I do show it to them.
My favorite quote from that article has got to be in the response from the Best Buy employee: "That may be simplifying things a bit, but it illustrates the fact that "the customer" will put up with a lot to save 10% How else do you explain the continued existence of Kmart?" Well, maybe not too much longer.
Why punish the clerk like that? They didn't instigate the policy...they're just doing their job and don't deserve that kind of abuse.
I punish the help like that to make their work experience at Sam's club miserable, not because of who they are, but because of who their employer is. For what it's worth, I'm one of the people who will make small talk with the Wal-Mart greeter when I go there.
The other interesting thing about Sam's Club, at least in Illinois, is that they cannot require that you be a member to buy alcohol, and they cannot charge an upcharge. But when I go to checkout, they ask me for my club card, I tell them that I don't have one but I am buying alcohol, they tell me sorry, you have to be a member, I tell them that I don't, please call a manager, etc etc (but I've only done this a couple of times). Which reminds me, I need some more red wine at home, I'll stop by on my way home.
Also, for the licking the receipt / butt rubbing thing, I've only done that maybe five times, I rarely go there (because I'm not a member).
Last edited by Heat; 01-11-02 at 03:44 PM.
Why punish the clerk like that? They didn't instigate the policy...they're just doing their job and don't deserve that kind of abuse.
I have always gotten a real kicl out of the "spottiness" of Best Buy's doorchecks. On several occassions the cashier did not de-activate the sensor tag, and I have set off the alarm. The guy at the door would just ask "DVD?" With a nod he sent me on the way without checking anything.
Yeah, but you could have 10 XP 2000+ chips (ok, maybe not 10, but you get my point.
When we moved to Springfield, my wife became a nurse, and she was told that she could get scrubs there. So we called and asked about the guest pass, or whatever they were calling it. They at first said sure, then when we showed up we were told that they had never done any such thing. With a little griping, they did allow us to shop there "Just this once." They really weren't happy when we had to return them (I don't know who does their sizing, but a Large would have fit the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons). It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who does the receipt-lick around here.
I have never been overly impressed with Sam's pricing. I have never seen anything cheap enough to justify paying to shop there.
I would assume by his story that he has been to Best Buy previous to this visit. If he did not like their policy of checking recipts, he should have shopped elsewhere.
You could walk out of Kmart with whatever you wanted and no one would notice. You could have no bags or packages in your hand and set off an inventory alarm (indicating concealed merchandise), and no one would even look in your direction. I have seen this happen plenty of times at the local store.
If that makes you feel like you are doing something, great. To me it sounds pretty childish and demeaning.
Last edited by DVDKrayzie; 01-13-02 at 03:14 AM.
The basic question here is: Does the store have the right to demand to see the receipt before a customer can leave? The answer is clearly NO.
All the other issues are just smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter that it will only take 5 seconds. It doesn't matter how much the store claims they are losing to shoplifting. If you don't want to submit to the procedure, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
If a cop stops you and asks if he can search your car, you can say NO. If he has probable cause and orders you to allow a search, well then, he can do that.
I think at one of those membership clubs you may be SOL if one of their membership rules is that you allow them to do a confirmation check at the door.
And, had I been that customer, I would have called the police. He was illegally detained by the stunt with the pickup truck.
Most of us respect our privacy enough and value our civil liberties to understand that an illegal search by a police officer is a REALLY bad thing...Not some guy who doesn't even look at your bag and highlights your receipt. You just showed Best Buy what you purchased when you went up to the counter 3 seconds before hand..so it isn't like you have something to hide.
Secondly (or thirdly), no one is here arguing that you don't have a right to walk out of the store without a receipt. I just get pissed off when people act like Best Buy (or any other store) is ripping away at our civil liberties when they are not.
Finally, the tone in which this guy wrote leads me to believe that he was either (a) exaggerting the illegal detention or (b) making it up. Answer this to me: Why if he is so set on proving his right, would he NOT CALL the POLICE if the "detention" really occurred.
I think this topic has been covered quite a bit here. I side with the guy in the story.
