Returning it because it does not meet your needs is not abusing the policy. That is why it is there.

Knowing that you don't like the light, but are going to continue using it until you find a better one, I think is probably abusing the policy.

The problem now is their products seem to have no warranty anymore, or maybe only a one year warranty. They don't seem to know.

Yep. There was a good article about this a while back. At least one person mentioned in the article said they bought stuff with the intention of using it once and returning it. Some people joking referred to REI as "Rental Equipment, Inc.", except that doesn't really fit since they would get their money back and thus pay no "rent."

They don't sell it as new. They'll sell it at a discount, used, and their staff gets first crack at it.

I don't think it's unethical to use a policy that they've offered you. I've used their generous return policy several times over more than a decade, when it was appropriate. I've also bought many things from REI because of that return policy. It isn't charity on their part, it's a calculated profit-enhancing decision. Just don't be a jerk about it.

At $40, I would just keep it.

I have a related story. LL Bean has a lifetime, no questions asked warranty on everything they sell. Also, they mean it: you can return anything at any time for a full refund or replacement. Two years ago, my wife bought me a ~$300 GoreTex shell from them. The shell never fit right but I used it occasionally for one winter as I liked the color (!) and figured I could deal with it. Last winter I got fed up and brought the jacket back to see if they could do anything. I was immediately offered a full refund which I promptly plowed back into a sweet pair of boots. I felt kind of bad about this as it had been a full year but then I realized that LL Bean has earned my undying loyalty because of this service. It makes good business sense.

Yeah, these accusations of "abuse" are absurd. Abuse is when you buy it with the intention of using it, enjoying it's use, then returning it just before the end of the return policy even though it worked fine for you. Abuse is when you want a light for ragbrai, buy it, use it and it works fine, it gets covered with mud, etc, then you return it because you don't want to have spent money on it.

There is no way that returning a light that you tried and worked horribly is "abuse". That's the whole point of their return policy.

I tell people if you want to buy a Garmin or any of their competition, you better buy it at a store like REI. Those things are notoriously buggy, you may legitimately be unsatisfied with it, buy it from a store that will make it right if the thing doesn't live up to your expectations.

That's why REI has the policy. It brings them sales, more than enough to offset the loss from returns.

REI return policy is their policy. They know what they are doing and they are still in business going strong while Sports Chalet, Sports Authority and many other big sporting and outdoor brick and mortar chains are going out of business. Customer service and satisfaction is the only thing that can let companies compete with Amazon and eBay these days. And Amazon also will refund anything no question asked so it's even harder to compete. Target and Home Depot recently made their return policies longer and more liberal because they realize they need to and I shop at those stores over competitors because of it. Performance also allows bike returns for 1 year if you aren't satisfied and people return 1 year old well ridden bikes. The fact is 95% of consumers buy something and have no problem throwing it in the trash after 3 months and moving on and that offset the few people who demand satisfaction

I think you mean trademark/trade dress.


And ****.

Broseph, it's between the customer and REI.

Strangers on the Internet get no input into the transaction.

That's what I said earlier, but I already said I'm keeping the light. :-)

However, feel free to discuss the ethics of returns. It's nice to see the "holier than thou" crowd claiming to be "ethical"

FWIW, I don't recall him ever advocating knock-offs. Unbranded? Yes. Direct sales? Yes. But never anything that purported to be something that it wasn't. I mean, I could be wrong, the guy has a lot of posts to sift through, but I'm always looking for reasons to needle him, and pushing knock-offs isn't one of the things that I recall seeing him do.

Somehow I doubt it's Chinese bike frames that are causing Microsoft to stagnate. ;)

:lol: Just wanted to say . . .

You guys can find reasons to argue and fight if you want, but as soon as it strays off the original topic this thread is toast.

I bought my Garmin Vector pedals at REI. Anything Garmin makes is suspect, it can work great, or it can be too buggy to actually use. I'll only buy something like that from a store that will let me return it if I need to. Turns out these are solid, so I kept them.

That's why they have that policy.

