Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands for deals, including promoted items.
Forum Thread

I was just CHARGED for trying on a pair of shoes. UPDATE ON POST #431

3,281 756 June 22, 2007 at 12:00 PM in Chat
Okay so today I went into a running store to try on some shoes. I'm in the very BEGINNING of my search for new shoes and I just wanted to try on a few brands that were new to me and see if anything was going on with my foot. So I go into this store, the kid asks me if I'd ever been there before.. I said NO.. I said I was looking for shoes.. he says okay great and asks me to take walk in front of him for him to look at my stride/ gate. I do, it takes 2 minutes for him to determine that I'm mostly neutral/ slight overpronator. I try on TWO pairs of shoes. I tell him okay great, I'm going to look around, I might come back. I don't know. I don't know and I don't BS, its as simple as that. I might come back I might not for the shoes. I'm an informed shopper and I next to NEVER buy things on impulse. Then his attitude changed. He starts giving me this schpeel about how they're a high end running store and they take pride in fitting their customers with shoes and if I don't buy the shoes right then and there he was going to have to charge me $20 for the less than 10 minutes of time and two pairs of shoes I tried on. I asked him if he was freakin kidding me. The lady manager had to come over.. APPARENTLY, on the OTHER SIDE of the boxes of shoes he was stacking next to me was a sheet of laminated PAPER that said about this policy, in a not so very large font size. Okay so why did he NOT tell me about this when he asked me if I had ever been in the store? I clearly said no. Why did he let me walk in front of him and and spend the two minutes looking at my feet and not tell me this? I paid the $20 and left. And I know they talked about me when I left.. you could feel it in the air as I was paying. And I just know they were all like "Oh I hate when people do that.. " when in reality they should LOVE it.. $20 PURE PROFIT for under 10 minutes of time! They didn't tell me about this upfront and they stacked the shoes next to the piece of paper that said this. I couldn't even see it!
So I was thinking should I file a report with like BBB? I think $20 is a lot of money for merely trying on a pair of shoes and less than 10 minutes of time especially since I wasn't told about it upfront. I'm a girl and I've tried on my fair share of shoes in my lifetime and NEVER been charged for trying them on.

What do you guys think I should do? Nothing, something? I might just let it go.. but for right now I'm Mad

Sorry I meant to click the RANT icon not chat.. I don't know how that happened.
Add a Comment Sorry, this thread is closed.
Reply

569 Comments

View Forum Thread

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Mar 2005
Won Car from SD
> bubble2 11,418 Posts
1,384 Reputation
saint.
06-29-2007 at 08:17 AM.
06-29-2007 at 08:17 AM.
Quote from *JeanGrey* :
Why does everyone feel the need to point out that they wouldn't have paid?

Fact is, sure you might not have but no one knows what they'd do when they're caught off guard, and she was caught off guard. Let it go already.
Clap
Reply
Joined Aug 2006
lookout Deal, here I come
> bubble2 5,575 Posts
2,399 Reputation
cnct_agl
06-29-2007 at 08:25 AM.
06-29-2007 at 08:25 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
That's the thing about retail, especially "high end" stores, you can't assume anything.
"reasonable assumption" is the term that court would use in determining a case silly

Quote from paperboy05 :
No it wouldn't be bait-and-switch because they had the policy posted. If the correct policy was posted, then there was nothing false that led customers into their store.
wrong again.. re-read the thread, I don't feel like repeating myself/others here

Quote from paperboy05 :
No, that deals with unfair methods of competition. I didn't see anything in that page that reseambled what happened to OP. Maybe you could post what you thought?
nope... wrong again.. this law ALSO regulates anti-fraud.. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, but a lawyer could certainly argue for it.. Why? because the FTC considers charging for a service.. after performing said service.. when the customer did not agree to any charge before the service was rendered.. to.. be.. fraud.. If you're not used to reading law (as you seem to be), I can see how you would make that mistake though.. so.. here are 2 cases the FTC brought to telephone companies, under the statute that I quoted, for charging for a service that the customer didn't order.. just to show that the statute is broader that a casual reader might first assume

"On October 2, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court against Integretel and its subsidiary, eBillit, charging that the companies violated federal anti-fraud laws, specifically, 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a). The lawsuit, Federal Trade Commission v. Verity International, LTD, et al., 00 Civ. 7422 (LAK), sued Integretel and eBillit for their role in an illegal scheme misusing the international telephone billing system to charge consumers for "videotext" services -- internet-based adult entertainment -- that the consumers never purchased or authorized".

"On June 28, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit in a Pennsylvania federal court, Federal Trade Commission v. Mercury Marketing of Delaware, et al., 00 Civ. 3281 (CSG), alleging that Mercury and its President Neal D. Saferstein, misrepresented to consumers that they were legally obligated to pay for Web site services that the defendants charged to their telephone bills without authorization".


