Is the customer always right?

The following are edited excerpts from correspondence exchanged, in this case, between the consumer and the supplier:

I went to the Benefit Shoe Store in Valletta to buy a handbag that matched with a pair of shoes I had. However I was told that I could not purchase the bag because I had not bought the shoes from that shop. I was told that I could only buy the bag if I bought a pair of shoes since they can only be bought as a set. I ask:

Why weren't the bag and the shoes displayed and priced as a set? Why was the bag displayed with other bags that could be bought whether one buys a pair of shoes or not? Why was the bag individually priced if it could not be sold without the shoes?

The shopowner's reply to these questions was that he could do what he liked. I tried my luck in their other store in St John Street and I got the same treatment.

Since when do I have to buy a pair of shoes if I only need a bag? I would appreciate your views on this case. (Elvia Leone Ganado)

Here follow edited excerpts from Benefit Shoe Store's reply:

The difficulty that Ms Leone Ganado was experiencing, namely that of finding it next to impossible to match a bag having the same colour of the shoes which she had already bought from other stores, is something which our store has, for years, sought to avoid for its own customers...

Our shoe stores offer a wide range and selection of shoes and bags of different colours to its customers. Ms Leone Ganado has to appreciate that our stores too have a limited and selective number of shoes sold as a set because the respective shades and colours are unique and very difficult to match. Actually, contrary to what Ms Leone Ganado states in her letter, we feel that we are giving customers a service by only offering these shoes for sale as a set.

We categorically refuse to accept Ms Leone Ganado's comments and allegations as stated in her letter. (Anthony Camilleri)

Since I do not have the space to feature all correspondence in this case, I made an effort to quote relevant excerpts from both parties' letters in a balanced and unbiased fashion. As can be seen, both parties have submitted valid arguments and I am not in a position to opine as to who is right and who is wrong.

Indeed, "is the customer always right?" was asked/quoted and used as a heading by Ms Leone Ganado in her letters. Mr Camilleri too used it in his letter, and Ms Leone Ganado's parting shot was that she is interested in my views on this case.

Well, I would say that the customer is not always right. However, he or she is still the customer and the traders' lifeline is the customer. Therefore, to a certain extent, it is not a bad idea for traders to adopt the policy that "the customer is always right". For what it's worth, it works for many traders in their efforts to win and retain custom.

Indeed from a trader's point of view, selling one item is better than a "no sale" and a new customer is a potential regular customer. In this context, the first transaction is the most important.

In this case Benefit Shoe Store lost, or rather, never won Ms Leone Ganado's custom. Since the handbag was individually priced, had Mr Camilleri chosen to be flexible by selling Ms Leone Ganado the handbag without the shoes, he could have won her custom. Subsequently, as a regular customer, she could have decided to buy the shoes too. Indeed, from a wear and tear aspect, a spare pair of shoes is always handy.

Moreover, had Mr Camilleri sold the bag to Ms Leone Ganado, she wouldn't have written to me and I wouldn't be writing this.

In any case, Mr Camilleri may still have the opportunity to win Ms Leone Ganado's custom if she still wants to buy the handbag. Indeed, if this proves to be the case, it would be a positively concluded case well worth sharing with our readers.