All you guys speak like your not human beings, but a saint, seriously, get real. He wants the best amount of money he can get, anyone would, so don't say "Guilty this etc" etc. And I bet 90% of these forums illegally download movies/music also, heh.
I dont see anything wrong with trying to get a full value for the dvd. e-bay would be the best option for that, or craigslist if its in his area.
That's the difference between some forum members, one part has morals and standards, the others don't...
The difference is getting full value for a dvd by selling to an individual or company versus trying to exchange it at a store where he did not purchase it.
True. Whilst I find it to be "morally wrong" - let's say he succeeds in doing this in a store like Curry's. Does anyone here really care? We all know they live off ripping people off all the time, wouldn't this be more of a Robin Hood-like act rather than actual theft?
I still don’t see what’s wrong with him taking a packaged dvd, going into a store, asking if they will buy it from him, or if he can exchange it for something else. He isn't ripping off the store, that implies that he stole something from them. When in reality it’s a business exchange. He gives them something, and they give something back. I see no evil in that. As long as they both consider the items to be an equal value. If you are going to imply that I have low morals or standards at least explain how him just trying to get the highest amount of money possible is a bad thing to do. He hasn’t said that he is going to go in and lie about anything. He hasn't implied that he is going to try and trick a store into thinking that he bought it there and now he wants his money back. I like to assume that a persons intentions are honest. Maybe that’s because I’m an honest person(usually). I wonder if it works the other way too, that if a person assumes a persons intentions are dishonest, that they are a dishonest person at heart. Difference between what? Who asked about the difference between anything?
rather too much about it actually but it is of no relevance to thoughts about a "crime" that you havent started! And only makes an appearance when you actually embark on something. If i intend to sleep with a woman but she says no so i go home alone does that make me a rapist? Aside from that, there is actually no intent here in a legal sense as i honestly dont think i would be defrauding anyone of anything and intent would rely on my state of mind at the time of any "crime". ( the Ghosh test if you're interested, which technically relates to Theft, but would be very likely to be the the same for the fraud act 2006 but it is too soon for any case law to have arisen on it ) I wouldnt have a problem going into a shop and saying that. No where in the thread did i say i was going to make up some lie about how i had two copies as presents or something and that i had 3 small children to feed. I have in the past done the exact same thing as you say when i got cds from Britannia that i didnt want with the managers in my old local our prices knowledge as he was the one doing the exchanges for me! Ps, assuming you know what someones actions might be is a tad condescending. Besides that any company that offered an exchange without a receipt as part of their customer service policy will have realised that people might exchange stuff they didnt buy from them and accounted for it in their business model. A) they test stuff B) if you'd been in a cex or a cash convertors you'd know they have the poor "in their transaction" I'm with you there Major, it irks me that some people think because you don't meet their almost puritanical moral code that they assume you are in fact some sort of base amoral creature. . . It is possible to have a strong moral code but appreciate that the tiniest dip into a grey area doesnt make you some sort of pariah. I'm actually quite shocked at the reaction this thread has caused. I'm pretty sure not much of that makes sense as its 4 in the morning and ive had one sazerac too many
Yeah, by that logic invading Iraq was. Give me a break. Here fathazza is, asking if any shop will take back a DVD without a receipt. He is not asking if any shop would be prepared to trade a DVD not sold by them for another. There is a big difference, and you know it. The former scenario is only relevant if he intends to exchange the DVD pretending he bought it there. An act does not cease to be a crime just because the perpetrator does not think it is a crime. And intent includes planning. You are making enquiries here, ergo it could be argued that you are planning to defraud. Then why do you need to ask here about exchanges without receipts? Surely that should not be relevant if you tell them the truth? Supermarkets account for shoplifting in their business model. Doesn't make it right to shoplift. So you admit it is a "grey area" now? Thin end of the wedge. If you are prepared to compromise on your principles for a few quid on a DVD, what will you do when you are faced with a real moral dilemma? I think it is kind of funny. When people feel unhappy with a transaction in a shop in website, e.g. goods did not arrive soon enough, or it was faulty, or not as described, then they have no compunction to post a lengthy rant here about the lack of principles of the shop involved. It is also well known here that the most unreliable traders on the FS forum are the first ones to scream when something they bought does not arrive within 24 hours. I guess that when it comes to principles we measure with two yardsticks.
Conversely, your absolutism when created with standard situations in mind and then applied to more out of the ordinary situations (for the crime of thievery, perhaps) is just as evil. You say thin end of the wedge, I say a broad spectrum in which we rely on ourself and our judgements in each and every case, and judge for each situation what we find moral.
I'm just giving my opinion. I think that swapping a DVD under pretence is a bit deceitful, and I am challenging his opinion that it is not, really. He has his personal judgement; I have mine.
Actually for some crimes and some types of criminal that is exactly what does happen. The culpability of someones state of mind is exactly what can make the difference between two people doing the same act and one person commiting a crime and the other not!. Planning is merely indicative of intent, in the same way that motive might be but neither are conclusive. It could also be argued that the sky today is grey and that im actually trying to exchange a dvd. Any shop that accepts an exchange without a receipt is more likely than a shop that didnt to exchange it knowing i didnt buy it from them. no but it would make it less wrong than if they werent insured etc. Well ill probably have fallen down to the bottom of the slippery slope by then and be too busy gnawing on the bones of children to realise theres a moral dilemma that needs my attention. Its hardly compromising my principles if i dont think its wrong in the first place. Ps I agree with you there which upsets me People dont hold a companies to the same standards that they hold normal people to. Frankly i think that shoplifting to feed yourself would be far more moral than being a company trading with 200% mark ups.
Poor judgement is not a defence (ignorance of the law... etc.). If intent can be demonstrated, that is enough to prosecute. Sounds a bit weak, IMO. So it's not as bad when the insurance company carries the can? Of course, eventually the fees go up so it still comes back to the shop... Perhaps those mark-ups are to cover the shoplifting insurance fees. In any case, it's all about market forces. You think 200% mark-up is too high? Don't buy there. Shop around. I haven't paid more than half the original price for my 30" TFT and my colour laser printer. Refurb outlets are cheescake that way. Exaggerating to the extreme is not a valid argument... I'm saying that if you try to exchange a DVD by pretending you bought it from the shop, that is in my opinion deceitful. Now if that wasn't your intention at all, then you have my apologies for thinking less of you. If it is your intention, and you don't think that is wrong, then the opinion of this anonymous self-righteous asshole (that's me! ) shouldn't bother you. But if it does, you might want to ask yourself why.
Wow, we're all happy and nice here aren't we. Woolworths wouldn't let me return DVD's from them with the woolworths promotional stickers still on them becuase I didn't have a recipt.
Actually for the purposes of fraud there are 5 distinct criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for a successful prosecution, with intent towards that fraud being one of them. And as it happens poor judgement and even ignorance of the law do totally count towards the outcome because of the Ghosh test i mentioned in one of my previous posts which is the leading case on the subject of dishonesty (one of the other criteria). Basically you cant be dishonest if you geniunely believe you arent doing anything dishonest, which makes a lot of sense if you ask me. apology accepted
