Amy Martin's Ethical Dilemmas

I look at this practice as being very unethical. Purchasing an item (whether on credit or by cash) with the intent of using it for a period of time and then returning it is deceitful. It’s obvious that “Amy Martin” is purchasing items with a clearly formulated plan to return them after she has used them because she can’t afford to keep them. The premeditated plan is what makes this a fraudulent act. Purchasing merchandise with the intent of keeping it, and then deciding that it’s not right the right item for you is a perfectly acceptable use of a company’s return policy. The key word here is intent. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines intent as “the state of mind with which an act is done1.” Wardrobing, as it’s popularly called, not only impacts a company, but other consumers as well. People who practice this methodology lower the value of the item, while the company doesn’t receive any compensation for use of the product. Used items that are returned, as general practice, are not resold or are sold at a reduced price, therefore the company has to increase the price of merchandise because the company now has a piece of merchandise that they can’t sell at a regular retail price. This in turn, impacts other consumers by having to pay more for items, being scrutinized when legitimately returning items or dealing with return policies that are more rigid. …show more content…
However, there are other consequences that habitual wardrobers may face. Some companies have started tracking returns. As a result of her behavior, Amy could find herself limited on the number of returns she can make, or lose her return privileges all together. There is a company named The Retail Equation that provides a service called Verify Return Authorization which is designed to identify consumers whose activities demonstrate return fraud or