Costco receipt checking

PhillyDee · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:51

To be fair JBuk, you usually cannot just walk into a wholesaler and shop. You need proof that you can shop there first. I say usually, because there are exceptions.

Costco is much better for things other than beer and spirits. Soft drinks, meat quality, confectionary, tooling etc is where they really shine.

Raymond Lin · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:51

gambitt said:
Hardly a lot of money. I was only going because my mate suggested it. Was hardly any difference in price of beer between Costco and supermarkets.

Ok, I will rephrase.

Would you go back there knowing this takes place?

JBuk · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:52

Raymond Lin said:
The member in your group would have signed up to it, won't you say it is fair to say that the moment you agree to step into the store, and ASK to pay separately, that moment you agreed to all the Terms and Condition the signed up member agreed to? It is not the store's obligation to explain it to the friends, the store already explained it to the member. The friends choose to be there, choose to purchase goods there.
.

I wouldn't have expected there to be any special T&C's for me to agree to so I'm not sure how I could agree to anything without knowing.

The member should have explained the rules and the store should have signs explainging them imo.

quickshot89 · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:54

JBuk said:
Exactly, the member is accountable not the guest, a guest can not be expected to know the t&c's of the shop without them being explained or shown.

I've never shopped in a wholesaler and I would never have guessed they had such rules , if I walked into one and there was nothing explaing them then I'd be none the wiser.

then why are you replying to a thread about a wholesaler if you have no experiance? the OP is just upset that he was asked to prove he bought the item when he couldnt show a reciept in front of people, which he got embarresed about and felt he had to wave his epeen stick around

Pez · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:54

OP - You've ignored my posts a number of times, do you not feel like answering them?

233 · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:54

jesus H christ on a bike OP for a start, they as a company didnt agree to a transation with you, the membership is in your friends name and has their lovely picture on it as well. its their membership not yours so the contract is with them.

and if you dont like it dont bleeding well go back.

seriously get a grip ffs they checked the contents of your shopping trolley, it works both ways. you could have been overcharged and didnt notice or underpaid and not noticed, or just be a thieving *****. having shopped at costco/makro/bookers/maccess/ etc etc for years this is an industry wide practice millions of people in the uk are happy to accept this so un twist your panties and get over yourself

Raymond Lin · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:55

JBuk said:
I wouldn't have expected there to be any special T&C's for me to agree to so I'm not sure how I could agree to anything without knowing.

The member should have explained the rules and the store should have signs explainging them imo.

If the member didn't explain the rules to you then its not the store's fault is it?

I said before, you can't have it both ways.

gambitt · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:55

Raymond Lin said:
Ok, I will rephrase.

Would you go back there knowing this takes place?

Not out of choice. If my mate said "let's go to Costco" I'd go along but this time I'd warn him I'm going to decline to have my bags checked.

JBuk · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:56

quickshot89 said:
then why are you replying to a thread about a wholesaler if you have no experiance? the OP is just upset that he was asked to prove he bought the item when he had to reciept in front of people, which he got embarresed about and felt he had to wave his epeen stick around

I didn't realise I needed to have experience to post about aspects of it?

Raymond Lin · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:56

gambitt said:
Not out of choice. If my mate said "let's go to Costco" I'd go along but this time I'd warn him I'm going to decline to have my bags checked.

Then don't buy anything. What is the problem?

PhillyDee · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:56

Foxtrot26 said:
seriously get a grip ffs they checked the contents of your shopping trolley, it works both ways. you could have been overcharged and didnt notice or underpaid and not noticed, or just be a thieving *****. having shopped at costco/makro/bookers/maccess/ etc etc for years this is an industry wide practice millions of people in the uk are happy to accept this so un twist your panties and get over yourself

I once never received the stamps I paid for, a trolley check and they were given to me. They usually just scan a big thick piece of card and the stamps are given by a runner. Totally forgot, and nearly left without them!

Not out of choice. If my mate said "let's go to Costco" I'd go along but this time I'd warn him I'm going to decline to have my bags checked.

What bags? Its usually sat in the trolley. Its not as if they are rifling through your perfume, vibrator and lipstick.

Macro · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:56

JBuk said:
If there is nothing to show the terms of shopping there how can he be anything other than ignorant if he's not a paying member?

To be fair he was fully aware that the shop operated under conditions and terms different to a normal high street shop and by taking advantage of the preferential terms inferred his agreement.

At no time did he check the T&Cs or ask a member of staff if there was any conditions before he took advantage of what he clearly knew to be conditions that varied from the average high street retailer.

He knew he could only be there as a guest of a member. He knew that gave him advantages not available to the general public (i.e. preferential pricing). He knew he was subject to the terms and conditions that governed membership as he explicitly asked if it was possible for him to pay separately (a given in any other situation). He knew he could not purchase the items there without using the membership of his friend which he knew carried terms and conditions with it.

He was not personally searched at any time, the goods on the trolley were reconciled against a list of purchased goods before departure.

He had already consented to the goods being checked and listed once (at the till) and had never suggested he would object to that act being carried out twice.

When offered, along with every other customer, the check of goods at the exit (to perhaps be helpful and make sure nothing had fallen off the trolley and gone missing on the way out, who can say

) he did not take the opportunity to decline, to ask for managerial intervention or in fact just declare he was unprepared to have the goods checked again and return them for a refund.

