Today one of my co-workers presented me with a situation and wanted my reaction. I'm curious as to what YOU, my friends and Internet vagabonds, might think. Here it is:
James volunteers with Big Brothers, and his "little brother" is 16 years old. Let's call this kid Pete. This week, Pete walked into a local computer store and bought a laptop for $1300. It turns out that Pete's mother had given him this money so he could buy a ticket to go visit her in Hong Kong. Whoops.
James' argument is that the store should not have taken that much money from a 16-year-old kid (and a young-looking one at that) without so much as a phone call to the kid's parents. They are using this argument to try to return the laptop and to get the money back (the laptop was sold on clearance, so initially they wouldn't let Pete return it).
Please weigh in here - is expecting a clerk or store owner to not take over a thousand dollars from a 16-year-old an unreasonable or overly idealistic thing to ask? I am truly very curious to hear what you have to say.
Friday, December 21, 2007
What do YOU think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It is very idealistic. Other than alcohol, tobacco products, etc., we can't hold retailers accountable.
Short of the clerk/store checking each bill to make sure they are not counterfeit, they really have no moral obligation to questions where he got the money from. You here often enough of salespeople being discriminatory(sp?) and losing sales simply because the customer "didn't look the type".
sure they can go back an argue their case regardless and hopefully there will be a positive outcome, but really, they don't have much of a fight.
Finally just for fun.. Why didn't the mother just send the plane ticket?
The responsibility rests squarely with the parents. While hindsight is wonderful, it seems a little 'unwise' of the parents to send a large sum of money rather than alternatives to a 16 year old boy. Shops, schools and other organisations are constantly expected, unreasonably I may add to police and parent children. We have to register our dogs in NZ but people are let loose to 'drag' up children in any sort of fashion.
I think the parents have to learn the $1600 lesson and it should not be the shops responsibility to sort out there mistake.
I don't believe it is the store's responsibility to verify the legitimacy of a teenager's purchase. Lots of kids have jobs and save up their money for purchases like this. I would be offended on my child's behalf to get a call like that. Now, if it's something with an age restriction like cigarettes or tattoos, that's a different story!
I'm so excited to have so many thoughtful comments!!!! I have to say that I agree with all of you. I'd wondered if it was just me ... :)
Post a Comment