Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nope, that is incorrect. A business can refuse service to anyone as long as it's not based on some sort of discrimination. And by that I mean race, gender, sexuality, and the like. Even then, it may not be a cakewalk to prove that a business refused to sell based on one of those ideas.

Apple can choose not to sell to him. No problems whatsoever. There are many businesses that you can walk into, and there will be signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Nothing illegal about it.

The problem with those signs is they don't do much. If someone decides to take the matter to small claims court and claims there was discrimination based on one of the reasons you mention, Apple or any other business would have to be able to prove otherwise, since absent those reasons the presumption is that a business would want to sell a product to a paying customer.

It would go like this:

Plaintiff: Dear judge, Apple refused to sell me a laptop when I was willing to pay. I was abiding by all their policies and offered them cash for the laptop. The only reason that I can come up with as to why they wouldn't sell to me is that they are intentionally discriminating against me (on the basis of gender, sexuality, or the like). They had plenty of stock and refused to sell to me, despite willingly selling similar machines to others.

Judge: Apple is this true?

Apple: No your honor.

Judge: Then why didn't you sell the unit to this customer? He claims that he was willing to abide by all your policies. Is this untrue?

Apple: No your honor. It is true. He was not violating any policies.

Judge: Then why didn't you sell the laptop?

Apple: We have a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Judge: But the plaintiff is claiming you refuse service on the basis of discrimination, if that was not the reason then what was?

Apple: We have a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

Judge: Apple, unless you can provide me with another, non-discriminatory reason, I'll have to side with the plaintiff.

Now, what can Apple say at this point? How can they prove it wasn't discriminatory? You think they can say "but he told us he would return the unit?", the plaintiff will either reply "I never said that your honor", and win, or he will say "the policy is offered to all clients, so again your honor, absent discriminatory reasons I can't see why others should be granted a 14 day return privilege but not me". And the judge would agree.

Here is a link in case anyone is interested in the rights to refuse service:

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
 
Last edited:
It's always hilarious to see people react to things like this. All of a sudden everyone has the highest integrity in the world when it's on the internet.

Pretty sure the people who are the loudest about it are the most dishonest in real life.
 
The problem with those signs is they don't do much. If someone decides to take the matter to small claims court and claims there was discrimination based on one of the reasons you mention, Apple or any other business would have to be able to prove otherwise, since absent those reasons the presumption is that a business would want to sell a product to a paying customer.

Here is a link in case anyone is interested in the rights to refuse service:

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

Couple of things, if you're going to link to a webpage that "supports" your argument, make sure it doesn't say "the answer is.....it depends." You're not going to win a case with that.

Secondly, your argument holds absolutely no water. If you've actually tried a case or been a part of one such as this, you'd know a judge cannot presume anything. He or she will not just assume discrimination took place because Apple chose not to sell to him. Yes, they're a business intended to make money, but denying a sale doesn't equate to discrimination being the reason for the denial. And for the record, Apple does have a limit on the amount of returns. Most companies do.

Now, unlike a criminal case, both sides have to prove that discrimination took place or it did not. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" or in the way your example seems to dictate "Apple is guilty until proven innocent." If that were the case, everybody and their mom would sue every time someone got denied service and claim discrimination. He'd have to prove discrimination took place, and when you're going against a business as big as Apple, it would not be easy to prove. The amount of resources needed would not be worth the outcome considering you're basing things on presumptions and not actual facts.
 
Let me sum this thread up. Your a tool. And for anyone defending him, he clearly states his motive in the first post. He is buying a Haswell 15" retina. The rest is nonsense. You think a company as large as Apple sits back and says "how could anyone have found a loophole in our return policy?!?!?" Then what are you going to do? Sue Apple? A company that will wrap you up so tightly in litigation that you will need to take out a second mortgage? Go for it. Apple doesn't have to win a case, they just have to have more money then you. Which I'm assuming by your "scheme" that they do.
 
Last edited:
Couple of things, if you're going to link to a webpage that "supports" your argument, make sure it doesn't say "the answer is.....it depends." You're not going to win a case with that.