I'm not used to seeing year long much less open ended return policies. I'm used to 30 days as the standard. Even amazon, renowned for it's customer service, is 30 days, and unless there is a defect or seller error, you still pay return shipping with the return. This seems to be SOP.

I was curious about how people interpreted and actually used the policy from REI. Based on what people are saying, even the 1 year policy may not be enforced by REI, which seems astounding to me.

Great post. Very informative.

I have mixed feelings about amazon. Their prices maybe half the time, are the best I can find anywhere. However, they don't turn a profit and seem committed to undercutting competition to carve out exclusive monopolistic market share.

The argument for utilization of the policy being at times unethical seems to rest on inferences of the "real" purpose.

The policy is what it is and unless deceit is employed in using the policy, no use of the policy can really be considered unethical. In personal relationships and transactions, other standards may apply but when conducting business in the corporate world the words of the policy mean what they say. Nothing less and nothing more.

Would I "buy" an item from them, use the heck out of it for 11 months, and then return it? No. Because it wouldn't feel right. But that's a function of ingrained societal conditioning. I can't mount a rational, logical argument that it violates ethical precepts without resorting to inference or assumption. If I meet the terms of the contract they offer, I really have to be on ethically solid ground.

Fantastically argued. Ultimately, it is a legal, contractual relationship. As long as both parties agree to and abide by the terms, there really is no other issue.

If you take it that far, it doesn't really make sense. What if they have free shipping and free returns so I order and return tens of thousands of the same product just to make them pay shipping costs? They might technically not have that in the contract but clearly I'm abusing it.

A lot of ethics are built around acting in a was that benefits everyone, but that is hard to enforce without the person at the end having good intentions. At at certain point you're arguing that murder is only unethical if you get caught, which is rediculous.

But I think people claiming "ethics" by basically saying "don't use the policy" are just as absurd. What's the point of having a generous return policy if your ethics are basically "you can never return anything"?

You are referring to theoretical possibilities rather than practical real world liabilities. If if ever came to that point, REI would be free to change their policy to something more restrictive.

As far as I know, REI likely has a system in place to flag "unusual" or "questionable" orders any way.

I don't think your claim that murder is unethical only if you get caught is in any way similar to returning a light. Or not. That much should be obvious.

Some merchants have a "no returns" policy. I'm fine with it as long as it's consistent with local, state and federal law.

I haven't actually studied ethics in decades, but that definition goes beyond those with which I'm familiar. In the real world, it is often very difficult to ascertain what actually benefits everyone. And the answer one arrives at is likely to be highly subjective. For example, in an election we should all wish to vote for the person advocating policies that will benefit everyone, but there will be great disagreement as to which candidate and policies fit the description.

In the present case, it would involve assuming facts not in evidence. Arguably, all use of the policy may benefit REI in the long run. I heard a report on NPR a few months ago discussing this policy. What is the value of such a report to REI in terms of free publicity? Being known as 'rental equipment incorporated' might well be worth more than the cost of returns. If no one "abuses" the policy, REI doesn't receive that same level of benefit because no one really notices. You can return goods to most vendors, but becoming 'famous' for accepting all returns sets you apart from the competition.

I've returned 2 items in the past year to REI, one was a jersey that gave me a rash (cheap brand that I'll never buy again), the other some socks that got a hole in the toe after only wearing them a couple times. I love the return policy because it took a couple months for me to have these issues and if I would have purchased those items anywhere else I would be out the money.

If you return a light you aren't happy with, REI will just sell it for a marked down price at the garage sale to someone who may love it. REI does't lose out on much with a pretty hefty mark-up and offsetting most of their cost with the garage sale. To me it seems like a win-win for all...

FYI, when REI changed their return policy from forever to one year, their announcement had some fine print stating that things people had already bought from them were covered under the old policy. As people are saying, it's a contract, people had done their part (made a purchase) under the old rules, and REI would hold up their end (return policy). It sounds generous but was probably a legal obligation.

(It was a big deal on a local hiking forum.)