B&H selling returned products: Question for Mr. Henry Posner

Indeed you didn't say any such thing, and that was my point: People thinking only of what they want as 'customers' seem to expect (1) a no-questions-asked full return policy, often with the vendor even picking up the additional shipping costs, and (2) that the vendor immediately label the returned item as used/open-box no matter its condition, and also eat that cost. These expectations are in direct conflict: the easier it is to return an item for no reason, the more people do it (and in fact plan to do it), and the more tightly I control what the meaning of 'new' is, the more each of those transactions cost me as a vendor. Do both without limit and you end up losing money on every sale.

I point out that despite being competitors, the one thing that B&H, Adorama, Abes Of Maine, Cameta, 42d Street Photo, etc. all have in common is that they're NOT charities. They depend on profit to continue to exist.

From my point of view, a sale is a contract. If I buy an item, I expect that item, in the condition advertised, and functional to the specifications advertised. If a product is defective, then that product should be replaced or my money returned, as the contract was not fulfilled by the vendor.

However, I don't see any reason why a vendor should be asked to bear the burden of a customer not wanting to assume any responsibility at all for his/her own actions. Contracts are mutual, reciprocal obligations. A person who buys a product with the intention of returning it is, from my point of view, committing fraud in entering a contract that they intend to repudiate.

And this is not all 'theoretical.' I currently have a camera on order. I demand that it be the camera I ordered, at the price I agreed to. And I hope it's the camera I want and that I love it for the next couple of years. I hope it's the perfect camera for me. But that latter isn't a part of my contract with the vendor. The only reason I can see that a vendor should undertake any additional expense to "make it right' is if they made it wrong. 'Buyer's remorse,' 'changed my mind,' 'found it cheaper elsewhere,' 'didn't like it as much as I thought' etc. are not my vendor's problem.

Obviously, a vendor CAN make it their problem by making post-sale satisfaction a term of sale and advertising an unqualified return policy. But I don't think that a customer has a right to just expect those terms, and if they do, the customer needs to expect to pay more for that, because customers will abuse it, and think themselves justified in so doing, and those customers are very expensive.

bob