Complaint Review: Petsmart - Milford Ohio

Okay, you wanted to buy a lizard but rightly or wrongly you did not want to fill out their card. You then left without giving them any money and they presumably put the lizard back.

Where is the ripoff?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  OMGosh.......THAT was funny!!!

this "cry for justice" is coming from a guy with a snake for a pet. Creepy, to say the least, so consider the source. Get a dog, buddy.

While I can understand how you might view outrage as drama, you also are minimizing the absurdity of the transaction and the behaviors.   Perhaps you have also not read the pet contract or researched other incidents involving those who have signed it.  True, I gave up no rights because I signed no contract and left without making the purchase.  Had I signed the contract and paid money I would have given up my rights to sole ownership and would have suffered a loss if they activated their "right" under the contract to repossess. You refer to the pet contract as a "form".  I take all contracts seriously, and have always lived up to my obligations.  It is not a simple "form".

While I don't have the right to dictate how a company does business, I feel an obligation to warn others about outrageous practices.   Seriously, is a contract at all necessary for a small $4.00 purchase of a tiny pet?  I think they are shooting themselves in the foot and are casting themselves as animal rights extremists.  Again, I believe that others should be warned.  No drama. Just fact.   As liberal extremists have gained more of a foothold in society, the belief that they have a right to dictate what other's may do has gotten out of hand.  The pet contract is an example.

Letting others dictate what your rights are,especially on otherwise inconsequential matters, is a ripoff.

 "the notion that someone should give up their rights, any rights, for such small items is ridiculously absurd.  "

    Tone down the drama.    You gave up no rights.   You have no right to dictate the terms of a purchase to a business.    You do have the right to walk out the door if their terms are not agreeable to you.   It's that simple. 

"Simply attempting to dismiss bizarre, illogical, or extreme behaviors by simply stating that this is their policy suggests that you support bizarre, illogical, or extreme behaviors. "

  Again with the drama.   They asked you to fill out a form.   Get over it!
 
"The store has zero right to dictate how one uses an item purchased, as long as there are no laws violated and no one is harmed. "

   At last, you are correct.   Once you have purchased the item, the store has no say.   The kicker is that they can decide not to sell you the item in the first place.   Since you're so concerned with "rights", I think you should respect their rights as well.

"  Such intrusion into personal lives is immoral.  Condoning such behavior is offensive. "

   And the Oscar goes to....    Intrusion into your personal life?  Seriously?   You already said that they had all of your information already.   How could filling out the form possibly be an intrusion into your personal life?

   Let's face it, you didn't feel like wasting time filling out a form for a $4 purchase.    Still not a ripoff, but if you'd posted it without all of the puffed up, pseudo outrage it would have been more understandable.

Your response appears to be simply to contradict and is not based in fact.  Were the contract,as you claim, simply informational then a simple disclaimer requiring a signature would suffice and absolve them of responsibility.  The contract demanded all sorts of personal information including telephone numbers and addresses.  Further research shows that individuals have been threatened and sued for return of animals after signing such contracts at Petsmart.  You have either not  read the contract, or you are attempting to mislead others.

Secondly, the refusal to sell some small item first; based on not signing a contract, and second; based on it being or not being a food item, is definitely a ripoff.  The sale was for four dollars, not thousands and the notion that someone should give up their rights, any rights, for such small items is ridiculously absurd.  Especially when faced with the fact that they do sell animals as food.  Check the refrigerator near the fish for frozen baby mice at your local store.

Simply attempting to dismiss bizarre, illogical, or extreme behaviors by simply stating that this is their policy suggests that you support bizarre, illogical, or extreme behaviors.  The store has zero right to dictate how one uses an item purchased, as long as there are no laws violated and no one is harmed. If you purchase cat food and feed it to your dog, it is your business not the store's.  Such intrusion into personal lives is immoral.  Condoning such behavior is offensive.

So it's data-mining for their pet contracts, yet they already have that same information on their Pet Perks card that you said is in their system?  That little contract is just information that you understand you have a certain amount of time to return said animal just in case it was a pet.

Second, it doesn't matter that Bahama Anoles are an invasive species, that it is their policy.  They do sell crickets and fish for feeders that is true.  Unless your store is different than mine, they don't sell baby mice or mice for feeders.

Last but not least, I fail to see where the rip-off occurred.