ymmak
New member
Hey r69. Got people complain about you ah? If you are not a nice guy, then I dont know who is.
I sympathise with your dilemma and agree that store owners are not obligated to treat customers as kings. But like it or not, when store owners maintain the "customer is king" attitude, it really enhances the customer's shopping experience, and may even encourage repeated patronisation and promote word-of-mouth publicity. So it appears that those stores with so-called better service will compete and perform better.
However if the customer damage the products, in spite of receiving good service and a well-mannered reminder to handle products with care, then the customer should be liable to the damages. I think from a moral standpoint, it is not too demanding for an individual to expect good services, but it is absurd if the individual expects him/herself to be immune to the damages he/she has inflicted on the product.
I sympathise with your dilemma and agree that store owners are not obligated to treat customers as kings. But like it or not, when store owners maintain the "customer is king" attitude, it really enhances the customer's shopping experience, and may even encourage repeated patronisation and promote word-of-mouth publicity. So it appears that those stores with so-called better service will compete and perform better.
However if the customer damage the products, in spite of receiving good service and a well-mannered reminder to handle products with care, then the customer should be liable to the damages. I think from a moral standpoint, it is not too demanding for an individual to expect good services, but it is absurd if the individual expects him/herself to be immune to the damages he/she has inflicted on the product.