Well, it depends, sometimes that's fine. As in this case, the webpage says, and this is the important section:

From my link said:
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

Notice the important part here. The question generally turns on whether the business' refusal of service was arbitrary or not. The plaintiff will claim that it was, and will make that an easy case to prove, by simply saying, "your honor, I have the cash here and would happily accept the laptop in exchange for the cash." So, in this case, a reason for denying the service/sale would have to be given otherwise it will appear arbitrary to any impartial observer, like a judge.

JonathanK81 said:
Secondly, your argument holds absolutely no water. If you've actually tried a case or been a part of one such as this, you'd know a judge cannot presume anything. He or she will not just assume discrimination took place because Apple chose not to sell to him. Yes, they're a business intended to make money, but denying a sale doesn't equate to discrimination being the reason for the denial. And for the record, Apple does have a limit on the amount of returns. Most companies do.

Ok a few points. First, you may be right regarding a limit to the amount of returns applicable, but for that to apply Apple would need to keep a record of some sort, and if you just keep buying the laptops cash, there is no record since you do not need to provide any identifying information (as I pointed out earlier).

Second, and back to the main point, you are right the judge cannot presume anything going in to the case. The judge must remain impartial. But, if the plaintiff says he's willing to buy the laptop and adhere to all the policies applicable, and if he can show Apple has plenty of this laptop in stock and is currently selling to other customers, there are no reasonable grounds for refusing the sale, other than arbitrary ones or ones that would have to be proven by Apple. These reasons/argument alone place the burden of proof upon the business in question. Otherwise any business could just refuse to sell to any discriminated class, homosexuals for example, but deny that is the reason why they are refusing their sales. They would just always say that it's up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that discrimination did happen. So in these types of scenarios, all the plaintiff has to do is show there are no prima facie good reasons to prevent the sale. And that is easy to show by indicating the item is in stock, and that legal tender is being offered.

Now, unlike a criminal case, both sides have to prove that discrimination took place or it did not. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" or in the way your example seems to dictate "Apple is guilty until proven innocent."

Agreed, both sides have to demonstrate something. But since business' are there to make money, and since the merchandise and money are available, and the willingness of the client to exchange the money for the merchandise is present, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to sell the item other than for arbitrary/discriminatory ones. Now, as you pointed out, a good reason to refuse a sale might be Apple saying to the judge: "look, this person bought 10 laptops and keeps returning them", but if the customer is intelligent and doesn't leave a record of prior purchases/returns, as I advised the OP to do, that argument is not one that would be available for Apple to employ.

If that were the case, everybody and their mom would sue every time someone got denied service and claim discrimination.

How many companies do you know refuse to sell merchandise to paying customers? My bet is this pretty much never happens so there is no risk of saying "if that were the case, everybody would be suing". Business' are there to make money. You'd have to be pretty dumb not to accept it.

He'd have to prove discrimination took place,

I doubt that. Proving discrimination is virtually impossible in most scenarios, unless there is some documented evidence that there was explicit discrimination going on. No, circumstantial evidence is sufficient here to place the burden of proof upon the purposed discriminator. Now, being only circumstantial it is defeasible, but that requires some reasonable explanation for the denial of service.

and when you're going against a business as big as Apple, it would not be easy to prove. The amount of resources needed would not be worth the outcome considering you're basing things on presumptions and not actual facts.

I disagree. For what it's worth there was a blogger who went up against Apple because they refused to fix his defective GPU in his laptop. He won the case easily since Apple couldn't explain to the judge why they would deny the repair/refund. They sent a team of lawyers, it didn't help since they had no justifiable grounds for refusing to honor the warranty. Similarly here, unless they can provide warrantable grounds for denying the sale, the case would be easily lost; but that's why my bet is that no store will refuse the sale. Heck, I even had an Apple manager tell me to buy and return a laptop when mine was in for repair. He said "we don't officially do rentals, but here's how you do it." On another occasion, another Apple employee told me when I was hesitating to buy the iPad, to buy it and play with it, saying if I didn't like it, just bring it back. In other words they seem pretty happy to let people try their products. They still make money on them, and they know the products have great allure when you play with them.
 
