Sounds reasonable enough to me. Kudos to you guys for posting the other side of the story.

Some pictures of the worn jeans may be helpful, and what they are supposed to look like. I think I'm going to side with the company here.

Without pics of the jeans, this one's really hard to judge.

Still don't understand the unprofessional attitude of the company to begin with.

Yeah, this really makes the owner look like a swell person, not a total beatch. If the jeans were obviously worn in, then to refuse a refund is totally warranted - acting like a total brat is not. Perhaps some pics would help with the public vote.

I think if the jeans did match the picture, and there was visable wear in the knees, then they have a right to not accept the return. I also believe that when she asked "what have you been doing on your knees" she meant it just as everyone (well I assume everyone..but it could just be my mind in the getter) took it. Its like me saying "wow...your smart" in a sarcastic tone, then saying I really was complimenting a person.

I also have no doubt the consumer tried to threaten to have this posted anywhere that would take the story.

So basically.

Was the company Rude? Probabaly.
Do they have to take the return? nope, their policy says no returns onw orn murchandise.
Should they take the return? its up to them.

I say we get front and rear pictures of the reader with the jeans on and with them off. As this is the only way to tell, if she really had been wearing the jeans...

Kudos to her for replying and telling her side of the story. Some companies don't want to enter the fray and defend their business decisions, and instead just cave, do what the customer wants and ultimately pass on the cost to the rest of us. I think it's nice to see an owner with some real backbone that doesn't back down when she knows she is right, just so that the customer is pleased.

@savdavid: Define "professional," since the word doesn't actually mean anything.

Also, I'm a big fan of companies that stand up for themselves in this way. When customers are rude or try to take advantage of our return policy, I have no problem telling them to get the hell out of my store. When they throw a tantrum, I will respond with "where are your parents?"

Really... you don't need to have "Dear Sir, we apologize whole-heartedly for blah blah" for a company to provide good customer service.

@savdavid: If as a business owner you're threatened with "consumer power", best practices go out the window. Thinly veiled threats of libel, slander, or abusive CGM incredible undermine the point of objective sites like the consumerist, trip adviser, yelp, etc.

@xtc46: "I also believe that when she asked "what have you been doing on your knees" she meant it just as everyone (well I assume everyone..but it could just be my mind in the getter) took it."

You're taking it out of context, I think, which is why it sounds so bad. The customer said she only wore it for an hour inside her apartment, but with the knees being as worn as they were, the company asked what she was doing on her knees to have worn them down so much.

their alleged attitude in the response to the customer may have been somewhat in error, but barring a pic of the jeans it would seem that the actual return refusal was justified.

I'm going to agree with the company on this one. They sound like they have a pretty good return policy and the customer didn't deny wearing the jeans. I don't think she asked her what she was doing on her knees to be rude, but to inquire about how the patches got there. For a smaller company like this one complaint on the Consumerist can do some damage, so it was nice to see you guys post the other side of the story.

Pics or it didnt happen.
Also dated reciepts and return / packing slips that are timed and dated would be of better use. I know you can really run down a pair of jeans in a few days if you try but if this is the "oh i tried them on, im color blind, i mailed them back for a different wash" kind of story then I just dont understand why things couldnt be exchanged.

Someone is lying.

If this company is selling such expensive Jeans couldn't they just resell them at a lower price and make the customer happy by giving her a new pair. It's not like she's wanting a refund exactly, there must be a reason she wants to exchange the jeans...

@savdavid:

How do you know the companies responce was unproffesional? If the buyer of the jeans had worn them and then was using threats to get her money back, could that person be adding made up stuff to her report?

The problem is, we can't see the jeans to tell if they've been worn. What we have is one persons word against the other without proof from either side.

Perhaps Consumerist columnists should pretend to be JOURNALISTS and attempt to get both sides of a story before going to press.

Sounds pretty rational here. Quick question: Does Consumerist give companies the opportunity to respond before posting stories that could unload the fury of it's readers?

@JaideepG2002: \
Why should they go out of their way and take a hit on their profit just to make a customer happy? They are in business to make a profit, not to take pity on someone who wore the jeans and now wants to return them because she didn't know black jeans were actually black.

I would have left out the questions about the person's buying choices or hobbies and just said that you can't accept merchandise unable to be resold as new. Keep the snide comments internal.... except when you're uninvolved. Skinny jeans look dumb!

If she's going to take the jeans back, she has every right to question how they got worn down so fast - product research. If she's not taking them back though, her statements are nothing more than an unprofessional insult. Sure, it's up to the company to make the return policy. Just like it's ok for the consumer to tell the media how they were treated. If business is lost because of that, so be it.

File under: Bad Consumer.

@savdavid:

Well yeah, they could have been more polite, but then, the company sells $200 jeans under then name "Hello! SkinnyJeans". I imagine there is some attitude that goes with that.

Moreover, the company did respond to criticism in a graceful manner after the incident.

It is also worth noting that the owner might just have been having a bad day and a customer returning worn jeans and making veiled threats really does send one over the edge. (My Personal Rule: If I ever excuse my behavior because I was too tired/hungry/annoyed/tripping, I make the same exceptions of others.)

