Reading mode: Light Dark

I wish i could delete my thread

Go to last post
Tim in upstate NY said:
Steven Noyes said:
There has been NO indication of falsifying an invoice except in
your own mind. What he (the OP) wants to do is buy the camera.
Return it within the stores return policy on the 15th and
immediately buy it back. The SAME EXACT CAMERA. The only thing
that happens is the store gets their money 14 days early. Either
way, Canon pays the rebate (the OP simply waits to purchase).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Tim in upstate NY said:
........Confused is about all that can be said about your
'interpretation' of the OP's intentions. How else could you have
missed these words from the OP's original post:

"I asked them if they could adjust the invoice date so that it
falls on the 15th of October. They said the couldn't do that"
Click to expand...
Tim in upstate NY said:
......His "same exact camera" scheme was hatched after they refused
to participate in this first scheme to cheat Canon.
Click to expand...
The local store in questions has the same return policy as b&h or similar in key areas. that is

If said camera had been purchased less then 14 days ago and less then 200 acctuations fired, then what is the problem with returning it.

Sure if you are unwitting buyer of said camera i could see how i might have done you an in justice. But i my scinario. I would be keeping the camera.
Tim in upstate NY said:
Tim in upstate NY said:
buyer with a 'slightly' used 5D when they're likely assuming that

What other buyer is going to get a "slightly" used 5D? This is
where you are failing to read what the OP said and substitute your
own reality into the equation.
Click to expand...
The OP also said: "My guess is with an organization as large as B&H
they would have to actually receive the product and then ship it
out again"

......With these words he indicated that he understands that B&H is
a large organization. We all know including even the OP and maybe
even you that large sales organizations have separate departments
staffed by different people for sales and for returned merchandise.
In effect, the only way to return a camera to B&H and then get it
back again with the later purchase date on the invoice is to
complicitly expect that it isn't likely to be the same exact
camera. The OP then went on to say:
Click to expand...
I know this all too well being an Ex-CPA and i know about possible collusion between employees and the theft issue if employees were able to re-date invoices.
Tim in upstate NY said:
" Not that I would recomend this especially for $50 or so but if
rumor of Up to $600 rebate on 5D is true why the heck not"
Click to expand...
Tim in upstate NY said:
....So, yes, he is too actually suggesting that maybe returning a
camera to B&H would be a good way to get the $600 and yes he is
likely aware of the probability that it wouldn't be the same exact
camera.
Click to expand...
lets admit it $600 is a big difference to me anyways. For only a $50 savings it probably isn't worth the hassle.

In another thread a different poster just said he talked with b&h after placing his order for a 5D, 35MM F1.4, 85MM F1.2 135Mm F.2 basically they told him what i knew and that is he would actually have to pack it back up and return it. And that is what he is going to do.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=20270384 >

All i am saying is that if he bought from the local store there are other options. And the option that i mentioned do not meet the LEGAL definition of FRAUD.
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile
 
Alan_Hogg said:
Hi there,

As this thread is dealing with returns, can anyone please tell me
what the policy of stores like B&H is with respect to returned
items?

If Joe Bloggs returns a lens which he feels is defective, is some
other poor unsuspecting mug likely to get it, or are such items
sent back to the manufacturer for checking before re-selling?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
My guess is that they do an in-house test of the lens and if defective they return it back to Canon If they don't find it defective they repack it and sell it as new.

Have you ever seen a sealed lens box? I haven't
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile
 
PhotoTom said:
Steven Noyes said:
3. The OP is working with published information.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
Click to expand...
It is published. In the B&H catalog and another catalog. There is NO (I repeat no) insider information.
PhotoTom said:
PhotoTom said:
4. The OP is not breaking any laws.
Click to expand...
But the store willl break laws if it alters the invoice date, or if
it accepts a return and then re-sells the same product to the same
customer. Such an act will be an act of fraud against Canon. In
legal terms, it will be the store that is in violation, but the
concept itself is fraudulent as well.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. It is 100% legal to return an item (for buyers remorse or what have you). It is 100% legal for the store to sell the item again. It is 100% legal to purchase an item. If the store is acting within the bounds of its published return policy and not bending them, I think you would be extremely hard pressed to show fraud. Basically you have one party that is requesting a contract to be voided and a new one drawn up. In this case, both parties agree to it.

This is no different than when Nikon dropped the price of the D2H by $1000 over-night. There were lots of returns from people that still had it in transit. Many simply denied delivery. This is little different.

Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Summer 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/images_summer_2006

 
dmanthree said:
Backdating a receipt to defraud Canon out of a rebate check. Sorry,
that's fraud.
--

------------------------------------------------------
five dee and Yashica Mat 124
Click to expand...
Agreed - from Wikipedia....