Last edited:
Let me sum this thread up. Your a tool. And for anyone defending him, he clearly states his motive in the first post. He is buying a Haswell 15" retina. The rest is nonsense. You think a company as large as Apple sits back and says "how could anyone have found a loophole in our return policy?!?!?" Then what are you going to do? Sue Apple? A company that will wrap you up so tightly in litigation that you will need to take out a second mortgage? Go for it. Apple doesn't have to win a case, they just have to have more money then you. Which I'm assuming by your "scheme" that they do.

So much anger in this post.
 
Can't this thread be closed already? Just constant arguments and insults. At the end of the day you can't change anyone's morals.
 
I say do what you want because in the end no matter what anyone says, you aren't going to change your mind.

But! If you ever do indeed get banned from Apple, we better not hear you on this forum bellyaching about it.

Stores can and will ban you. The return policy is not law and is offered to you under good faith by the company.

I am not sure if Apple bans people, but I know for sure that Amazon does, for instance. Go ahead and just google amazon ban and see the countless people that have been blacklisted. Basically they returned way too much and mostly without warning had their whole account froze. And they won't listen to reason at this point. Not only that, but other "related" accounts get banned too. Such as a workplace or family members address that your account has been associated with.

If you're prepared to face the possibility of this happening, go for it.
 
It's not illegal but it's frowned upon I guess. Like marrying people for citizenship. Apple can't prove intent but they have every right to deny you a return like what the poster above said.
 
I have a similar experience. I bought a 13" Haswell Air, maxed-out, the day they came out at the Retail store. But a couple of days ago my friend at Apple told me about the quarterly sales that Apple runs internally, and I figured that a $1419 on the 13" Retina with 512GB was too good to pass up. I'm getting it delivered to the store, and it's arriving on Monday. I plan on keeping both the 13" MBA and 13" Retina for another week until I can decide which one is right for me.
 
Just do it.

Even selling as refurbished, Apple will still make a handsome profit

Plus you're helping the consumers because now they can buy at a discount
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder if the defenders in this thread are like this in real life. It doesn't matter if it's Apple, Dell, Microsoft, or you aunt June's business. You are effectively using a liberal return policy to get away with something you know is dishonest. You are using multiple computers for potentially months for NO COST to you, but a cost to the seller.

Turn the issue around. You are the owner of the company this slime is going this to. Are you happy with this? Of course you aren't. Your profits are being used up by this slime.
 
I have to wonder if the defenders in this thread are like this in real life. It doesn't matter if it's Apple, Dell, Microsoft, or you aunt June's business. You are effectively using a liberal return policy to get away with something you know is dishonest. You are using multiple computers for potentially months for NO COST to you, but a cost to the seller.

Turn the issue around. You are the owner of the company this slime is going this to. Are you happy with this? Of course you aren't. Your profits are being used up by this slime.

If my profits are still handsome who cares?

Apple still makes a great profit on each pc they sell
 
I'm not certain regarding the law in the US, but I'm pretty sure they can't refuse a paying customer without a valid reason. The OP intends to abide by the terms of all their policies, I can't see how they can refuse. They may try, but legally that might put them in hot water.

I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about the OP feeling "ethically" okay with it. With so many people so adamantly against the entire idea, my suggestion was one that the OP could feel okay about it by simply asking.

Yes, the idea is very likely legal in the US. (There might be some goofball wording in Apple's return policy that would make it some form of contract violation, which wouldn't be a crime, but it could be something Apple could sue over - but I doubt that's there. I'd give the idea a 99.9% chance of "full legality.")
 
If my profits are still handsome who cares?

Apple still makes a great profit on each pc they sell

Your making assumption about what profits they make. You don't know.

And when did profits matter about what was right? Really, you have no moral sense of what is slimy and what is not? If the company was Microsoft (a company I really have no love for) it would still be wrong.
 
Your making assumption about what profits they make. You don't know.

We don't know for certain but given the sales reports and the earnings reports, we can calculate their profit margins to a fairly decent degree of precision. It is widely known, or estimated, that Apple has some of the largest margins of any computer companies. Some say it's as high as 40%. We can also arrive at a reasonable estimation of the costs of the device by actually adding up the components and factoring in labor costs. So again, these are highly educated assumptions.

