As have I, and I couldn't agree more. Serve the notice and move on. You'll find someone much more agreeable. When I had this problem, I moved out and ended up making and living with some of the best friends I'm likely to have in this lifetime. I only wish I'd done it sooner.
It's too bad you don't know how these things work. Companies have a quota for these sort of things. They won't lose anything.
At some point, someone in the chain will lose something. So actually it's you who "doesn't understand how these things work"
To be fair, £70,-- for a remote? Production cost of these things is no more than £5,--. So although I agree the behaviour is unethical and deplorable, in terms of cost the loss to the company is minimal.
I can tell you right now that yes, you get to offset a certain amount against tax for "lost, stolen*, damaged, or destroyed" products with HMRC. However, it doesn't offset the total cost of the item, just the VAT paid for the item by the seller, so businesses tend to try and recoup the remainder of the loss (the 83+1/3%) by putting up their prices. So it's the customer that pays in the end, always. *that includes you right there. That sort of crap gets me pretty hacked off I get enough of it with the "I just wore it once and it broke" crowd, intentionally damaging goods once they've had the use of them in an attempt to get their money back.
I assume this mythical remote rubs your shoulders and cooks dinner whilst you're being "home entertained"? For that sort of money I'd certainly expect it to
So in your mind that makes stealing from them okay? Even if you are correct (Which you are not), that's a real scumbag point of view that is mighty close to a burglar saying 'It's okay they're insured.' And you are deluding yourself if you think any company has a 'quota' for acceptable losses through theft. I'm sure they'll track it in their financial forecasts but that is not the same thing. That's like saying the police have a 'quota' for violent crime because they track the numbers and plan for the inevitable crimes that will be committed. If you genuinely believed the company wouldn't lose anything, and would be quite happy with you stealing from them you wouldn't have lied to them. You were dishonest because you knew honesty wouldn't have got you a free remote. Sorry to say it quite so blatantly but. You are a thief.
We had a conversation about that at work. People change when they are just typing words into a computer. That's why when I have a complaint about service from a company I type an email rather than phone in a complaint. I'm too nice in person. In writing I say what I mean. That being said, I would not buy a new remote. I would not "steal" one from the company either. I would just live without it until I find one cheap on ebay or Kijiji. On the subject of roommates. As someone who has had 46 roommates in the last 15 years. If a situation goes bad. End it. I had a roommate punch me in the throat. 6 hours later my stuff was packed and in the back of a truck. Never saw him again, and if I ever do. He will get some dirty looks... (I'm not violent) I plan to buy a house in the next year and will likely rent out a room, or the basement. As a landlord, i'll make sure my tennants enjoy where they live. But if they cross me, I'll throw them out. without hesitation. I have learned not to put up with an ounce of crap. It's just not worth it.
My problem with this is a) You are defrauding an honest company. Can you imagine the fuss you'd kick up if it was the other way around, and Scan or someone had sold you an Amp without a remote, and then lied, said it did have one and send another one. I can almost see the rant filled vitriol now. You are now -1 Customer service credits. b) The boastful nature of it. Are we supposed to be impressed by the fact that you've willingly and openly defrauded a company to get something for free. Maybe I'd better pop a little link to this thread on your 'GTX 670' for sale post, just so people know the kind of person you are? If the idea of this is making you angry right now, maybe ask why it makes you angry? I mean, if there isn't anything wrong with what you've done, no harm in me posting the link, right?
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." --Oscar Wilde
Funny, isn't it. As a litigator, I spend a lot of time being very forthright both in writing and in advocacy. I would agree that it is easier to be rather more 'to the point' when using the written word, but at the end of the day, whatever I write on paper or in an e-mail still has my name at the bottom of it, or that of my firm. It serves to dilute the rudeness and suchlike a little and make it all a bit less 'handbags', in my experience. However, when we are all in the relatively anonymous world of internet forums, with usernames hiding our real identities? That's when people feel it acceptable to become really judgemental and critical of others! As regards the TV remote point? It's a toughie. On one hand is the view that they are a faceless corporation and a small loss like that is irrelevant. On the other hand, it's really quite dishonest as it is lying. Whether it's right or not? Well. I'm not getting involved in that one today! Thus neatly supporting my previous post
Would you use that defence if I took the remote from Currys? I suppose you could argue that there were extenuating circumstances, but I don't see how it's a "toughie" on the grounds you mention. I would say in this case it's easier to be forthright when you are right. Mentioning something like that on an anonymous forum you should expect judgemental/critical comments, especially given that it is likely that some of the people reading will identify with the "faceless" corporation/business being ripped off. The "keyboard warrior" argument is basically dodging the question.
If we were face to face I would say the same thing. Stealing is stealing. The person who steals is a thief. I'm not one to pussyfoot around. Steal: Take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: Thief: A person who steals another person’s property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence I think I have the dictionary on my side when I refer to the person who obtains good without permission as a thief. Saying "You are a thief" is not me being judgemental, I'm just stating fact. I was being judgemental when I said that justifying the theft was a bit of a scumbag point of view. I think scumbag is pretty tame all things considered. If someone had stolen my property I'd sure be using a lot of colourful metaphors. I have no shame in being judgemental. I'm not being nice here, I'm just straight talking. It's not as if I'm walking into your house and stealing your remote control, or calling up one of your employees and lying to them to waste their time and defraud your company out of stock.
You said: "On one hand is the view that they are a faceless corporation and a small loss like that is irrelevant." "On the other hand, it's really quite dishonest as it is lying." I don't think you can claim to be a neutral observer when you state a limited spectrum of possible views on the the matter. Myself and others are saying it's stealing, which beyond just lying.
