Mark's new return policy sucks

[vegasbound]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

When I worked at Marks I had guys trying to return brands that we didn't even carry.

Yeah, I worked there for over a year and had the same problems. I'm glad they changed their policy. It was hard because steel toe boots only had a 100 day manufacturer guarantee and everybody assumed (even though cashiers are supposed to tell them of the 100 day policy when the boots are purchased) they had unlimited time. I was always surprised at the amount of returns ($ wise) I had at the end of the night.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

So if your shirt wears out you can get store credit at your leisure as it's essentially a lifetime guarantee.

That's the crux of the issue.

Was their previous policy that their clothes would last forever and if you ever had a problem with them, they'd exchange them no questions asked? Or, was their previous policy that they'd provide refunds or exchanges without requiring proof of purchase and that they'd accept returns on items that had been worn?

One is a lifetime guarantee/warranty, the other is a liberal return policy.

If it was a lifetime guarantee, then I can understand being upset with them changing that policy and they should continue to honour it on purchases that were made before the policy change. If they have just tightened up their return policy, I would shrug it off as the end of a good run.


Even companies that offer lifetime warranties usually only protect against defects in materials and manufacturing, not for general wear-and-tear.

[Tailspin]

RETURN POLICY
At Mark's, we stand behind everything we sell.
If you are not 100% satisfied with your Mark's purchase, within 100 days, please return your unused, unworn or Manufacturer defective item with your original receipt for a full refund (minus the shipping charge). Merchandise received without a receipt will be refunded in the form of a store merchandise credit at the current selling price*.

*Terms and conditions apply.

Terms and conditions
100-Day Boot Guarantee We expect your boots to do the job they've been designed to do. Flawlessly. However, if at any time during the first 100 days after purchasing them you experience a manufacturer defect, we want to know about it. Simply bring them and your original receipt into any Mark's store and we will replace them. Refunds and exchanges cannot be processed after 100 days.

Returns of web ordered products will be accepted at Mark's stores across Canada with a copy of your packing list that was included with your shipment. If this is not convenient for you please print the following return form and shipping label. The return form is to be included inside of your package and the shipping label is to be affixed to the outside to ensure that your return is processed as effectively as possible.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's the crux of the issue.

Was their previous policy that their clothes would last forever and if you ever had a problem with them, they'd exchange them no questions asked? Or, was their previous policy that they'd provide refunds or exchanges without requiring proof of purchase and that they'd accept returns on items that had been worn?

One is a lifetime guarantee/warranty, the other is a liberal return policy.

If it was a lifetime guarantee, then I can understand being upset with them changing that policy and they should continue to honour it on purchases that were made before the policy change. If they have just tightened up their return policy, I would shrug it off as the end of a good run.


Even companies that offer lifetime warranties usually only protect against defects in materials and manufacturing, not for general wear-and-tear.

To me the crux of the issue is whether the store's return policy becomes part of the sale or not.

It doesn't matter if the policy is liberal or very strict. The company put forth te policy at the time of purchase and then unilaterally changed it.

Now I haven't seen what it actually said, but can a company unilaterally and retroactively change the terms of the refund policy?

[The Yen Man]

When I worked at Walmart, I remember one guy took a TV from the Electronic department and tried to pass it off as a return with no receipt at the return desk. He was easily caught, but I gave him props for creativity.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I used to work at Mark's, that store bled so much money with its return policy.

"No I'm sorry sir, those overalls don't go well with Elevator Love Letter"

[chaoticmonk]

and here's what the old return policy was:

Return Policy

At Mark's, we stand behind everything we sell.

If for whatever reason you're not 100% satisfied with your purchase, please return the item with your original receipt for a full refund (minus the shipping charge). Merchandise received without a receipt will be refunded in the form of a store merchandise credit at the present retail price*.
*Terms and conditions apply.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by chaoticmonk

and here's what the old return policy was:

Return Policy

At Mark's, we stand behind everything we sell.

