Return Issue at Michael's

The policy is fairly well detailed here:
http://www.returnpolicies.info/index.php/u-s-a/michael-s/

Corporate called me and refunded the $30 plus tax to my credit card!

you could buy a new dress and never wear it...

and then bring it back to the store a year later, see that it's on
clearance for half the price and then demand they refund you the
difference.

obviously you can't do that either.

why would you think they would gladly make this adjustment for you?
Certainly you can return the items, assuming they are still in
original condition and have not been used yet, and re purchase - just
because there is a way around a policy does not mean it is the right
thing to do. IMO, you purchased the items at what you thought was a
fair price and have changed your mind.

I really try to always see things from the customers point of view and
make exceptions where I can, but this situation in particular always
irritates me to no end. Maybe everyone who chose to make a purchase a
month ago should go in with their receipts and get an adjustment.
Then everyone who tries to buy stuff next month can wonder aloud if
perhaps prices have gone up - and eventualy they would have to, in
order to accomodate all the exceptions.

Honestly, as long as you have the receipt and are still within the
return window, I would go back and simply return the invites. Since
you are outside of the 7 day price match window, of course they are
not going to willingly give you the lower price. Sometimes it pays to
only give information out on a need to know basis. The clerk didn't
need to know that you would be turning around and repurchasing the
items again.

If you bring it back in new condition, you bought it a month ago and
you have a receipt, will they let you return it?

This is a great example of a robotic clerk who beats the customer over
the head with a "rule" even though it's perfectly clear your request
fell within their guidelines.

Here's hoping you get a successful resolution.

And thanks for using PlanetFeedback.

My initial problem was that you were arguing with them over their
seven-day policy.

But:

If they only do price adjustments for seven days, that's one thing.
But if you could have returned the items, and then repurchased them at
the lower price, why NOT do the price adjustment? If one policy is in
contrast to another, then the store needs to figure that out.

Otherwise, you could return your purchase (so long as it's within the
return window allowed), then repurchase the items, even if it were the
next day or at another store, and wouldn't that be more work on THEIR
end than if they did a price adjustment?

"Otherwise, you could return your purchase (so long as it's within the
return window allowed), then repurchase the items, even if it were the
next day or at another store, and wouldn't that be more work on THEIR
end than if they did a price adjustment?"

The intention is that if you RETURN them, that's the end of the
transaction. Most people returning things aren't planning to re-buy
them. She's using one rule to get around the other.

Here's a good example - Target's return is 90 days, right? Their
price adjustment, I believe, is 2 weeks. (or at least it was) Why
should a guest bring back merchandise that they bought THREE MONTHS
EARLIER and try to get it at a lower price just because they can still
return it?

As another commenter pointed out above, just because there's a means
to get around the rule doesn't make it appropriate.

As long as this item was still on the shelf, all you had to do was
return the three boxes without saying anything, pick up three more and
pay for them. I don't think anyone can stop you from doing that.

The policy is no price adjustments after 7 days. It applies to you,
too. She said no exceptions.

Even though you wanted it rung up a differently as a way to be clever
and beat the system, you were still requesting a price adjustment.
Returning and then re-ringing the item as a purchase will yield the
same result. Trust me, you are not the only person to try and pull
that one.

You are entitled to nothing.

" I don't understand why this would be an issue."
They have a policy, and the store follows it.

Where does one draw the line? They have a clear policy, and they
enforced it. I don't see why you are owed anything.