Ethics

[rickb]

"For a while there was a fad by some thru hikers to buy everything at LL Bean and then return it for a refund on their way home from Katahdin. "


That's got to be a (sub) urban myth, Weary.

Now, if you were talking about Pur filters....

Rick B

[Caleb]

I believe a Talmudic proverb enjoins one against entering a store with no intention to buy. While I'd happily make allowances for window shopping, or a period of info gathering and comparisons, I would say that if one's intention is to gather information and take someone's time and then go home and buy it elsewhere, that is unethical. Or test-driving a Lexus when your next stop is the Hyundai dealership is probably an unethical use of a dealer's time. Now, if in the course of one's research, someone legitimately finds a better deal, or decides that the Hyundai really is more sensible, that might be a different matter. Intention has something to do with it.

This holds true in the US, in places. Some local courts have ruled that if a person lacks intent to purchase they can be cited for tresspassing. these laws are mainly used to keep soliciters and other undesirables out of malls. The 'buy nothing' folks often run afoul of these laws. C

[hikerjohnd]

Absolutely they can. Here in Greenville (SC) we have Half Moon Outfitters, Mast General Store, Appalachian Outfitters and Sunrift Adventures. Of those, only Mast is a chain, and it's a chain of only three stores.

Half Moon is also a chain. They have 4 locations and are opening a 5th here in Savannah. They are moving in where our other outfitter was and I sincerely hope they are better than the outfitter who is leaving... although I hear they same staff wil be working there.

[Percival]

This holds true in the US, in places. Some local courts have ruled that if a person lacks intent to purchase they can be cited for tresspassing. these laws are mainly used to keep soliciters and other undesirables out of malls. The 'buy nothing' folks often run afoul of these laws. C

Caleb, you've really gone off the deep end here. "You come in my store and don't buy something, I'm calling the cops."

[hikerjohnd]

Some local courts have ruled that if a person lacks intent to purchase they can be cited for tresspassing. these laws are mainly used to keep soliciters and other undesirables out of malls.

I would be interested in reading the case documents... One can not prove intent, so it would be difficult to legislate

[weary]

"For a while there was a fad by some thru hikers to buy everything at LL Bean and then return it for a refund on their way home from Katahdin. "
That's got to be a (sub) urban myth, Weary.
Now, if you were talking about Pur filters....
Rick B

Well, I heard it 20 years ago from a Bean employee. I ran it as a paragraph in a hiking related story, quoting someone as saying that some Bean employess were demanding that the stuff be washed before being returned.

The episode is getting a bit vague in my memory, but I think someone later sent in a letter to the editor claiming that the story was wrong, that Bean's return policy did not require even used thru hiker gear be washed.

I like LL Beans. I think they have basic good stuff. But I sometimes suspect that the return policy effects what they sell. For instance, they no longer sell the Zip Stove. I suspect an item like that would get massive returns. Most modern Americans can't stand a little soot on their pots, not even modern American thru hikers.

Weary

[Nightwalker]

Half Moon is also a chain.

What a trip. The so don't come across as one. They're very helpful guys, mostly hikers, and never pushy. I go in there and ask lots of gear questions between purchases, and they never give me the rolleyes.

Frank/Nightwalker

[Caleb]

I would be interested in reading the case documents... One can not prove intent, so it would be difficult to legislate

here is case law that cites lack of intent to purchase (support commercial interest of) as part of the appellants complaint. It was upheld. C http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=407&invol=551

[steve hiker]

here is case law that cites lack of intent to purchase (support commercial interest of) as part of the appellants complaint. It was upheld. C http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=407&invol=551

You're an idiot, Calob. That's a First Amendment case involving distribution of advertising flyers on private property.

But you have the right idea. If a customer tries to walk out without buying something, have your security guards slap the cuffs on em and press charges.

[Caleb]

You're an idiot, Calob. That's a First Amendment case involving distribution of advertising flyers on private property.

But you have the right idea. If a customer tries to walk out without buying something, have your security guards slap the cuffs on em and press charges.

