tdgeek:jonathan18:Stan: Do those in retail have a moral obligation to not sell to those who can not afford it? Not in my opinion I would suggest the finance company has 100% of the burden here because you can not tell peoples financial position by taking to them.
By suggesting retailers and their employees don't need to take any moral responsibility in this area is a cop-out. There is well-documented (if annecdotal) evidence of salespeople crossing the line of what's morally acceptable - and this not only within but also beyond the discussion topic (ie, extends to inappropraite sales generally, not just warranties), eg the Dead Sea cosmetics sellers in malls.
.
How do you determine the customers financial capability? Do they smoke cigarettes, dope, drink a lot? Or do they live frugally but sensibly and are able to take on a loan or payment arangment. I dont disagree with your core point, but on the other hand, it is potentially dictatorial, i.e. you cannot tell people what you decide they are allowed or not allowed to do.
Yes, I agree that in many cases such an assessment is not possible or appropriate, but I'm talking about those outliers where shysters will clearly do basically anything to ensure a sale (and maximise that sale) despite all signs pointing to the inappropriateness of it.
It also comes back to an issue of the incentives on salespeople, whether it be commission generally or more specific issues with commission for "up-selling" things like extended warranties: this is always likely to result in an increase pressure on customers. And some salespeople will (unethically, in my mind) take advantage of those who clearly aren't in a sound position (both from a position of knowledge, confidence and finance) to push this.