"In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly. "

Do we have deception? Yes, either in the case of an altered invoice or an altered sales date.

Do we have property or services? Yes, in the form of rebate money that would otherwise be undue to the recipient but for the fraud.

I won't quote the law as it varies by jurisdiction. It can be a felony, even at the $600 point.

--
Tom
 
It is that simple. A former contract between two parties was mutually agreed to be broken and a new one made. Plain and simple. The first contract (sale) is canceled. A new sale is made. This is little more than a typical buyers remorse situation and it is the prerogative of the store if they are will to break the original contract.

Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Summer 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/images_summer_2006

 
Steven Noyes said:
PhotoTom wrote:

I don't think so. It is 100% legal to return an item (for buyers
remorse or what have you). It is 100% legal for the store to sell
the item again. It is 100% legal to purchase an item. If the
store is acting within the bounds of its published return policy
and not bending them, I think you would be extremely hard pressed
to show fraud. Basically you have one party that is requesting a
contract to be voided and a new one drawn up. In this case, both
parties agree to it.
Click to expand...
The law is the law - change an invoice for financial gain and it's fraud. There is no room for manuever, even for a defense lawyer. Take a return and resell the original item to the original customer for the same purpose is also fraud for financial gain.

Bottom line - if you are thinking that a rebate may be coming (especially if you get hints from outside organizations), wait until the rebate date.
Steven Noyes said:
This is no different than when Nikon dropped the price of the D2H
by $1000 over-night. There were lots of returns from people that
still had it in transit. Many simply denied delivery. This is
little different.

Steven
Click to expand...
Nikon is not a retailer. Nikon set on contractural time limit on their price.
This is much different.

--
Tom
 
I can't believe I'm even wasting my time on this but I want to point one thing out:

You all are mixing up morality with legality. Even if everything he did was 100% that doesn't mean it was the "right" or "ethical" thing to do--they are distinct. So everyone is yelling back and forth, all the while arguing two different things.
 
CameraDave said:
I can't believe I'm even wasting my time on this but I want to
point one thing out:

You all are mixing up morality with legality. Even if everything he
did was 100% that doesn't mean it was the "right" or "ethical"
thing to do--they are distinct. So everyone is yelling back and
forth, all the while arguing two different things.
Click to expand...
100% legal I meant to say.
 
Tim in upstate NY said:
Steven Noyes wrote:

........Confused is about all that can be said about your
'interpretation' of the OP's intentions. How else could you have
missed these words from the OP's original post:

"I asked them if they could adjust the invoice date so that it
falls on the 15th of October. They said the couldn't do that"
Click to expand...
But that is NOT the method in question. That one you can NOT do.
Tim in upstate NY said:
......His "same exact camera" scheme was hatched after they refused
to participate in this first scheme to cheat Canon.
Click to expand...
Call it a scheme if it make you feel better but it is FUNDAMENTALLY different. In this case one contract is broken (mutually) and another one is made (mutually).

It is all about process and procedures and documentation.
Tim in upstate NY said:
....So, yes, he is too actually suggesting that maybe returning a
camera to B&H would be a good way to get the $600 and yes he is
likely aware of the probability that it wouldn't be the same exact
camera.
Click to expand...
Why no one flaming:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=20270384

Same exact thing.

Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Summer 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/images_summer_2006

 
In your original post you said that you didn't even want a 5D but you called your local store to cook up this scheme.

Now, call your store (your "willing accomplice") and change the question just slightly.... ask them if it would now be ok for you to come in today, buy a 5d, use it for 15 days, then on oct 15th return it and buy a new one (not the same camera but a NEW one)..... This time they will tell you to get lost -- the won't agree to be your "acccomplice".

Why the difference?

Because they are now spending THEIR money (not Canon's).

Using your other example from this thread......

Go into Best Buy and tell them this: "I am going to buy a Printer from you today I am going to use it for 15 days. I also know that your return policy is 15 days. I also know that in 15 days Circuit City will have the same printer for $200 less. So, I am going to return your printer after 15 days, get a full refund, then buy it over at Circuit City."

If you were the owner of this business would you sell the product to the customer?

The premediation of your scheme is the problem.... price match issues happen... I have no problem with an "after the fact" exchange based on NEW information that occurs AFTER your first good faith purchase.

But, this is NOT what your original post suggested. Rather, it suggested a premediated attempt to get "something for nothing" (i.e. 15 days for free use of a camera) and the complicity of an accomplice.

It just is not right. If you wanted a 5D (which you don't -- but you still have the time to call your local store and waste their time getting this scheme set-up and then tell the WORLD about it by writing it on DpReview), why not just wait the 15 days like an honorable person..... why the complex scheme to try to get something for nothing?
 