Quote from paperboy05 :
What do you think that would do?
laugh out loud are you serious ???? I'm starting to think you're just trying to push everyone's buttons laugh out loud If that's the case, then you got me laugh out loud
Quote from *JeanGrey* :
Why does everyone feel the need to point out that they wouldn't have paid?

Fact is, sure you might not have but no one knows what they'd do when they're caught off guard, and she was caught off guard. Let it go already.
worship woulda - shoulda - coulda
Reply
Last edited by cnct_agl June 29, 2007 at 08:57 AM.
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
06-29-2007 at 09:15 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:15 AM.
Quote from cnct_agl :
"reasonable assumption" is the term that court would use in determining a case silly
Sorry.


Quote :
wrong again.. re-read the thread, I don't feel like repeating myself/others here
So what did they say that was false that led this customer to their store, in order for it to be bait-and-switch?


Quote :
nope... wrong again.. this law ALSO regulates anti-fraud.. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, but a lawyer could certainly argue for it.. Why? because the FTC considers charging for a service.. after performing said service.. when the customer did not agree to it.. to.. be.. fraud.. If you're not used to reading law (as you seem to be), I can see how you would make that mistake though.. so.. here are 2 cases the FTC brought to telephone companies, under the statute that I quoted, for charging for a service that the customer didn't order.. just to show that the statute is broader that a casual reader might first assume
Except she did agree to the service.

P.S. Why the condesending, elitest tone? Is that really necessary here?

Quote :
laugh out loud are you serious ???? I'm starting to think you're just trying to push everyone's buttons laugh out loud
What would the opinion of a shoe company do for a credit card's investigation of a chargeback?
Reply
Joined Jan 2005
Pants down, always
> bubble2 11,702 Posts
1,770 Reputation
stimpy
06-29-2007 at 09:18 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:18 AM.
Quote from *JeanGrey* :
Why does everyone feel the need to point out that they wouldn't have paid?

Fact is, sure you might not have but no one knows what they'd do when they're caught off guard, and she was caught off guard. Let it go already.
They can't catch you off guard if you just stay prepared.
Reply
Joined Aug 2006
lookout Deal, here I come
> bubble2 5,575 Posts
2,399 Reputation
cnct_agl
06-29-2007 at 09:26 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:26 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
So what did they say that was false that led this customer to their store, in order for it to be bait-and-switch?
she went into the store to buy a pair of shoes and use the usual free customer help that most other stores provide..

Quote from paperboy05 :
Except she did agree to the service.
No. She did not agree to a "fee-based" service.. It's like if you went into a grocery store to buy groceries.. you put your items on the counter from your cart and the cashier scans them.. when he/she gives you the total owed, he/she tells you that the store also charges a $20 for having him/her scan the items for you. You say that you won't buy the groceries then.. He/she says that you will still owe the $20 for scanning the items, whether or not you still decide to buy the groceries.. They have little a sign posting this policy on all their self-serve kiosks.. You never saw those signs, since you chose not to use the self-serve kiosks. In this case, you didn't agree to a fee-based service, you were expecting the typical free service.. and, since the industry norm is not to charge for the service of the cashier scanning your items, you had a reasonable assumption that there would be no fee.

Quote from paperboy05 :
P.S. Why the condesending, elitest tone? Is that really necessary here?
I'm not being condesending, I'm simply disagreeing with you. No need for the personal attack.
Reply
Last edited by cnct_agl June 29, 2007 at 09:33 AM.
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
06-29-2007 at 09:33 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:33 AM.
Quote from cnct_agl :
she went into the store to buy a pair of shoes and use the usual free customer help that most other stores provide..
Who decides this though? Perhaps that store has always had pay-for-service and their previous customers know this. If I eat at McDonalds all my life and then go to Red Lobster, do I have a reasonable assumption that I don't have to tip?

Quote :
No. She did not agree to a "fee-based" service.. It's like if you went into a grocery store to buy groceries.. you put your items on the counter from your cart and the cashier scans them.. when he/she gives you the total owed, he/she tells you that the store also charges a $20 for having him/her scan the items for you. They have little a sign posting this policy on all their self-serve kiosks.. never saw those signs, since you chose not to use the self-serve kiosks. In this case, you didn't agree to a fee-based service, you were expecting the typical free service.. and, since the industry norm is not to charge for the service of the cashier scanning your items, you had a reasonable assumption that there would be no fee.
So, are all expectations lawful? If I expect them to carry out my groceries and they don't, can I sue because I expected them to?

If a mechanic asks if you want your breaks checked and your reply "yes" and he charges you, can you sue him because you expected it to be free?

