That's fraud and yes, if the store restocks the item according to the receipt, they will not gain money.

I think it slants more to immoral than amoral. Moreover, when and if the store figures out Sue's little con game, she could get prosecuted. Also, the person who took it back might get in trouble or lose their job for not noticing the difference (if it could have been noticed).

So, Sue's a real piece of work. Is she this narcissistic otherwise?

It's a shame really because in all likelihood the store would have exchanged the unfavored pendant for the one she liked better if she had asked. I don't think that there is any basis for prosecution.

I don't think it's fraud, there's neither a gain/profit motive not a gain/profit result for this individual.

It is deceitful and untruthful. Some people can't look at themselves in the mirror having done something similar, others find it to be no problem. I avoid people like that.

It's fraud. Sue got personal gain from her deception.

Did I misunderstand the flow? I thought when the dust settled, she had paid $450 for something that was priced at $300.

Scratching my head for another reason. I doubt I could discern a $150 difference in value between any two diamonds, even using a loupe. That's a tiny amount of money when you're talking diamonds! I also can't understand why she was OK losing $150.

Yes, it's still fraud, perhaps not by legal definition (I'm not a lawyer and don't know either way) but it's gaining money (the amount refunded) by deceit. If she had brought in the first necklace and asked the manager if she could do a straight exchange for the less expensive one she preferred, she might have been accommodated. The main issue would be whether she'd switched stones, and whether they can verify the stones without taking it apart.

Chisue, my impression was that the first pendant was larger overall. The stones probably have no real value, but they do have to be correctly identified (synthetic can be detected spectroscopically) and confirmed as to origin (not conflict diamonds). As to losing $150, she wasn't. There was no way she could sell or return the first necklace for the original price. She was gaining the amount she got back for returning the wrong one, rather than letting the necklace she didn't care for sit in her drawer.

It was wrong of her. I don't know if it constitutes fraud. However, I'd lose respect for her. I never understand people who rejoice in things like that or are happy when a store makes a mistake in their favor and don't mention it to the store. That's not the type of person I want to be.

I had assumed that the diamond itself was larger/smaller, leading me to think that the stones were only 'diamonds' in the widest sense.

Actually, diamonds or not isn't the question. This gal should not have misrepresented her return.

That reminds me of a friend I use to have. She would have a classy event to go to and would buy at least 3 very expensive designer dresses to wear. She would wear one, keeping the price tag attached, and return them all the day after the event. I don't know how she hid the tag. She would tell the store she found something elsewhere that she liked better. She did this all the time. Her excuse was that she could only wear it once, because everyone had seen it, so why pay such an exorbitant amount for something she could only wear that one time. That is why I said she was a friend I use to have.

First, do a Google search on "what is the definition of fraud" and you will see that, yes, what "Sue" did is fraudulent. She perhaps didn't have criminal intent, but it's still fraud.

Cut, Clarity, Carat Weight, and Color. These four things all go into the pricing of a genuine diamond. I simply cannot imagine a bona fide jewelry store putting a receipt on a diamond pendant that says only "'diamond pendant 14k gold" much less two pendants with different sized diamonds having the same code. If they, indeed, had such labels, it indicates that the diamonds, if genuine, are not very good quality.

There is a 300% mark-up on good jewelry. For there to be a $150 price difference means that the bigger diamond is worth $50 more than the smaller diamond (presuming the 14K gold chains are identical). For a mere $50 difference, I'm thinking the "larger" diamond isn't very much larger (hardly noticeable, actually), or else the "larger" diamond is a really terrible quality.

I also can't help but wonder what makes a diamond pendant "too large." PickyShopper, can you tell us the size of the diamond of the pendant Sue was wearing?

Calflower, I'm surprised your friend got away with this. Don't stores have a no return policy for evening wear if worn? Deodorant stains, perfume etc. I would think it would be hard to keep a dress pristine after a long evening.

I had a neighbor that would give clothing a trial run. She was wearing shorts and I saw the price tag. She explained that she was tired of having marginal clothing, things that look good in the store, but then felt uncomfortable or tight when actually wearing.

Picky, I bet if she went back, they might have accommodated her since she was upgrading.

What your friend did was quite telling as to who she really is.

She knew it was wrong but she justified it in her own mind as "well, they can sell it again, no harm no foul."

Morally, ethically you, I and everyone else at this table KNOWS what she did is wrong.

She lied. She passed off one piece of jewelry as being a different piece. She conned them and resorted to the old "no harm, no foul" argument.

The worst part is, if this was from a chain jewelry store, they would have gladly accepted an exchange!!!

I worked at a chain jewelry store and while straight returns were limited to 30 days, we had a policy of letting people trade in older jewelry to get newer jewelry. (It was, frankly, shocking to me that people would trade in their wedding ring for a better one...consumerism at its finest)

If she has the money to be able to buy fine jewelry at a whim, she has enough money to gift it, pawn it or sell it at a loss. To resort to manipulative lies in order to penny pinch is disturbing.

I'll try to answer your questions, as my first post was already lengthy and I couldn't include all the details.

mimipadv, I worked with "Sue" until 5 years ago, and we bumped into each other at the mall and went for a coffee, to catch up. When we worked together, she was never narcissistic and was perfectly ethical (to my knowledge.) Thus my shock, after complimenting her on the pendant!

