[empathy_m]

I remember reading in Reader's Digest in the 1990s that if you're in a store and you break something which the merchant asks you to pay for, you should offer to pay their cost to replace the item, which is of course often much lower than the sticker price.

Later in life I wondered whether this was really fair, as things cost money to order, process, and store. (Though this is normally baked into retail pricing in the markup and also there is normally an accounting allotment for shrinkage.)

Later still I realized that this was perfectly fair! It's an opening point in a negotiation.

[nabilhat]

This isn't about Amazon's retail inventory. This is inventory owned by vendors, held in Amazon's care. Think about how this would play out in a consignment shop.

In the case of a no fault accident like a fire, paying back a different amount might be negotiable. A customer causing loss of a product on consignment might or might not have a pursuable compensation path. Under these conditions, the consignor still has a duty of care for their consignee's inventory while it's in their possession. Negligence contributing to loss from external cause tends to undermine negotiation of liability.

A consignor's own processes breaking a consignee's product is none of those things. Attempting to lowball repayment of loss entirely due to the consignor's own equipment and activities should be laughable. Successfully doing so with "show us your books" while actively competing with consignee's product shouldn't be possible without substantial regulatory influence on competing markets to constrain alternatives. There is no reasonable, functioning marketplace where this is feasible.

[mtnGoat]

No it’s not fair at all, if you break something you don’t actually have to buy it. It’s the merchants liability for allowing things to be within reach of customers. Just walk out and don’t negotiate at all.

[echoangle]

Is that just your own personal moral judgement or a legal assessment? Because I don't think this will actually work in practice when the police are called for property damage.

[rileymat2]

As a non-lawyer, when I had researched it, it is considerably more complicated than that, the answer seemed to be in which party was neglectful or negligent.

[outside2344]

Exactly, they should have insurance to cover this

[rlpb]

I imagine this being the case every time I am forced to walk through the retail area in an airport to get to my gate. They should expect some travellers to be in a hurry and they deliberately put things in their way. I understand their reasons but it should definitely be at their sole risk for any accidental damage.

[EGreg]

Can a customer deliberately destroy something? The proverbial bull in a china shop?

[bitshiftfaced]

Yeah and the risk of damage is also baked into the retail price. However, I think in most retail settings, the marginal COGs of a single item will approach the actual cost of that item. If it's a pain to clean up, then I'd say a little extra cost would be fair.