[troutsniffer]

Fair enough, I see your point. I think the opposing opinion is that no return or exchange, regardless of the consumer's abilities, punishes everyone. And this is under the assumption that all of shallow waters livestock is healthy before they're sold. Well I can promise you they're not, I saw dead fish in there last time I was there about a month ago. I was in right at opening as soon as Brian got there. I don't fault him for that, but not having any sort of policy for such a thing is just bad business. It puts everyone else at fault but himself. We shouldn't be held responsible for bad stock.

 

[Mick2016]

Fireweed -

What you are saying may be relevant in SOME situations. However, Troutsniffer states it clearly in his post #21 and brings the discussion back to the original issue.





P.S. There is no more to the story. Yes, of course, the Seller will have his side to present - i.e. (re)stating his position - but this alters neither the chain of events nor my experience, as described in the initial post. I stand by my original position that a Store and/or Staff should state its RETURN/EXCHANGE policy as part of the "selling process"; the Buyer should not have to ask and then, later, be faulted for not asking. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, I will send my business to those retailers who are upfront about such business matters.

 

[Mick2016]

Re: " . . . Unsure how you arrived at that assumption."

-------------

If I may: Reader response would depend if the 'they" in your comment is understood to be the Seller OR the Buyer.

i.e. "Did they choose a clearly sick fish?"

This may explain any confusion over Writer intention vs Reader interpretation.