I didn't say it was a good idea, I just said there are laws on the books proscribing all manner of activities inconsistent with the commercial function of businesses on private property. If you read the case, you will see the court ruled against the 1 amend defense. youyr tongue is too sharp for my taste I hope we never meet. C

[hikerjohnd]

here is case law that cites lack of intent to purchase (support commercial interest of) as part of the appellants complaint. It was upheld. C http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=407&invol=551

Close, but no cigar. In this case, the individuals stated their intent, passing out literature. While they were expressing their 1st Amendment right to free speech, if you look at the context - 1972 - malls were 'new' and still an unknown quantity. Now, any store, open to the public, is considered public domain (we'll set aside private clubs, etc for the sake of argument) and anyone has free access during normal hours. So long as an individual does not break the law, (in this case the distribution of handbills was what was in question) a business can not legally restrict access. Loitering laws are so ambiguous in most states (especially here) that they are practically useless.

[steve hiker]

Calab, what are you trying to say? That you're going to try to keep people from browsing in your store if they really intend to go home and order on the internet, by posting theats to prosecute them? Obviously that is totally absurd.

I can understand you're upset by the internet revolution, but it's here to stay. And you can't blame people for shopping for the best price. That's the American way. This may sound harsh but it's reality: You must either adapt, or close your doors.

[Caleb]

Close, but no cigar. In this case, the individuals stated their intent, passing out literature. While they were expressing their 1st Amendment right to free speech, if you look at the context - 1972 - malls were 'new' and still an unknown quantity. Now, any store, open to the public, is considered public domain (we'll set aside private clubs, etc for the sake of argument) and anyone has free access during normal hours. So long as an individual does not break the law, (in this case the distribution of handbills was what was in question) a business can not legally restrict access. Loitering laws are so ambiguous in most states (especially here) that they are practically useless.

You're right, the case is dated. I agree too that it's probably been narrowed and re-interprteed over time. i'm sure there's others though, better examples, but I'm not doing any more research. The underlying expectation is valid... business owners expect a positive intention on the part of shoppers, and they enforce this all sorts of ways, legal and not. C http://atkeison.org/issues/news/news...othingDay.html

[Caleb]

Calab, what are you trying to say? That you're going to try to keep people from browsing in your store if they really intend to go home and order on the internet, by posting theats to prosecute them? Obviously that is totally absurd.

I can understand you're upset by the internet revolution, but it's here to stay. And you can't blame people for shopping for the best price. That's the American way. This may sound harsh but it's reality: You must either adapt, or close your doors.

read #9 I am not particularly pro-business. I was responding to the person who opined that this ethical question is codified in the Talmud. I was of the belief that it was also, like it or not, codified to some degree in the vast and cumbersome corpus of US law, if not by surviving statute then by historical fragment.

[Baker]

I had two decent outfitters within 50 miles of me.

One is ran by a bitter, pretentious guy who will 'special order the vapor trail for you, but can't return it if it doesn't fit.' He carries maybe three kelty packs; I couldn't even use him for his showroom!

The other outfitter, the one with a friendly, knowledgable staff, liberal return policy, and near-campmor prices, just went out of business.

I gave up and started making my own, giving me more money to spend on more deserving local businesses.

[flyfisher]

I guess I do a little bit of both. I like to support my local outfitter, who has reasonably good stock. I will buy there if I can, despite having to pay Ohio tax.

Case in point: I went down to the outfitter on Saturday morning for two purposes: to buy a photo/walking stick for my father and to try on some Tilley hats to see how different sizes fit.

I spent 2 minutes slipping the 7 1/8 and 7 1/4 hats on to see which size fit better. Then I went upstairs to buy a Leki Photo walking stick for $69. I probably could have found it on the net for a bit less.

Second case: I tried to buy a pair of Vasque Sundowners. They had a pair of 11 size but not 12. I tried on the 11 with two pairs of socks. They were too tight. I went home and bought the size 12 from an internet company in San Diego.

I believe a market will continue for walk in business. People want to shop and buy today. Shop owners will continue to make money if they have the right stuff and are in the right place. Others will make money out of a garage by making internet sales.

Some people may be able to make money both ways.