If for whatever reason you're not 100% satisfied with your purchase, please return the item with your original receipt for a full refund (minus the shipping charge). Merchandise received without a receipt will be refunded in the form of a store merchandise credit at the present retail price*.
*Terms and conditions apply.

Yes, but what were the terms and conditions?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Yes, but what were the terms and conditions?

Honest question, have you ever been to Mark's before? Because your line of questioning is roughly akin to a birther.

Or maybe the policy isn't that widely known about? Multiple people have referenced it in the thread already.

[strombad]

The current return policy, as it stands, is quite liberal.

Their previous policy was completely ridiculous. Awesome if you like capitalising on that sort of thing, but morally I could never get into that sort of thing. MEC is like that, you can return ANYTHING for ANY reason at ANY time, and you'll get store credit. It's ridiculous, but the customer base seems to have a bit more integrity so it didn't seem to get abused very often.

Personally, I've got zero sympathy for OP. Whether the return policy changed or not, two of the shirts were purchased a YEAR ago, whether they crapped out two months later or not, a year is ridiculous. Even 6 months is ridiculous. If you had shirts that crapped out after two months, then take them back, don't wait an extra 8. I know policy wise you COULD do that, but from a retail perspective, it looks like you just wore out your shirts over the course of the year and were trying to scam the company.

100 days is extremely liberal. Couldn't return shirts after having them 6-12 months? Too bad, so sad. This return policy doesn't "suck," it just sucks for you because you missed out on taking advantage of it.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The ones that few of us actually received? Yes, they were the same company.

So either it was actually a previous year's style they were blowing out (and were apparently successful), or they cut their losses by cancelling orders. It took them over a month to process the refund to my credit card, and for my troubles I got a coupon that was only good for a week or two for $20 off a $100 purchase.

Assuming it was just that previous year's style, they were probably at the point of either selling them for a bit of a loss, or donating them. Sounds like donating them has caused trouble, so it was probably better for them to sell them at a loss. Besides, it isn't like the a $200 retail item costs them anywhere close to that much. When I worked retail the markup on clothes was huge. I would say those jackets cost them no more than $50; quite possibly less.

Yeah to me it's just another sign of a brick & mortar store struggling to compete with the online retailers. Yes it's common to blow out old stock at a loss in retail, but compound that with your experience above, and their new return policy and it doesn't paint a pretty picture of their future. Especially if the quality is taking a dive as well.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by strombad

100 days is extremely liberal. Couldn't return shirts after having them 6-12 months? Too bad, so sad. This return policy doesn't "suck," it just sucks for you because you missed out on taking advantage of it.

Then don't have the policy in the first place? What an angry fellow you are.

Oh and by the way, don't bother taking your car into the dealership, they revoked your warranty, jokes on you because you thought you could use it as you like for 4 years and expect to get off scott free. Too bad for you.

[chaoticmonk]

i remember going into marks one day to buy a new pair of jeans...i was replacing a pair i had bought maybe 6 or 7 months prior and the button came out so the jeans were useless (not a big fan of doing up my jeans with a safety pin :P)

when i was at the front, the lady asked me questions about if i had found what i was looking for, the right size, etc. i mentioned that yeah, i was just replacing a pair i had bought 6 or 7 months ago...she asked what happened...i told her about the button and she told me that as long as i had the receipt, i could bring them in and get an exchange....never ended up replacing them, but when the staff specifically tell you about their policies, it's hard not to be upset when marks goes ahead and changes the policy retroactively.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Then don't have the policy in the first place? What an angry fellow you are.

Oh and by the way, don't bother taking your car into the dealership, they revoked your warranty, jokes on you because you thought you could use it as you like for 4 years and expect to get off scott free. Too bad for you.

I'm not even a bit angry! I just think it's so funny watching someone complain about what essentially amounts to a company doing them less of a favour. They don't owe you anything. Return policies don't have to be retroactive. They just are what they are.

The warranty and the return policy are different things, it's still 100% on you that you couldn't be bothered to return your items less than a year later. Honestly, a year later and you're mad? Really? You left two shirts sitting in your basement for 8 whole months without wearing them (you even WENT to Marks within that time frame but chose not to return your shirts) and you're mad? Really? REALLY?



