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.

569 Comments

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
07-03-2007 at 11:19 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:19 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
Perhaps he thought he mentioned it twice or he probably lied to the manager (who then would think it was told to you) Dontknow


Confused They aren't in court, so I don't think they have to prove anything to the news.
But before it even reaches the court, the business has to show that it has just cause to charge a customer for X services. This is to prove to the customer why they are being charged, which is required by law. As someone else pointed out in a similar example, a grocery store can't just charge you for scanning an item unless they made sure that they informed you that there would be a charge for providing that "service".
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
07-03-2007 at 11:26 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:26 AM.
Quote from z2g :
But before it even reaches the court, the business has to show that it has just cause to charge a customer for X services. This is to prove to the customer why they are being charged, which is required by law. As someone else pointed out in a similar example, a grocery store can't just charge you for scanning an item unless they made sure that they informed you that there would be a charge for providing that "service".
This isn't going to court, so I'm confused as to what you are arguing (for or against).
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
kawaii
> bubble2 5,816 Posts
360 Reputation
Mobius One
07-03-2007 at 11:29 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:29 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
This isn't going to court, so I'm confused as to what you are arguing (for or against).
because that is a "what if" argument about what could have happened if it did not turn out like it did.
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
07-03-2007 at 11:31 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:31 AM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
This isn't going to court, so I'm confused as to what you are arguing (for or against).
You stated "I'm not saying they did tell her, I'm saying that they didn't and they honestly thought they did. I've had times where I could have sworn on the Bible that I told my SO something and it turned out I actually didn't. It seemed OP was quick to assume that they are lying about the whole thing, when in fact they could seriously think they did tell her", which would give the impression that the store made an "honest mistake".

However, according to consumer protection laws, the store has the obligation of making sure that they informed (preferably in a written invoice) the customer for services that they would be charged for. That was my point. Whether they honestly believe they told the customer or not is a moot point. By law, they have to go the extra mile (in case it does go to court) that they indeed informed the customer of potential charges for services.
Reply
Last edited by z2g July 3, 2007 at 11:35 AM.
Joined Jun 2005
It's Showtime!
> bubble2 1,734 Posts
397 Reputation
Peliman
07-03-2007 at 11:35 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:35 AM.
This thread cracks me up, you SD'ers are great.

Yes the policy is not usual or customary and would surprise anyone. I highly doubt anyone told of this policy in advance would come into the store unless they had more money than sense. I also doubt she was told in advance, who would shop there otherwise?
Wait, this is the state of fruits and nuts isn't it? LMAO

The taking of the $20 is to offer it back if they bought shoes there. Unacceptable
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
07-03-2007 at 11:35 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:35 AM.
Quote from z2g :
You stated "I'm not saying they did tell her, I'm saying that they didn't and they honestly thought they did. I've had times where I could have sworn on the Bible that I told my SO something and it turned out I actually didn't. It seemed OP was quick to assume that they are lying about the whole thing, when in fact they could seriously think they did tell her", which would give the impression that the store made an "honest mistake".

However, according to consumer protection laws, the store has the obligation of making sure that they informed (preferably in a written invoice) the customer for services that they would be charged for. That was my point.
This was in response that the store was lying/refusing to acknowledge their mistake to the newspaper OP responded to/contacted. My post had nothing to do with legality.
Reply
Joined Jun 2005
Live Like No One Else
> bubble2 8,512 Posts
793 Reputation
stealth
07-03-2007 at 11:49 AM.
07-03-2007 at 11:49 AM.
Great news!

Besides the unethical business practices of charging customers for trying on shoes, and not being upfront about the charges, it's just as unethical to then only carry certain brands, and ignore the customer's request for certain models of shoes. I hope I'm not stealing the thunder from "The Fixer"'s story.

I hope this doesn't become a story where the business is seen as a victim (from some claimed vigilante harassment), because from what I've read they're clearly not the victim. We share feelings and experiences here on this message board, and sometimes offer sympathy (and sometimes snide remarks) to others, but that doesn't mean we carry out any acts of violence toward those we side against.

Congrats OP on getting your money back! woot And sorry for your ordeal. hug
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
07-03-2007 at 12:00 PM.
07-03-2007 at 12:00 PM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
This was in response that the store was lying/refusing to acknowledge their mistake to the newspaper OP responded to/contacted. My post had nothing to do with legality.
But, the entire ordeal has to do with the ethical-ness of a retail store charging customers for something that they are unaware of and not accustomed to being charged for. You are, in essence, siding with the retailer by saying it was an "honest" mistake that they may have thought they informed the customer when they truly had not. But, you're missing the point since the true issue is whether the store can charge for that to begin with. And, if they can, they MUST abide by specific laws that obligate the store to inform the customer (preferably in writing) that they would be charged for those specific "services".