And when did profits matter about what was right? Really, you have no moral sense of what is slimy and what is not? If the company was Microsoft (a company I really have no love for) it would still be wrong.

Spare us your sermons on morals unless you are actually willing to defend them against rational scrutiny. Otherwise please leave your superstitions for another thread. I can't speak for the other poster but no I have no sense of what is slimy and what is not. I do have a sense of what is legal, and what I can get away with. Them be my morals, same as every other animal on the planet.
 
If my profits are still handsome who cares?

Apple still makes a great profit on each pc they sell

What does that have to do with anything? They have profit lines on every product and any cut into that, no matter how minor you may perceive it to be, pulls away from the overall potential viability of the company. They obviously factor a degree of returns into their financial plans for legitimate purposes, but

if we all went out tomorrow, bought a laptop, and then 13 days later all lined up at the store to do a return.....how do you suppose that would effect the overall health of the company?
 
...
Spare us your sermons on morals unless you are actually willing to defend them against rational scrutiny. Otherwise please leave your superstitions for another thread. I can't speak for the other poster but no I have no sense of what is slimy and what is not. I do have a sense of what is legal, and what I can get away with. Them be my morals, same as every other animal on the planet.

Must be great having no scruples. I'd hate to have to know you in real life, anything you can get away with is OK? You have no sense of what is slimy? Really? Wow.

From a technical standpoint people like you in this thread are wrong in that the OP says "rent". Rent means you pay a fee for a period. He isn't renting, he is paying no fee for usage of the MBP until he gets a final one. So this thread is wrong from a technical point as well as a moral point.
 
if we all went out tomorrow, bought a laptop, and then 13 days later all lined up at the store to do a return.....how do you suppose that would effect the overall health of the company?

If we all turned on our taps tomorrow at the same time, how do you suppose that would effect the overall health of the water supply? Don't worry, that'll never happen so this is just more far-fetched fantasy.

----------

Must be great having no scruples.

It is what it is. I just follow the force of the strongest argument wherever it leads me. But I'll say this much, it's better than living in fairytale land.

I'd hate to have to know you in real life,

I'd wager otherwise, but we'll never know, now will we?

anything you can get away with is OK?

Yep.

You have no sense of what is slimy? Really? Wow.

Really. Where does your sense of sliminess come from? God? Other people (if so, do you ever think for yourself, and if not, where do you suppose they got it from)? Trace the genealogy of your morals, if you can, at least once in your liufe, to their roots. It'll do your mind a great deal of good.

From a technical standpoint people like you in this thread are wrong in that the OP says "rent". Rent means you pay a fee for a period. He isn't renting, he is paying no fee for usage of the MBP until he gets a final one. So this thread is wrong from a technical point as well as a moral point.

So you want to turn this into a semantic debate?
 
If we all turned on our taps tomorrow at the same time, how do you suppose that would effect the overall health of the water supply? Don't worry, that'll never happen so this is just more far-fetched fantasy.

The point being made (that apparently went completely over your head) was that while financial forecasts are made by the company to include a normal percentage of returns and the loss of profit off of those sales, that if others are out there gaming the return policy by "renting" hardware with no intent to buy it could cause damage to the company overall or, at the very least, cause them to tighten up a return policy that, as it currently stands, is good for the consumer.

Basically the legit customers would suffer because of the folks that are trying to work the return policy.
 
I doubt that. Proving discrimination is virtually impossible in most scenarios, unless there is some documented evidence that there was explicit discrimination going on. No, circumstantial evidence is sufficient here to place the burden of proof upon the purposed discriminator. Now, being only circumstantial it is defeasible, but that requires some reasonable explanation for the denial of service.

I'm no lawyer here, but I believe that if Apple said something like, "we refused him service because we suspected that he had no intention of buying the machine but only to rent it for free", that should be a reasonable enough explanation for the denial of service from a legal standpoint. You don't even need to have proof of repeated returns for that, or even a single previous purchase.