You were either way too lazy, or way too interested in taking advantage of the fullest extent of the policy.

If vehicle analogies are your thing, well, I don't know about you, but if there's a problem with my car I don't wait 8 months to get it dealt with.

The best part is if your shirts had actually gotten torn up after 2 months and you tried to return them, this policy would've covered it. You're just mad because being lazy cost you your shirt.

[RougeUnderoos]

Mark's isn't really "high end". How much do these shirts cost and how long are expected to last?

Forget the return policy. Even if you can still actually return them, in reality how many times do you have to wear a ~$50 item before you think you've got your money's worth?

[Table 5]

I somewhat understood the OP's argument about the retroactive policy shift, until I read that he had worn/washed the shirt 25 times. Regardless of policy, price, or quality, I'm not sure how anyone can return a shirt after wearing it that often without being ashamed of themselves. I mean come on, that's a ridiculously long time.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I would like to know the terms and conditions.

But given the information in the thread the OP should be upset.

If I sold you an item and told you that the return policy was 90 days with a receipt. If you can in 31 days later to return and I said "no can do, we retroactively changed the policy to 30 days, sorry." I'm pretty sure you'd be upset, part of your decision making process was the return policy and I changed it on you.

Talk about ethics of returning, and laziness all you want… it's not relevant. The OP was sold a shirt with a condition being X, he went to exercise the condition and was told no they changed it to Y.

The fact the condition was absurd is irrelevant. The corporation presented it, the consumer didn't trick or dupe the corporation, it was the invention of Marks.

The only question is:

Can a store retroactively change their refund policy? Furthermore, is the refund policy a term of the sale?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I somewhat understood the OP's argument about the retroactive policy shift, until I read that he had worn/washed the shirt 25 times. Regardless of policy, price, or quality, I'm not sure how anyone can return a shirt after wearing it that often without being ashamed of themselves. I mean come on, that's a ridiculously long time.

I would be too ashamed of myself to return an item of clothing I wore more than once. But 25 times....... that is simply abusing the system. At any given time I typically have about 20 dress shirts in my closet I rotate through, which is about 13 wears / shirt / year factoring in weekends where I don't wear them. That would be like walking into the Bay 2 years later saying..... "Yeah, this two year old shirt sucks. Where's my money?" I have too much pride to do something like that.

I'm sorry, isn't it kinda embarrassing going in with a washed out, tattered shirt, looking for Fr33 ShirtZ? If you expect their business model to be sustainable, you can't expect them to take back, tattered, over washed, used clothing. I think the OP is missing the whole point of the return policy. You are not working within the spirit of the policy, you are going by the letter of it. Mark's is equally stupid for having such a ridiculous policy in the first place, with the amount of scammers that abuse the system.

Secondly, don't cheap out, and dry clean your shirts, and they will last twice as long.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I would like to know the terms and conditions.

But given the information in the thread the OP should be upset.

If I sold you an item and told you that the return policy was 90 days with a receipt. If you can in 31 days later to return and I said "no can do, we retroactively changed the policy to 30 days, sorry." I'm pretty sure you'd be upset, part of your decision making process was the return policy and I changed it on you.

Talk about ethics of returning, and laziness all you want… it's not relevant. The OP was sold a shirt with a condition being X, he went to exercise the condition and was told no they changed it to Y.

The fact the condition was absurd is irrelevant. The corporation presented it, the consumer didn't trick or dupe the corporation, it was the invention of Marks.

The only question is:

Can a store retroactively change their refund policy? Furthermore, is the refund policy a term of the sale?

Going by the OP's expectation of the policy, he should be entitled to free shirts for life. That is an unreasonable expectation.

[Dan02]

i was like geez 25 shirts is well used. I mean I'd hope it lasts longer but I've had shirts that haven't made it that long whether they stretched and dont look as good anymore and i never thought once i should take it back for a refund.