Just going through my old cpa Exam book when i had to sit for the legal section.

In legal term. there are 5 thing that need to be established to prove FRAUD. That means ALL 5 must be met not 1 or 2 or 3 or even 4.

These are:
1) Damages: $600 to Canon. Easy one to figure out.

Neither the Camera store nor anyone like b&h could claim fraud because there are no damages aside from wasting the salemans time and since b&h charges for shipping they can't claim that either.

2) Reliance: Canon relies on that information to honor the rebate. Pretty obvious

3) Material Fact: All the information that is submitted to Canon is important or in other words is "MATERIAL" in their decision to honor the rebate. If I personally falsified the invoice by "doing a touch up job" i clearly meet this criteria of fraud.

4) Knowlege of falsity: Basically I knew what i was doing so that is an easy one too.

5) Intent to deceive: I claim that my intent was to purchase a camera. could be proved

I meet all of the other criteria of the rebate.
1) Local store is an authorized dealer
2) Upc, Serial Number, warranty card, rebate form. and lastly invoice.

So the Fraud aspect comes down to the invoice. because i would clearly not just make up my own invoice. As this is so Clearly Fraudulent.

My contention is that i could submit this rebate form and TELL Canon what i had done and they would still have to honor the rebate.

Why because technically i returned the camera for store credit and
Voided the previous Sale.

I then purchased a camera that qualifies for Canon's rebate. Doesn't matter that it happens to be the EXACT same camera.

One might say this is a technicallity. Maybe it is i don't know.

Of course Canon could expressly forbid this type of behavior but they don't.

Another point that should be made is that the store made a "EXCEPTION" for (ME, MYSELF and I) can qualify for the rebate i think Canon could have cause against both me and the Camera Store for commiting a fraudulent act against them (CANON)

But as i am operating under the established rules put forth buy the store for ALL customers given the product catagory I think that would be rather hard to prove.

So the Fraud aspect comes down to the invoice. because i would clearly not just make up my own invoice.
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile
 
"Everyone else does it!"

B.S.

They don't!

If the only integrity demonstrated by any of your associates is faked, you need to move in different circles.

Newsflash: Honest people actually exist.

Happily the number of disapproving posts suggests that there are quite a few of them here at DPR.

Very nice to see. :-)

Larry
picfox said:
Damkarder, don't worry, most of the replies is faked honesty just
to show morality. It's ridiculous
Click to expand...
 
Steven Noyes said:
1. The OP is playing above board.

2. The OP has full disclosure with the store.
Click to expand...
But not with Canon.
Steven Noyes said:
3. The OP is working with published information.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is what makes it problematic.
Steven Noyes said:
4. The OP is not breaking any laws.
Click to expand...
So, if you don't break any laws that makes any activity ok?
Steven Noyes said:
There is no fraud or deceipt here people. None. Zip. Ziltch.
Click to expand...
Would Canon consider two parties engaged in a conspiracy to allow a person to use a camera for 15 days before the start of a rebate period and then STILL claim the rebate, deceiptful?

It amazes me the number of people playing holy-than-thow on this one.

It might but, honestly, I am not one of them. As a business person I am just angered at anyone who wants to create a scheme that to essentially get something for nothing.

Would you feel the same if the time period involved was 30 days (not 15) ? How about 60 days? 120? 180? 365? 500?

If your opinion changes because of the TIME involved then I would argue that you have not thoroughly investigated the crux of the issue.... if it is OK to do this for a 15 day period but not OK for 365 days (i.e. a pre-arranged scheme to use a camera for some period of time and still qualify for a future refund) then you must also ask yourself why.... if 365 days is not OK, then neither is 15.

Why not just wait the 15 days before you buy that camera???
Steven Noyes said:
Steven

--
---
2006 Southern Arizona Monsoon Wildflowers
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_summer_2006_ii

Summer 2006:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/gallery/images_summer_2006

Click to expand...
--
http://www.murphymurphy.com
 
digicaman2 said:
In your original post you said that you didn't even want a 5D but
you called your local store to cook up this scheme.
Click to expand...
I accept the fact that i was wasting the saleperson's time.
digicaman2 said:
Now, call your store (your "willing accomplice") and change the
question just slightly.... ask them if it would now be ok for you
to come in today, buy a 5d, use it for 15 days, then on oct 15th
return it and buy a new one (not the same camera but a NEW
one)..... This time they will tell you to get lost -- the won't
agree to be your "acccomplice".
Click to expand...
Most definately but if i returned the camera and met their return policy. then wouldn't it be them that are being dishonest.
digicaman2 said:
Why the difference?

Because they are now spending THEIR money (not Canon's).

Using your other example from this thread......

