Q: I bought children’s clothing at a store that was running a 30%-off sale on its merchandise. When I got home and tried them on my children, one of the outfits I bought didn’t fit. A while later, after the sale ended, I was passing by the store and brought the item back for a refund. Since I did not have my receipt, the salesclerk assumed that I had paid the full amount listed on the price tag and she refunded that full amount. Am I allowed to keep that money, since that is the value of the outfit, or am I required to inform them that I received it at a discounted price?
A: From the way you phrased your question, you seem to assume that when a store accepts a return, they view it as though they are buying the returned item on the retail market, and since the full price is the value of the item, you should be allowed to keep the retail price. This is an erroneous assumption for three reasons:
- Even if we view this case as though the store is buying the outfit from you, they obviously do not pay the retail price when purchasing their merchandise. They are only willing to refund the full retail price of a purchase to gain a reputation for having good customer service, not to allow a customer to earn a profit on their account. By presenting the outfit to the salesclerk without telling her that you received a discount, you deceived the store into paying a higher price for the outfit than they would usually pay for it. Now, although a person who forces someone to buy something from him at its actual price is not considered a thief (Shulchan Aruch, C.M. 359:9-10), according to many poskim he does transgress the prohibition of lo sachmod (do not covet; see Pischei Choshen, Geneivah, ch. 1, fn. 26, and Erech Shai, Even Ha’ezer 42:1). [Some poskim argue that lo sachmod only prohibits us from coveting someone else’s possessions, but not his money, which is what the “seller” covets in such a case (Imrei Yaakov, Gezeilah 5).] But the only reason the money is not considered stolen in a case of a forced sale is because the buyer knew that he was being forced to buy the item and agrees – albeit under pressure – to the sale. In your case, since the store had no idea that you were deceiving them and forcing them into refunding the full price, which you had not paid and are not entitled to, the sale is not valid (Nesivos 205:1), and the additional money they paid you is considered stolen (see also Rema 205:12 and Pischei Teshuvah there).
- The assumption that the store is buying the outfit back from you is mistaken, since in reality, they are voiding the original sale. This is akin to a person who buys an item on condition that he may return it for any reason and void the sale, which is considered a binding condition (Shulchan Aruch 207:1). The store’s return policy is a condition allowing the customers to void the original sale. Obviously, then, the customer cannot exchange the item for more money than she originally paid for it, and if she did, that money is considered stolen.
- This case involves the prohibition of geneivas daas, because the salesclerk obviously had no way of knowing that you bought the item on sale (ibid. 228:6), and if she would have thought that was a possibility, she would have asked you about it. Therefore, by not informing her, you are transgressing the prohibition of geneivas daas, by allowing her to proceed based on false information.
