Fans discuss whether it's realistic that a liquor store owner refuses to make change for a $100 bill while a newsstand vendor would, debating merchant attitudes and cash practices.
In the episode "The Dinner Party", the store owner wouldn't accept George's $100 bill as payment for the $19.00 bottle of wine. George and Kramer went to an outside newsstand to get change. They wound up buying roughly $6.00 worth of merchandise.
Does it seem more likely that a newsstand vendor would have change for a $100 bill but a liquor store would not?
But the owner of the newstand would only give change after George bought like $20 worth of stuff. Also newstands deal in cash only so they would have more cash on hand
I thought it was dumb to make George pay for the spilled wine. Store owners have insurance when stuff like that happens. They can collect that way from the damage.
[email] wrote in news:2423-432126C7-208@storefull- 3176.bay.webtv.net:
In my original post, I stated the newsstand owner required George and Kramer to buy about $6 worth of merchandise. They didn't have to buy $20 worth of goods from the newsstand.
I guess liquor stores might have more credit card transactions than a newsstand but it seemed a liquor store would have just as much cash on hand. Maybe, as a matter of practice, the store owner just didn't want to make change instead of him being unable to make change. Ahh, I was just wondering.
Didn't George have to give up his jacket? That store owner was really trying to collect for those broken bottles of wine, wasn't he?
What you do not understand that the merchant did not want to give change simply because "He didn't want to". I grew up in NY and merchants have quite an attitude when it comes to customer service. The attitude is "why shoudl I?" This doesn't apply to all merchants, but it does to alot of them.
Nana
As a Brit I'm shocked to hear that some US retailers have the same sort of attitude to customers as UK retailers. We are always told that US retailers believe that the customer is king and service is all important.
So much for the myth anyway.
"nana2b" wrote in news:11i699or6ob1ld1 @corp.supernews.com:
I do understand that. In my reply, the one you responded to, I wrote, "Maybe, as a matter of practice, the store owner just didn't want to make change instead of him being unable to make change. Ahh, I was just wondering." I made that very clear.