The only thing i'm not sure of of is if the OP is trolling or just odd.

Feek · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:57

gambitt said:
For the same reason why I don't call the police if I see someone littering in the street. There are certain things that the police aren't interested, such as if my car gets broken into.

Here we go with the "you're whining" thing again. Is it standard practice to just tell someone that their whining just because you don't agree with my negative statement?

It's nothing to do with your negative statement, it's pretty much fact. You still refuse to accept that you're wrong, all you've done since the first post is to whine about it.

I have no idea what happened to you before with the Police but I don't think I've met anyone with such a huge chip on their shoulder as you have.

This thread was entertaining originally, now it's just got really tedious.

If you thought they were doing something illegal, you should have got the Police involved at the time but you didn't, all you've done is come here and complain (do you prefer 'complain' to 'whine') about it. You have absolutely no grounds to complain, the shop has done absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong at all. If you really thought they had then you'd have done something about it when you were in the shop but you didn't. Grow up and accept that you're wrong.

DRZ summed it up very early on.

DRZ said:
I honestly wonder how people like you make it through life.

JBuk · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:59

Raymond Lin said:
If the member didn't explain the rules to you then its not the store's fault is it?

I said before, you can't have it both ways.

Nor is it the guests.

Ignorance is no excuse generally but in some cicumstances such as this I find it is because the op genuinely can not be expected to know about special conditions attached to him upon entering the store.

Like I said it would be helpful if the conditions were made clear before entering by either the member or the shop imo.

quickshot89 · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:01

JBuk said:
Nor is it the guests.

Ignorance is no excuse generally but in some cicumstances such as this I find it is because the op genuinely can not be expected to know about special conditions attached to him upon entering the store.

Like I said it would be helpful if the conditions were made clear before entering by either the member or the shop imo.

ill say it again, the T&C are normally posted in the entrance

JBuk · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:02

Athanor said:
To be fair he was fully aware that the shop operated under conditions and terms different to a normal high street shop and by taking advantage of the preferential terms inferred his agreement.

At no time did he check the T&Cs or ask a member of staff if there was any conditions before he took advantage of what he clearly knew to be conditions that varied from the average high street retailer.

He knew he could only be there as a guest of a member. He knew that gave him advantages not available to the general public (i.e. preferential pricing). He knew he was subject to the terms and conditions that governed membership as he explicitly asked if it was possible for him to pay separately (a given in any other situation). He knew he could not purchase the items there without using the membership of his friend which he knew carried terms and conditions with it.

He was not personally searched at any time, the goods on the trolley were reconciled against a list of purchased goods before departure.

He had already consented to the goods being checked and listed once (at the till) and had never suggested he would object to that act being carried out twice.

When offered, along with every other customer, the check of goods at the exit (to perhaps be helpful and make sure nothing had fallen off the trolley and gone missing on the way out, who can say ) he did not take the opportunity to decline, to ask for managerial intervention or in fact just declare he was unprepared to have the goods checked again and return them for a refund.

The only thing i'm not sure of of is if the OP is trolling or just not odd.

Yeah, I understand, like I said above having some info signs explaining everything would seem helpful imo.

JBuk · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:04

quickshot89 said:
ill say it again, the T&C are normally posted in the entrance

sorry I didn't read correctly, if there was such info then the op should have read it.

gambitt · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:04

Raymond Lin said:
Then don't buy anything. What is the problem?

Because I'd be hungry. There is no problem.

Pez said:
OP - You've ignored my posts a number of times, do you not feel like answering them?

Sorry Pez, they are coming thick and fast and I'm trying to watch Zohan! I'll have a go at this one:

Pez said:
It's not an unfair contract, you are not significantly disadvantaged by any of it's clauses, nor are there any penalties.

I didn't say it was an unfair contract, I was pointing out to the guy that said "it's in the contract so you MUST abide by it!" is rubbish if it contradicts UK law.

Pez said:
Nobody is saying that store policy is above the law, the fact is so far, that you cannot demonstrate that a law has been broken by store policy being enforced - so that's that.

No a law wasn't broken but what would've happened if I walked away? Would they have tried to detain me? If not, does that make the search optional? If so, would it be a lawful detention?

Raymond Lin · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:06

We are just going around in circles here. OP is never going to accept it, so what's the point?

Pez · 27 Dec 2010 at 21:11

gambitt said:
Because I'd be hungry. There is no problem.

Sorry Pez, they are coming thick and fast and I'm trying to watch Zohan! I'll have a go at this one:

I didn't say it was an unfair contract, I was pointing out to the guy that said "it's in the contract so you MUST abide by it!" is rubbish if it contradicts UK law.

No a law wasn't broken but what would've happened if I walked away? Would they have tried to detain me? If not, does that make the search optional? If so, would it be a lawful detention?

It's still not actually a detention at this stage. Citizens arrest is a grey area (cannot remember just now what conditions must be met to make one legal) however if you turned out to be innocent, then the arrest would be unlawful, and the arresting citizen could face charges. This is completely different for a police officer as they have the ability to arrest where reasonable suspicion exists (Falls under the PACE iirc)