Is It Ethical?

[cholent]

I bought a size 38 suit and size 40 from macys and want to return jacket from one and the pants from the other. Is it genayva? Ethical?

They're sold as a 2 piece suit, together? I don't even understand your question. Definitely far into unethical territory, straight out stealing

[real-brisker]

I bought a size 38 suit and size 40 from macys and want to return jacket from one and the pants from the other. Is it genayva? Ethical?

Stealing.

[hachover]

I bought a size 38 suit and size 40 from macys and want to return jacket from one and the pants from the other. Is it genayva? Ethical?

Absolutely stealing, but they sell suit separates at Macys and that would be a legit way to get what you want.

[Der Deutsche Jude]

Scenario: Someone borrows your credit card to buy something which happens to have an amex offer.  You know you will never have used that particular offer.
Question: Who deserves the refund?

[David Smith]

Scenario: Someone borrows your credit card to buy something which happens to have an amex offer.  You know you will never have used that particular offer.
Question: Who deserves the refund?

Seems like a potential ribbis issue.

[Der Deutsche Jude]

Seems like a potential ribbis issue.

Perhaps.  But this is the ethics thread.

[pixi]

Seems like a potential ribbis issue.

Not true. He doesn’t pay him back more,  it's the cc company who pays for it..

[regular]

huh? unless u told him about the offer and offered it to him why should he get it? its your account

[Der Deutsche Jude]

huh? unless u told him about the offer and offered it to him why should he get it? its your account

Because at the end of the day, you are only billed 80% of what he charged to your card.

[sag95]

huh? unless u told him about the offer and offered it to him why should he get it? its your account

According to the letter of the law, you are right. But we are talking ethics here. So if you know you weren't going to use the offer, I would say to only charge him what you had to pay in the end.

[David Smith]

Not true. He doesn’t pay him back more,  it's the cc company who pays for it..

A is borrowing from B, who is borrowing from the credit card company. B pays back the credit card company, and A pays back B. If an amex offer is an inherent adjustment in the loan amount from the credit card company to B, then A is borrowing $80 from B, being as that's what the loan amount from the credit card issuer is. A then proceeds to pay B back $100. (It's possibly different than points earned. Points are a side benefit, while this is possibly an inherent lessening of the loan amount.)

[Zevi16]

Bought stuff from a department store online for $500. Sent back most of it and got my refund in GC . I called them and said I want it refunded to my CC.
Afterwards I realised that the GC were still valid.
Can I go ahead and keep those GC?

[Der Deutsche Jude]

Bought stuff from a department store online for $500. Sent back most of it and got my refund in GC . I called them and said I want it refunded to my CC.
Afterwards I realised that the GC were still valid.
Can I go ahead and keep those GC?

From a purely ethical standpoint, no.  You haven't done anything to merit free store credit.

[Zevi16]

From a purely ethical standpoint, no.  You haven't done anything to merit free store credit.

OK. Now, is it mutar?

[Der Deutsche Jude]

OK. Now, is it mutar?

http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=11285.1455
See Wiki

[regular]

OK. Now, is it mutar?

i would think it is. isnt it straight out taos akum?

[skyguy918]

A is borrowing from B, who is borrowing from the credit card company. B pays back the credit card company, and A pays back B. If an amex offer is an inherent adjustment in the loan amount from the credit card company to B, then A is borrowing $80 from B, being as that's what the loan amount from the credit card issuer is. A then proceeds to pay B back $100. (It's possibly different than points earned. Points are a side benefit, while this is possibly an inherent lessening of the loan amount.)

Beside the fact that the part I colored is a major assumption that is probably halachically incorrect, the leap of logic from the red to the blue makes no sense.  A is in the store buying something that costs $100, not $80. If he would find a $20 bill on the floor after walking out, did he only pay $80? Of course not. His loan is $100, and he repays $100. So even if you wanted to consider the offer a reduction of cost, it would only change the facts of the loan between B and the cc company, and in that scenario B is the borrower as well as the beneficiary of the offer, which wouldn't be ribis even if the cc was a Jew instead.

This was essentially the logic laid out by Rabbi Yitzhok Silver (a dayan who is primarily involved in choshen mishpat batei din in Yerushalayim, and author of Mishpetei Hashalom/Money in Halacha) when asked the similar points question (ie if you lend your cc and the borrower repays you, you're also getting points). This case is at best the same.

[David Smith]

Beside the fact that the part I colored is a major assumption that is probably halachically incorrect, the leap of logic from the red to the blue makes no sense.  A is in the store buying something that costs $100, not $80. If he would find a $20 bill on the floor after walking out, did he only pay $80? Of course not. His loan is $100, and he repays $100. So even if you wanted to consider the offer a reduction of cost, it would only change the facts of the loan between B and the cc company, and in that scenario B is the borrower as well as the beneficiary of the offer, which wouldn't be ribis even if the cc was a Jew instead.

This was essentially the logic laid out by Rabbi Yitzhok Silver (a dayan who is primarily involved in choshen mishpat batei din in Yerushalayim, and author of Mishpetei Hashalom/Money in Halacha) when asked the similar points question (ie if you lend your cc and the borrower repays you, you're also getting points). This case is at best the same.

Hence the if.
I said why it's possibly different than points.

[pixi]

Bought stuff from a department store online for $500. Sent back most of it and got my refund in GC . I called them and said I want it refunded to my CC.
Afterwards I realised that the GC were still valid.
Can I go ahead and keep those GC?

From a purely ethical standpoint, no.  You haven't done anything to merit free store credit.

OK. Now, is it mutar?

Yes. טעות גוי מותר.

[skyguy918]

Hence the if.
I said why it's possibly different than points.

And I said even if. I can't tell whether you were saying passing the offer through to the buyer might be a ribis problem, or keeping it might be a ribis problem, so I'll explain both.

If the cc holder passes the offer through, then the repayment from the buyer to the cc holder is $80, and therefore it doesn't matter whether the loan was $80 or $100 - there can't be ribis if the buyer repaid less than or equal to the loan.

If the cc holder keeps the offer, it's impossible to say that the loan from the cc holder to the buyer was less than $100. The sale was for $100, and the offer was never paid to the buyer - so how can the loan be $80? The only way to view it is as a loan of $100 from the cc holder to the buyer (which is repaid exactly), and a separate transaction between the cc holder and the cc company, which can't possibly create a ribis problem between the buyer and the cc holder.

Also, many here (Dan included) feel that points are a rebate on the purchase as well. So if you consider the amex offer to reduce the initial loan, you'd have to consider points to be in that boat as well.