That in turn would shift the burden of proof back to the accuser to prove that he had the intention of keeping it and that Apple was discriminating him on another basis. Being a member of a protected class could help here of course :p

On another note: As for having no paper trail - video cameras may suffice. Yes, technically someone could go to a different store each time, but the extra hassle could be enough of a deterrent to prevent long-term habitual renting (there's only so many best buys or apple stores around).

I disagree. For what it's worth there was a blogger who went up against Apple because they refused to fix his defective GPU in his laptop. He won the case easily since Apple couldn't explain to the judge why they would deny the repair/refund. They sent a team of lawyers, it didn't help since they had no justifiable grounds for refusing to honor the warranty.

I feel like in this case - the warranty is already issued when the blogger bought his computer. In this case, the customer is owed nothing. Apple would let him return his computer (from his previous transaction), but could refuse to sell him another.


In any case - a 14-day return is short enough to prevent this from happening on a wide-spread basis. I'm sure there might be a few people here and there who are willing to do it, but I doubt that it is widespread enough for Apple to worry about.
 
The point being made (that apparently went completely over your head) was that while financial forecasts are made by the company to include a normal percentage of returns and the loss of profit off of those sales, that if others are out there gaming the return policy by "renting" hardware with no intent to buy it could cause damage to the company overall or, at the very least, cause them to tighten up a return policy that, as it currently stands, is good for the consumer.

Basically the legit customers would suffer because of the folks that are trying to work the return policy.

I got your point. But my point was these consequentialist hypotheses are worthless since they are not realistic. Just look at the responses in this thread. Most people will feel this is just far too inappropriate to do, and as such, given the social taboo with "exploiting" the refund policies, there is no risk that his actions would ruin it for the rest of us, since few if any will engage in this behavior. So my point, which went over your head, was stop spreading fear and paranoia with fictions/fairytales.
 
Whilst I agree, once or twice or maybe even three times to try out a few machines is well within your right, I wouldn't plan on doing it every 2 weeks for what could be months.

Thought about doing this myself with the current retina just to see if I like it. In fact, I may do so. You can't buy custom spec. machines in the shop, can you?
 
I'm no lawyer here, but I believe that if Apple said something like, "we refused him service because we suspected that he had no intention of buying the machine but only to rent it for free", that should be a reasonable enough explanation for the denial of service from a legal standpoint. You don't even need to have proof of repeated returns for that, or even a single previous purchase.

That in turn would shift the burden of proof back to the accuser to prove that he had the intention of keeping it and that Apple was discriminating him on another basis. Being a member of a protected class could help here of course :p

Again the problem is the plaintiff would just have to say that Apple are not mind readers and his intentions are to buy the product, try it out for 14 days, and decide if he wants to keep it or if he is unsatisfied with his purchase, as per the Sales and Refund policy by Apple. At which point Apple has no more standing. Since they made that the reason for the denial of service, once that is tied up they pretty much have to move on with the sale.

On another note: As for having no paper trail - video cameras may suffice. Yes, technically someone could go to a different store each time, but the extra hassle could be enough of a deterrent to prevent long-term habitual renting (there's only so many best buys or apple stores around).

Video cameras? I sincerely doubt Apple is gonna have someone watching the videos every day to find out if people are abusing the refunds. And no need to go to a different store, just speak to different sales people each time.


I feel like in this case - the warranty is already issued when the blogger bought his computer. In this case, the customer is owed nothing. Apple would let him return his computer (from his previous transaction), but could refuse to sell him another.

Again I'm unsure. I've heard people buy and return Retina MBPs constantly until they got themselves the Samsung screen they wanted since they were unhappy with the LG screens. I don't remember the thread but if my memory serves right, someone claimed to have done it over 7 times. I'd never have wasted that much time, but how did they manage to do it? That's over 3 months of returns pursuing the OP's plan, and they probably did it within a week.

In any case - a 14-day return is short enough to prevent this from happening on a wide-spread basis. I'm sure there might be a few people here and there who are willing to do it, but I doubt that it is widespread enough for Apple to worry about.

Exactly. Frankly for the amount of time that would be wasted doing this, the OP could have worked his job a few extra hours and bought a cheap laptop on craigslist to tie him over in the mean time until Haswell comes to the RMBP. But hey, that's just me. I value my time and so I pursue a more efficient route.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.