It's a store. Why the fuck would a store ever show me an item -- at least by default -- that it isn't willing to sell me? Like who exactly wants that "feature"? It makes attempting to buy something from home depot's site an infuriating experience.
(Or at least that was the explanation given by Home Depot's customer support.)
Those two things you just said are the same thing.
We can break down your two statements and put them piecemeal side by side:
I assumed they meant... "hold these..."
What I am saying is... "pulling the items from the shelf..."
I assumed they meant... "at the counter..."
What I am saying is... "in a special area..."
A couple of reasons to show items they can't sell you right now in the search results...
1. The best reason I can think of is if you click into it and it isn't available then they could show "similar" items and cross-sell you on those - and maybe actually help you find a good alternative.
2. If you are searching for a specific item then the result should show you that item regardless of availability or you'd just keep looking for it and be confused about it never showing up in their results.
3. Maybe SEO? More listings - even out of stock listings -> more SEO juice
And if you have three stores within a couple of miles of you that all claim to have a bunch of stock of an item but you order from one that suddenly (allegedly) runs out, you get to go all the way back down the hill because they don't migrate stock between stores.
Their poor system can work in your favor though. Went to go pick up my order after it being cancelled at multiple places. Turns out, at this one, they only had 2 of the 4 items at pickup. I tell them it says there are more in stock, they confirm. We go hunting for the remaining 2. Takes 30 minutes for them to fetch the remaining two from the top with my help (without my help, they would have never found it!). We go back to the register, they punch in that they're giving me 2 more. I go home with all 4 of my items. I was never charged for the full order. Only the initial 2.
That said, I doubt you could legally be held responsible and I see no problems with what you did morally either. If you noticed at the time I'd find it morally questionable, but you can't fix every mistake.
I walk up to a cashier, and he by accident drops $10 in my shopping cart (without me noticing). Then he proceeds to inconspicuously take those $10, look at it, and silently put it back in the bag (again, without me noticing). I discover those $10 only when I get home. I had no idea it was even there, and the store employee definitely looked through every single item in my bag and saw those $10, but just decided to put it back there. Did I steal those $10?
I struggle to even call it something like "theft by accident", which would be if the cashier forgets to scan an item because they didn't notice it. In my hypothetical scenario, the cashier noticed and picked up the item.
Yes. You have acquired it without the intentional consent of the owner, who presumably thought it was your $10. I don't think it's a crime nor would I find you personally responsible.
My definition of theft doesn't presume it was legally or morally wrong, so many innocent actions would still be theft.
If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise?
I think you just have an odd definition of theft.
From Merriam Webster:
1. a : the act of stealing
specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
1. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 : a stolen base in baseball
3 obsolete : something stolen
Presumably the owner would retrace their steps and try to find what was lost. Most people would do this for a hundred dollars, but you can also imagine a child doing it for a quarter. Is it theft if you say you haven't seen it? How about if you never run into the person but intended to say you haven't seen it?
At what point it becomes "theft" is tenuous at best. I'd rather call many things "theft" and withhold judgment until I learn the details as it limits instantaneous judgments upon hearing of a thief.
As for your definition, at what point something becomes unlawful is never clear, and nobody's actual definitions for concepts ever mirror a dictionary definition.
And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? That's weird to me too, especially combined with your follow up of limiting instantaneous judgement. How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
Everybody does that all of the time, your definition for words are based on your own experiences.
>And assuming theft unless otherwise proven?
No, assuming theft. More things are called theft.
>How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
You still think that a thief is a bad person. I assume basically everyone has committed theft, so withhold judgment until I have more information.
An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person.
It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
What are they? People assume their definition is common, but everything is much less clear than that. This causes frequent disagreements, and it's best to get more information.
>There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter.
There is no need for me to label the action at all unless I'm in a position to explain what I mean. My position on the action is primarily private. Changing the definition is more useful in the other direction, when you call someone a thief I don't assume I have any idea what they did or what kind of person that makes them.
>Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person.
Using such labels to judge an entire persons worth is ridiculous in a number of ways. There are too many ways that both of us would consider innocent that can get you labeled a thief. I was almost booked for stealing $40 of gas after realizing I lost my wallet after filling the tank. Am I a bad person because of that?
>So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
This started as me labeling an action as theft. If I walked around blindly calling people thieves I would expect the misunderstanding to cause problems for me.
That's what I mean with the rapist example too. If you have sex with someone, do I have the right to call you a rapist first and withhold judgement until I have more information? If for me a rapist isn't necessarily a bad act.
Labeling an act primarily privately and publicly labeling a person are vastly different.
This might answer your question though. If you pointed at someone and said "this person is a rapist," I would withhold judgment until learning more details. A label is not enough to evaluate someone's life. And I try to limit who i casually toss such labels onto, preferring to give some detail into their act.
Found myself just as baffled/apoplectic as you are: why would this be on your online storefront if you don't have the inventory for me to actually buy?
Even Amazon Prime delivery via Whole Foods has this problem, to bring it back around to the thread topic.
Interestingly it's something that small e-commerce stores are much better about, it would seem (though I don't really have any data backing that up)
Twofold:
1) They're betting that you'll still buy something once you're surrounded by merchandise. 2) This allows them to play games with shrink, imventory, and insurance.
Hrm. Good point, that’s exactly what’s ended up happening. Just never actively considered it
The first order went through fine.
3.5 weeks later I get an email saying my next order is about to be processed, now is the last chance for cancellations, etc. I ignore it, as I want the order to be processed.
A few days later I get an email saying they're out of stock and they'll retry again later. I get these emails every day for 2 weeks, and then my order is automatically cancelled.
This happens for 2 or 3 months before I get fed up and cancel the subscription.
If I put in an order effectively a month in advance you'd think they could make sure they had enough stock for that upcoming order.
(And it wasn't a complicated order, just multiple boxes of a single SKU.)