I can't fault them, when I was in my late teens-early 20's working construction I would buy boots in April wear them 80 hours a week doing concrete work then when I was laid off in November and they were falling apart return them so I could start with a fresh pair the next spring.
I only paid for one set of boots but actually got 6-7. It was greasy but they had no problem with it.
Thats the old "Marks WorkWearhouse Boot Rental Program". I think that a lot of retailers get hit with that kind of thing. I knew of people who bought stuff to go camping at Canadian Tire on Thursday and returned it Monday.
Ever since I started buying from Mark's Work Warehouse, they had an extremely liberal return policy, where if something broke even without a receipt, they would take it back for store credit, no questions asked.
I've brought stuff back to Mark's twice I think in about 10 years since I started shopping there, however, today I decided to go back and return a total of 4 dress shirts, making this my single largest return to date, which over the last year (since May 2013), 3 sleeves had split and one had ripped down the middle.
Much to my surprise, it turns out their return policy changed last week, and is enforceable retroactively on all goods bought there. It is now 100 days, must have original tags on them. The supervisor I spoke with said there was absolutely nothing she could do, even though 2 shirts were bought last October.
I'm shocked they can just apply this policy to clothes retroactively. Their quality has been going down hill and prices have been steadily increasing on their goods. The only saving grace was that could could return crappy merchandise when it broke down after a couple wears.
I will not be giving another cent to these guys and I'd encourage you to do the same.
I don't know, returning shirts that you've probably worn multiple times since October which is 6 months ago?
Even I think returns especially on clothes have their limits.
Usually returns are based around too small, maybe don't like as a gift, or pre damaged is fine.
But asking for a refund after 6 months seems a little crazy to me.
I can see why Marks would rescind their refund policy, they would lose money hand over fist.
I don't know, returning shirts that you've probably worn multiple times since October which is 6 months ago?
Even I think returns especially on clothes have their limits.
Usually returns are based around too small, maybe don't like as a gift, or pre damaged is fine.
But asking for a refund after 6 months seems a little crazy to me.
I can see why Marks would rescind their refund policy, they would lose money hand over fist.
Which is fine to be honest. I buy plenty of items from places with other return policies. But this was one that has stood in place for many, many years.
There was a much different return policy in place when I purchased the goods. I would have hoped that they honor that policy and I feel slighted that it was applied to goods retroactively purchased before their policy change.
Which is fine to be honest. I buy plenty of items from places with other return policies. But this was one that has stood in place for many, many years.
There was a much different return policy in place when I purchased the goods. I would have hoped that they honor that policy and I feel slighted that it was applied to goods retroactively purchased before their policy change.
Yeah, I guess we should separate you from the actual policy change, which everyone agrees was pretty ridiculous and had them bleeding money, as it seems like everyone is piling on you.
I agree with them for changing their policy, but yes I agree that they should have grandfathered it n, and made it very clear to customers after the change that their policy was new.
It's pretty crappy to up and change it one day and enforce it on guys that come back with no clue anything's changed.
Which is fine to be honest. I buy plenty of items from places with other return policies. But this was one that has stood in place for many, many years.
There was a much different return policy in place when I purchased the goods. I would have hoped that they honor that policy and I feel slighted that it was applied to goods retroactively purchased before their policy change.
Which is understandable in my opinion.
Had you known they were going to change the policy, you probably would have returned them earlier.
I think if you approach a manager with that in mind, they should be understanding, especially if you're a regular customer.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
I'm having trouble understanding. I wear dress shirts 5 days a week and the only problem I have is the color fading after a while or maybe a button gets loose.
How the hell do you rip a dress shirt under normal wear?
I'm having trouble understanding. I wear dress shirts 5 days a week and the only problem I have is the color fading after a while or maybe a button gets loose.
How the hell do you rip a dress shirt under normal wear?
I bend my elbow while sitting down or standing up, they rip. Pattern seemed pretty consistent - right around the 20-25 wash mark.
I'm having trouble understanding. I wear dress shirts 5 days a week and the only problem I have is the color fading after a while or maybe a button gets loose.
How the hell do you rip a dress shirt under normal wear?
I've had two of the Marks never iron shirts and they split along the crease for me. On the forearm of all places, so not like they were too tight or anything. I figured that however they make them non-iron weakens those creases?
If you want to know my exact timeline, here it is:
Bought 2 shirts in May, one had an arm tear, one had a rip down the middle. Didn't return them immediately as I felt I could do it whenever, so I didn't make it a high priority.
Bought 2 more shirts in October, to replace the 2 ripped ones. Both of those ripped within the last month (both sleeve tears) and so I decided to do both returns at once.
Does that help?
This just makes no sense. Did you not wear these shirts at all? At what point does it become wear and tear or 'your' fault? You held onto a pair of shirts for nearly a year (The pair from May)...how is Marks to know that you aren't wearing them every other day and just ripped them the other day? Even with the pair from October...that's still 5 months. Why couldn't you return the 2 shirts from May when you bought the new ones in October?
How long is the store responsible for "your" purchases (which it sounds like you were treating as rentals?)? At what point does something you bought become yours? Your item, your responsibility?
I understand that they had a previous and stupidly generous return policy. I've never heard of a policy like that being retroactive. Kinda sounds like you are trying to game the system here, and to that, all I can say is "You snooze, you lose."
Apparently Walmart will take back half eaten food if you claim it tastes funny or you just didn't like it... (source: wife's friend who is a Walmart employee). Eg/ half a bag of chips, crackers etc.
You've washed them 20-25 times and still think it's okay to try to return them?
Yes, because that was what their policy was.
Quote:
Earlier, you posted they still had the tags on them. How do you wear and wash something 25 times and still have the tags on them?
I did? Where did I post that? Sorry, if I was unclear.
I said their new policy said all things must have tags on them to return them?
EDIT: I was responding to the post above which said that Tags on, 100 days wasn't a good policy, because tags on implied that it hadn't been worn. Sorry about the confusion.
I did? Where did I post that? Sorry, if I was unclear.
I said their new policy said all things must have tags on them to return them?
I think it was the post where you said "tags on" back on page 2 - which I took to meant that the fact they require tags on makes the return policy that much weaker, as opposed to you stating that your tags ARE still on the shirts you bought - that's likely the source of the confusion.
I'm not surprised the policy has shifted - Canadian Tire is brutal to deal with overall including on returns. As a guy that also loved shopping at Marks I suspect the overall experience will continue to suffer because CT is ass.
The Following User Says Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
If Marks had a return policy that said "if you buy one of our shirts and they wear out, bring t back and you get store credit" in my mind that's a guarantee on the durability of their clothing. Meaning you'll either tire of the clothes or they'll rip from an external source (caught on a nail, got paint on it, etc).
So if your shirt wears out you can get store credit at your leisure as it's essentially a lifetime guarantee.
So you buy a shirt and it wears out. You go to get your store credit and find you they just changed the policy last week saying "yeah we don't guarantee our shirts any more, effective always".
I don't see how you can defend that.
The change should be effective immediately, and it's easy enough to keep track of via labelling, and stock numbering.
The issue isn't should the customer be allowed to take advantage of a liberal return policy. It's should a company be able to change their return policy retroactively?
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn
Wasn't it Marks that was running those crazy $30-$40 winter coats CP was getting all excited about around Black Friday/Boxing Day? You don't make money selling a $200 for $30, so the losses have to be adding up.
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.