Go into Best Buy and tell them this: "I am going to buy a Printer
from you today I am going to use it for 15 days. I also know that
your return policy is 15 days. I also know that in 15 days Circuit
City will have the same printer for $200 less. So, I am going to
return your printer after 15 days, get a full refund, then buy it
over at Circuit City."
Click to expand...
Try Costco they have a better return policy because they buy in such large volumes that the can push the returned item back onto the supplier.

The management at best buy and circuit city all know what they are doing. They are very experienced and knowlegeable people (some sales assciates exclued) The know about the advantages and disadvantes of having a liberal policy. I am sure that they have thought about this more then us.
digicaman2 said:
If you were the owner of this business would you sell the product
to the customer?
Click to expand...
Probably not. But if the customer returned the product in the condition that i required to qualify for a refund then i would have no problem refunding back their money. If this became too much of a problem the refund policy would be adjusted on a company wide basis not a case by case basis.
digicaman2 said:
The premediation of your scheme is the problem.... price match
issues happen... I have no problem with an "after the fact"
exchange based on NEW information that occurs AFTER your first good
faith purchase.
Click to expand...
digicaman2 said:
But, this is NOT what your original post suggested. Rather, it
suggested a premediated attempt to get "something for nothing"
(i.e. 15 days for free use of a camera) and the complicity of an
accomplice.
Click to expand...
remember about the
digicaman2 said:
It just is not right. If you wanted a 5D (which you don't -- but
you still have the time to call your local store and waste their
time getting this scheme set-up and then tell the WORLD about it by
writing it on DpReview), why not just wait the 15 days like an
honorable person..... why the complex scheme to try to get
something for nothing?
Click to expand...
First of all i was reading this thread the other day
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=20270384

Basically this person bought a 5D and about $4000 in L lens.

In a later thread he stated that he will be returning it because b&h won't adjust the date. And he will be reordering the exact same stuff on the 15th.

Just got me thinking if that was me and i bought from a local store with no knowledge of the rebates. how would they handle it?

So i placed a call. Basically the would operate according to their return policy.

If i had it for only ONE day and put more that 200 actuations on the shutter they would tell me that i am S* t Out of Luck and the they could not honor the return request and i would be fine with that.

So basically i was calling the sales person to find out about their return policy. So maybe i wasn't wasting their time.

I have a feeling that with this sizable of a rebate Canon is going to sell alot of them and maybe there will be a couple of days when smaller camera shops run out of them.

To be honest this still doesn't sound like a bad idea if you wanted to guarantee that you got one on the 15th of Oct.
--
Jay
Equipment on Profile
 
This sword has two edges. Large companies have no problems playing by these rules, so neither should purchasers when dealing with large companies.

--len
 
They are rules tied to the culture and laws of the society you live in and are, by definition, geographical.
I think you are confusing ethics with morals.

BTW a lot of the posters here strike me as being sanctimonious. Anyways, here's some discussion from a dictionary for you to think about:

"THE RIGHT WORD: You can be an ethical person without necessarily being a moral one, since ethical implies conformity with a code of fair and honest behavior, particularly in business or in a profession (: an ethical legislator who didn't believe in cutting deals), while moral refers to generally accepted standards of goodness and rightness in character and conduct—especially sexual conduct ( ~ the moral values she'd learned from her mother).In the same way, you can be honorable without necessarily being virtuous, since honorable suggests dealing with others in a decent and ethical manner, while virtuous implies the possession of moral excellence in character (: many honorable businesspeople fail to live a virtuous private life). Righteous is similar in meaning to virtuous but also implies freedom from guilt or blame (: righteous anger); when the righteous person is also somewhat intolerant and narrow-minded, self-righteous might be a better adjective.Someone who makes a hypocritical show of being righteous is often described as sanctimonious —in other words, acting like a saint without having a saintly character."

--len
 
Steven Noyes said:
It is that simple. A former contract between two parties was
mutually agreed to be broken and a new one made. Plain and simple.
The first contract (sale) is canceled. A new sale is made. This
is little more than a typical buyers remorse situation and it is
the prerogative of the store if they are will to break the original
contract.
Click to expand...
Except that it was the exact same contract. What you're describing would make sense if someone brought a 5D back and bought a G6, but to return an item, but the exact same one - not just the same model, but the same physical copy - how is that anything but a blatant dance around the rules? The original contract was always in effect, it's what the would have walked out of the store with ( a second time ).

This is just like fancy check kiting schemes or Enron's behavior, at the very edge of being legal, with a maze of technicalities.

I'll bet dollars to donuts the fake transactions we've described here, for the sole purpose of changing the date of an invoice, don't fall under GAAP. ( Generally Accepted Accounting Practices )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top