@IfThenElvis: ... as opposed to BLOGGERS?

I don't think asking "what were you doing on your knees" is a justifiable question. If she had merely stated that the knees on the jeans are obviously worn out, that would have been enough. I don't see how that question "naturally" flows from the situation. It is inappropriate and irrelevant.

Even though they may have rightfully refused to accept her return according to their return policy, that statement was out of line.

@IfThenElvis: Better yet, they can post stories on behalf of consumers, then when the companies send responses, post those as well. Makes everything nice and public. This would probably be a great idea if Consumerist would start doing it!

Oh wait...

Please give us the customers email address so we can now send her angry emails telling her that she's a dumb bitch.

It's only fair.

I knew a gal with a few pairs of these jeans and it was clear even in her sub 100lb figure that once you try em on they would stretch. Even if she put em on and walked around the apt and especially trying on shoes it would pretty much stretch the jeans to the point of being worn. That is the way designer jeans are seems like. I get the company's point of not wanting to accept returns on these but agree with most that their method of handling it and the little notes inside was in poor taste.

@xtc46: ironically you spelled "your smart [sic]" incorrectly.

Another thing: Who has the free time to send angry emails to a company that you have absolutely no dealings with?

Now that I've read both sides...because the jeans were obviously worn, I think the company has every right to refuse this return. The customer is in the wrong.

@HeartBurnKid uses Linux: the taint of OS's:

[skinnyjeans.com]

They look black to me... I'm siding with the company on this one.

@Esquire99: Why make a customer happy? Because that's how you keep them as a customer. You can't make a profit without customers.

That doesn't mean rolling over for every customer who tries to scam your company. But it does sometimes mean letting go of a few dollars now in order to make a lot more dollars later.

@Lucifer_Cat: In the original story, I basically wanted to suggest that the buyer was probably a raging bitch and got what she deserved, but that would've been hating on the OP and bannable.

So we have her side, and we have the company's side. Now we just need the truth.

Regardless of who is right or wrong here, the company had absolutely no right to say what they did to her. At the very least an apology should be in order, at the very most, a good faith exchange of the jeans along with the apology.

So wait... If you buy of pair of jeans online, and they're sent to you and you try them on and they don't fit you have to keep them.

They really need to define "Worn". Cause at the moment "Worn" to my, by their definition, could mean any number of things.

At this point a pick of the jeans do go with that definition is a good idea, otherwise I wouldn't expect anyone who hears of this to ever shop with them.

@warf0x0r: *me

@savdavid: Take the word "Dude", and recall the myriad ways it can be said, and mean completely different things. The OOP may have heard those words, and portrayed them here in a completely different tone.

@unobservant: Well, does the Bloggger have no burden of proof?

I guess this is all conjecture until we would know the process in which that Consumerist undertakes in publishing a story, but the website is very honest in that it's pretty easy to see that it's a consumer advocacy website. The stories are always going to be slanted in that way. They make no qualms about being fair.

Perhaps someone's monitor needs the color calibrated?

I used to work in clothing retail and we had this issue pretty often. We would take returns with the condition that they had to be "resaleable." This usually meant that if they were washed, altered, or worn-in, we could not take them.

Usually, one person's definition of worn-in wouldn't work, but with 2 or more having decided it's been "worn" beyond the extent of trying it on for size and fit, the return is denied.

@alexcassidy: It's amazing how often readers blindly turn to hating a given company because of the one-sided stories posted here (such as "owner of hello! Skinny Jeans was inundated by emails from angry readers about how this situation was handled"). It also goes to show you that, yes, folks lie just to make their Consumerist story submission seem more favorable toward them.

Whatever happened to being informed before drawing rational conclusions? It's definitely good to see a response like this.

@dougp26364: I have no issue with the company asserting that the jeans are worn, I take issue with the fact that they asked the OP "what she was doing on her knees." And they admit it! That can be taken a lot of ways, and most of them aren't nice. Everything else, I side with the company on, but a snarky remark like that has no place in a business transaction.

But that's really just a politeness issue...I'd still like to see a picture of the jeans, but I'm siding with the company, most likely.

Y'know how people say "A picture is worth a thousand words?" Yeah. I'm not going to side with the company until I see some picture proof.

I think there is still missing information. Did the jeans become "worn" very quickly or through lots of use? Considering how expensive they were, I'd hope the knees didn't get shiny from wear really quickly.

Also, as has been previously mentioned, some pictures would be helpful - pictures of the new jeans and the worn-looking ones.

I think they should be more like Land's End, and accept returns no matter what. But then I only buy from companies that know how to use punctuation, so I'm clearly not in their target demographic.

@Esquire99: Yes, but most readers here apparently don't care whether the company is actually right. Whatever is in the one-sided customer story is always right...even when it's wrong (like here).

theyre obviously playing down the knees comment (crude fellatio joke), but still theyre in the right.

@godlyfrog: maybe, but I can think of more than a few times where I have made comments that I knew would upset a person, but if quoted back would sound innocent enough.