The basic question here is: Does the store have the right to demand to see the receipt before a customer can leave? The answer is clearly NO.
All the other issues are just smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter that it will only take 5 seconds. It doesn't matter how much the store claims they are losing to shoplifting. If you don't want to submit to the procedure, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
If a cop stops you and asks if he can search your car, you can say NO. If he has probable cause and orders you to allow a search, well then, he can do that.
I think at one of those membership clubs you may be SOL if one of their membership rules is that you allow them to do a confirmation check at the door.
And, had I been that customer, I would have called the police. He was illegally detained by the stunt with the pickup truck.
The moment you pay for the stuff at the register it is yours. Period. If they have probable cause to stop you, like they suspect that you have stollen something, fine. But you better be right.
I submit to the 5 second check because I dont want the hastle.
But it is a bunch of BS.
I agree...
The moment you pay for the stuff at the register it is yours. Period. If they have probable cause to stop you, like they suspect that you have stollen something, fine. But you better be right.
I submit to the 5 second check because I dont want the hastle.
But it is a bunch of BS.
I think this topic has been covered quite a bit here. I side with the guy in the story.
The basic question here is: Does the store have the right to demand to see the receipt before a customer can leave? The answer is clearly NO.
I was told by a Detective that in order for the store to legally inspect your bag, demand a receipt, lay hands on you (i.e., even touch you), or detain you, they had to have BEYOND a reasonable belief that you were trying to walk off with something. The fact that you were walking out of the store with product in your arms is not enough to demand a receipt. They had to have some solid reason to suspect that you were leaving with unpaid itemS. The only area where they had any leeway at all was if you had been looking at items that could VERY EASILY be slipped into your pocket and that item was missing. Otherwise, they needed to SEE YOU DO IT.
CompUSA created MAJOR headaches for themselves in MA with their strongarm tactics......
Yeah, well see...who really cares if they check your bag. Your analogy with a police officer searching your stuff is complete hyperbole.
Most of us respect our privacy enough and value our civil liberties to understand that an illegal search by a police officer is a REALLY bad thing...Not some guy who doesn't even look at your bag and highlights your receipt. You just showed Best Buy what you purchased when you went up to the counter 3 seconds before hand..so it isn't like you have something to hide.
Secondly (or thirdly), no one is here arguing that you don't have a right to walk out of the store without a receipt. I just get pissed off when people act like Best Buy (or any other store) is ripping away at our civil liberties when they are not.
Finally, the tone in which this guy wrote leads me to believe that he was either (a) exaggerting the illegal detention or (b) making it up. Answer this to me: Why if he is so set on proving his right, would he NOT CALL the POLICE if the "detention" really occurred.
Are you so sure that they are not "ripping away at our civil liberties"? I think they are. If they are not, why would anyone object to having their bags searched and receipt checked, if it only takes a couple of seconds? And before anyone jumps down my throat about getting searched before boarding an airplane or going to a public event, that is a different matter because it involves public safety.
Once it becomes acceptable for stores to do this, what's next? Will it become commonplace for everyone leaving the store to get patted down? Why not, it will only take a couple of seconds. If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't object, right?
As to why the author chose not to call the police, only he knows. I would speculate that he didn't want any further hassle, or felt that while there was an illegal detainment that the police wouldn't see it that way, or maybe he had unpaid parking tickets. I think he was more concerned about this from a civil point of view rather than a criminal point of view.
A store has every right to ASK to see my receipt. I have every right to say NO.
Seems to me that this is a massive over reaction. Anyone who was really interested in saving time would not have done this. The employees may not have handled it entirely properly, but to me his actions were more than a little suspicious. If his time is so much more important than everyone else's in line let him just be an A$$ and cut in front of the line. Also, sounds to me like this would be a great gimmick if you had 2 people. Have the first one buy something and make an A$$ of himself and tie up the check point personnel, meanwhile the second person walks out with whatever. Just my opinions, but apparently from the quoted statement above, his article is only based on his opinions and not actual law.