Snidely, I don't know how much the pendant cost, just that she said it was $150.00 less than the one she returned.

chisue, you wondered why she'd be OK losing $150.00 and her explanation was that because she could no longer return the original piece, it 'made more sense' to her that she ends up with the simpler pendant that she preferred and the store ends up with a pendant worth more than the money they gave her when she returned it.

Suzieque, at least she wasn't rejoicing at having pulled off anything when she told me about returning the pricier pendant. She looked shocked when I told her it was actually fraud, because she had assumed that her returning the pricier pendant, meant the store was gaining financially from it.

Lindsay, she didn't buy the pendants from a bona fide 'jewelry store,' but from a large chain store here, similar to maybe Macy's in the States. The diamonds were little, and she said the original pendant was almost identical, but a bit larger, so the detailed design in the gold, stood out more. She preferred the new pendant because the design in the gold was smaller and more subtle. I'm thinking the little diamonds were probably the same in both, and the price probably reflected a weight difference in the gold.

plllog you said "As to losing $150, she wasn't. There was no way she could sell or return the first necklace for the original price. She was gaining the amount she got back for returning the wrong one, rather than letting the necklace she didn't care for sit in her drawer."

That's how I saw it as well. When I likened her actions to people who shoplift, switch price tags to get a cheaper cost, return things to a different store than purchased, etc. she looked stunned and said "but they cause a financial loss to the store and I was returning something worth $150.00 more than what I paid for it."

I suggested to her that if in fact the store hadn't noticed she was returning the slightly larger pendant with a receipt for the smaller one, why would she assume they'd suddenly notice it later and resell it for the proper (higher) price? Or what if they never sold it at all? She admitted she hadn't thought that out, and I saw how she suddenly went from 'not feeling conflicted' to being very embarrassed and upset upon realizing her logic had been faulty. All said I'll not repeat what I learned from "Sue" to anyone, as I don't think she fully understood what she did, and I've certainly made many mistakes myself.

Odd, the different takes. I thought '...Sue hadn't thought of that, and seemed clearly upset at the thought of having done something 'fraudulent'.' was more telling as to who she is. People sometimes think narrowly when they do something, and it is only in hindsight they grasp the larger picture and true nature of the action. When details she hadn't fully considered were brought to her attention, Sue reportedly was remorseful. And it was noted that Sue's prior behavior didn't include anything that would be labeled dishonest or unethical. As presented, it seems to me that it was an atypical lapse in judgment by Sue.

[ETA: I had some interruptions while typing, and the ^^ post info wasn't there when I started.]

A story comes to mind about a friend if mine. We met to go shopping and have lunch at the upstairs cafe. My friend was trying on belts while I looked at tops.

We then had lunch, I dropped her off at her house and headed home. She called me an hour later and said that she walked out with a belt on!!!!

spShw was very upset, and for whatever reason ( the store was a half hour away and her schedule is super busy) was afraid to go and return it. She decided to donate money to her church that equaled the cost of the belt.

I found your story about "Sue" "very interesting"! That's just not something I'd heard of before. She's very "creative"....

"She decided to donate money to her church that equaled the cost of the belt."

Why not send the cost of the belt, plus tax if applicable, to the store?????

I once returned a blouse to TJ Maxx because it looked cheaper once I'd gotten it home than it did in the store -- well, tried to return it. It had a Maxx price tag on it, and I had the receipt, but when I brought it to the returns desk, the clerk said, "This isn't ours. We don't carry this brand." She obviously thought I had switched tags, but it wasn't *I* who had done so. Obviously I couldn't prove this, and I was pretty angry to be falsely accused.

You just never know who is going to be hurt when you get 'inventive' about these things.

How odd. TJ Maxx carries such a mishmash of brands that it seems virtually impossible for a cashier to look and know right away that it's not from their store.

Sorry that happened to you.

She fraudulently returned something using a falsified receipt. She knew what she was doing. It's people like her that cause prices to the rest of us to go up. She defrauded an innkeeper in every definition of it. She likely won't be prosecuted, but should if for no other reason that to be an example to others to cut this crapola out of their lives.

And for the one who (allegedly) unintentionally shoplifted the belt, it shows something about the person trying to buy their forgiveness and redemption by paying off a church! LOL She should have made restitution to the damaged party if she truly felt bad about it. That was really strange. Stores understand that things happen and "being afraid" is not a good excuse to not make good for your crime. Once again, the other shoppers will have to pay for her theft. (While it may have started out as a "mistake", not returning or paying for it made it a "theft".) Next I suppose she's ram into someone's car in a parking lot, doing significant damage, and send a check to the church rather than the damaged person. Or hit someone in a crosswalk and pay off the church? After all, she was "afraid" to go and admit it, or was "super busy". I can't wait to see that defense used in court. I'm "super busy", I couldn't' stop when I ran over the pregnant mother! I had things to do!

I spent a lot of time in retail as an employee, an owner and a manager. I've seen and heard an awful lot that proves to me how many selfish, scheming scumbags are out there. I don't have much sympathy for excuse-makers and rationalizers. If the situation were reversed, those same people and their supporters would be screaming and crying about how they were wronged.