Quote :
I'm not being condesending, I'm simply disagreeing with you. No need for the personal attack.
You're right, this:

Quote :
I don't feel like repeating myself/others here
and this:
Quote :
If you're not used to reading law (as you seem to be), I can see how you would make that mistake though.. so..
is just "disagreeing" Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)
Reply
Last edited by paperboy05 June 29, 2007 at 09:35 AM.
Joined Aug 2006
lookout Deal, here I come
> bubble2 5,575 Posts
2,399 Reputation
cnct_agl
06-29-2007 at 09:41 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:41 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
You're right, this:
and this:
is just "disagreeing" Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)
that's right Smilie

I even took the time to look up examples, and find different ways to explain what I was saying you.

I won't do that for you anymore, since you do not seem to appreciate the effort.
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2003
Can you see me now?
> bubble2 4,502 Posts
1,093 Reputation
hammondc
06-29-2007 at 09:44 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:44 AM.
Good job Phoebes. I hope you can assist in running this place into the ground. THey make a bad name for specialty run places. I know the one I go to locally is awesome. They are very patient and will spend all day with you i that's what it takes to get you into a pair of shoes.
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
06-29-2007 at 09:47 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:47 AM.
Quote from cnct_agl :
I even took the time to look up examples, and find different ways to explain what I was saying you.
Well it's too bad you can't explain things, even with examples (see how I'm just disagreeing with you).

See instead of trying to indirectly insult my intellegence, you could have come off your high-horse and answered my questions and responded in a meaningful manner. Then I might not have come across as so brash and argumentative.
Reply
Joined Sep 2006
L3: Novice
> bubble2 154 Posts
17 Reputation
lovasiyo
06-29-2007 at 09:48 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:48 AM.
You should sell your story to local news... atleast make some money out of this..
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
06-29-2007 at 09:48 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:48 AM.
Quote from hammondc :
Good job Phoebes. I hope you can assist in running this place into the ground. THey make a bad name for specialty run places. I know the one I go to locally is awesome. They are very patient and will spend all day with you i that's what it takes to get you into a pair of shoes.
I agree it gives other (albeit better) stores a bad name, but they must have some sort of customer base if they have two operating stores. Dontknow But I guess it could be all online sales.
Reply
Joined Aug 2006
lookout Deal, here I come
> bubble2 5,575 Posts
2,399 Reputation
cnct_agl
06-29-2007 at 09:52 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:52 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
Well it's too bad you can't explain things, even with examples (see how I'm just disagreeing with you).

See instead of trying to indirectly insult my intellegence, you could have come off your high-horse and answered my questions and responded in a meaningful manner. Then I might not have come across as so brash and argumentative.
just can't stop attacking, can you. ?

are we in a "last word" contest now laugh out loud
Reply
Joined Jun 2006
Finzz bit me!! :(
> bubble2 18,103 Posts
6,248 Reputation
Kristin
06-29-2007 at 09:55 AM.
06-29-2007 at 09:55 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
Well it's too bad you can't explain things, even with examples (see how I'm just disagreeing with you).

See instead of trying to indirectly insult my intellegence, you could have come off your high-horse and answered my questions and responded in a meaningful manner. Then I might not have come across as so brash and argumentative.
Can't you take this crap to PM? Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)

Offtopic
Reply
Joined Oct 2003
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 32,527 Posts
1,665 Reputation
arjunsr
06-29-2007 at 10:06 AM.
06-29-2007 at 10:06 AM.
Quote from cnct_agl :
agreed..
that's the wrong law.. we're not talking about a return or exchange, we're talking about being charged for a service that the customer had a reasonable assumption to be free (based on industry practices)..

She was shopping for a tangible item, and wanted only the normal type of free service expected with such shopping. She did not want a fee-based service.. essentially, they gave her the fee-based service without telling her of the fee.. that could fall under EITHER the bait and switch laws [labbb.org]..

OR it is an "unfair act" that falls under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a). [cornell.edu]..
i never made claims that this was the law i linked was the same.. i said specificially this is what is required for a return which has the same requirement.. posting something in plain sight. there are no concessions for the illiterate (which has been mentioned many times in the thread) where the employees must then inform them.

the case revovles on whehter it was in plain sight or not.. and liek a few people have been saying that can be hard to prove. one mans easy to see, is anothers little paper sign in the back.
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Aug 2006
lookout Deal, here I come
> bubble2 5,575 Posts
2,399 Reputation
cnct_agl
06-29-2007 at 10:13 AM.
06-29-2007 at 10:13 AM.
Quote from arjunsr :
i never made claims that this was the law i linked was the same.. i said specificially this is what is required for a return which has the same requirement.. posting something in plain sight. there are no concessions for the illiterate (which has been mentioned many times in the thread) where the employees must then inform them.
sorry Blush I see that you were just using it as an example

Quote from arjunsr :
the case revovles on whehter it was in plain sight or not.. and liek a few people have been saying that can be hard to prove. one mans easy to see, is anothers little paper sign in the back.
I still think that, in this case, there's more to it.. so I can't wait to here what that TV station comes up with !

It is certainly an interesting type of case nod
Reply
Page 21 of 38
Sorry, this thread is closed.
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.