But, let's get real here......I'm certain (as with EVERYONE here) that the store does NOT verbally inform the customers beforehand that there will be a charge for trying on the shoes. If that was the case, EVERY customer would walk out immediately. They [the store] are purposely scamming the customers and using the surprise element to force customers to pay that ridiculous fee. They know that most will just pay it because they don't want any trouble. In the store's devious mind, they believe that a tiny sign posted on the wall is enough to free them of the obligation of informed consent. However, I assure you that it does NOT!
Reply
Joined Dec 2005
Keep Smiling!
> bubble2 2,409 Posts
1,110 Reputation
Beej
07-03-2007 at 12:17 PM.
07-03-2007 at 12:17 PM.
Quote from Kristin :
I went to the smiley request thread and asked for

I can't rep you for that??? Smilie
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
07-03-2007 at 12:26 PM.
07-03-2007 at 12:26 PM.
Quote from z2g :
But, the entire ordeal has to do with the ethical-ness of a retail store charging customers for something that they are unaware of and not accustomed to being charged for. You are, in essence, siding with the retailer by saying it was an "honest" mistake that they may have thought they informed the customer when they truly had not. But, you're missing the point since the true issue is whether the store can charge for that to begin with. And, if they can, they MUST abide by specific laws that obligate the store to inform the customer (preferably in writing) that they would be charged for those specific "services".
I'm doing no such thing, as much as you want to make it seem like I am. I'm just trying to provide a different side to show that they might not necessarily be lying to that news organization. I've never sided with the store (or anyone) in this thread.

Quote :
But, let's get real here......I'm certain (as with EVERYONE here) that the store does NOT verbally inform the customers beforehand that there will be a charge for trying on the shoes. If that was the case, EVERY customer would walk out immediately. They [the store] are purposely scamming the customers and using the surprise element to force customers to pay that ridiculous fee. They know that most will just pay it because they don't want any trouble. In the store's devious mind, they believe that a tiny sign posted on the wall is enough to free them of the obligation of informed consent. However, I assure you that it does NOT!
Have you been to the store? Do you know what kind of pay-for-services they provide? If not, then you don't know why people would shop there.

They have 2 stores open, so I think that is reason to believe they do have a customer base and this isn't some conspiracy to surprise customers into giving them money.

For being someone so about the law and truth, you sure are prematurly condemning this business over hearsay and throwing out some drastic accusations.
Reply
Joined Jun 2006
Finzz bit me!! :(
> bubble2 18,103 Posts
6,248 Reputation
Kristin
07-03-2007 at 01:06 PM.
07-03-2007 at 01:06 PM.
paperboy, I think the question on all of our minds is... wtf is your point??!! Bigeye
Reply
Joined Jun 2006
L8: Grand Teacher
> bubble2 3,281 Posts
756 Reputation
Original Poster
PhoebesMeow
07-03-2007 at 01:11 PM.
07-03-2007 at 01:11 PM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
Do you know what kind of pay-for-services they provide?
Oh I can answer this one. Okay the service they provide is this. You go in and walk in front of someone for 10 seconds for him to "analyze" your walk. I asked what mine was and I kid you not his exact response was "its weird". LMAO He then said I'm mostly neutral, but its "weird" because my arches don't move. I then said, so I'm neutral, but I slightly overpronate? He agreed. So he provided me with the "weird" and the agreement. I was the one who said "neutral, slight overpronator". He then proceeded to go to the back room and select whatever shoes he wanted to sell me, even though he knew I had a list of styles I was interested in. He tried telling me none of those where right. However, I found out later from Saucomy, that this store has a bare stock and SURPRISE SURPRISE, they asked me if the store tried to sell me Brooks. BINGO!

It wasn't even what shoe was best for me, it was what they had in stock for my "weird" foot. Smilie
Reply
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
07-03-2007 at 01:32 PM.
07-03-2007 at 01:32 PM.
Quote from Kristin :
paperboy, I think the question on all of our minds is... wtf is your point??!! Bigeye
My point is that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially on a highly emotional issue such as this.
Reply
Joined Jun 2006
L8: Grand Teacher
> bubble2 3,281 Posts
756 Reputation
Original Poster
PhoebesMeow
07-03-2007 at 01:48 PM.
07-03-2007 at 01:48 PM.
Quote from paperboy05 :
My point is that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, especially on a highly emotional issue such as this.
I think the bigger "shouldn't" of this thread is... I SHOULDN'T have paid. laugh out loud
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
> bubble2 20,777 Posts
466 Reputation
paperboy05
07-03-2007 at 01:54 PM.
07-03-2007 at 01:54 PM.
Quote from PhoebesMeow :
I think the bigger "shouldn't" of this thread is... I SHOULDN'T have paid. laugh out loud
Very true laugh out loud
Reply
Page 32 of 38
Sorry, this thread is closed.
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.