Forums | MacLife

If you save the boxes for things (I save the box on anything I may want to sell on eBay at some later point, or for anything expensive. Receipts I put inside said boxes. By the time I'm ready to get rid of the box, I certainly don't need the receipt!

I don't know. A box has always seems to keep light from overly fading the receipt, for me at least. The scanned backup isn't a bad idea though.

LukeLucas wrote:

wait... what? keep my receipts for a year? why?

i keep my receipts and statements for medical visits and prescriptions and health insurance stuff, and for other major purchases, but why would i, for example, need to keep my iPhone receipt for tax purposes?

I feel silly because this seems so obvious but perhaps someone uses it as their business phone???

Frank

LukeLucas wrote:

fair enough... but why would I need to keep that receipt any longer after the payment has cleared and the product officially registered with Apple (or whatever product from whatever company)?

i ask, because apparently i'm an idiot for not keeping my receipts any longer than i do. i mean, a year? perhaps i'm out of the loop and haven't been doing things right, but i feel like a year, unless its for tax purposes, is just... silly.

I agree. As I mentioned earlier, most of what I buy is online anyway and if I need to return it the company has a record of the transaction. Also, many store receipts have expiration dates now. I know that Target's receipts expire in 90 days and I think Home Depot's do as well. That is for returns. If you have a warranty issue with Home Depot they will usually take care of you after the receipt expires if you have the receipt. So I guess that would be an example of when to keep the receipt, when buying a lawnmower or weedeater

Frank

LukeLucas wrote:

i honestly can't wait for the day i need to buy a lawnmower or weedeater.

You are either very young or live in an apartment

LukeLucas wrote:

i ask, because apparently i'm an idiot for not keeping my receipts any longer than i do. i mean, a year? perhaps i'm out of the loop and haven't been doing things right, but i feel like a year, unless its for tax purposes, is just... silly.

No one called you an "idiot," but I always keep the receipt for any big ticket item I purchase.  You never know when an issue might arise and a record of the sale is needed for warranty, insurance, credit card, or other reason (such as if the product is destroyed or stolen--something where your Apple registration might not be enough).



I have a file cabinet, and there's a folder for receipts.

frankly wrote:

What happens if the you lose the receipts along with the items? Theft? Fire? Hurricane? Tornado?

That's where the electronic copy stored online or offsite comes in handy.

I'm sure it would, but I don't do that unless the receipt was originally in electronic form.  I do keep photos of everything off site, though (and important documents in a fireproof safe).

mtpalms wrote:

About 6 years ago I bought a Toshiba DVD player - nice machine, but it wouldn't play burned CDs. It turns out that it was deliberately crippled, and someone sued and won.

So last year I get a letter from Toshiba saying I could get a  new model - but they wanted the receipt. Obviously they had my name on file as someone who had registered one of their products, but they still wanted a receipt. I still have the machine, and could have given them the serial number to prove I had it. I guess they know most people don't keep their receipts. I probably do, but after 6 years wouldn't know where to look.

I've had something similar happen. There is a class action lawsuit that was brought against memory manufacturers that proved they artificially inflated prices back around 2000. Of course I don't have the receipt for that timeframe.

Frank

frankly wrote:

I've had something similar happen. There is a class action lawsuit that was brought against memory manufacturers that proved they artificially inflated prices back around 2000. Of course I don't have the receipt for that timeframe.

Just goes to show that class action suits have nothing to do with getting "the people" their money. It's all about lawyers getting rich. You bought the memory, you got hosed on the price, the lawyers got paid, you got nothing back.

They should just do away with class action suits.

The iPhone price drop caught most of us off guard, especially those who bought it three weeks ago.  Check out this iPhone Price Drop Parody Ad on youTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo-7uv0mQ3I

Better start looking for my receipt.

pastor macman wrote:

Just goes to show that class action suits have nothing to do with getting "the people" their money. It's all about lawyers getting rich. You bought the memory, you got hosed on the price, the lawyers got paid, you got nothing back.

They should just do away with class action suits.

I'm confused as to why you believe the guy sitting on his couch at home should be collecting on par with those who undertook the risk and hundreds if not thousands of hours of work necessary to carry out the lawsuit. 

Class action payouts are not always small, and they most certainly can create a change in business practice....not to mention the fact that the actual class representatives that got off their ass and did something about it receive more than those who are simply eligible to share in whatever is recovered.

bratboy wrote:

I'm confused as to why you believe the guy sitting on his couch at home should be collecting on par with those who undertook the risk and hundreds if not thousands of hours of work necessary to carry out the lawsuit.

I don't.

I don't think they should get any. Let the people who want to sue do so. My problem with it is that lawyers come in and make it a class action suit so they only have to do the actual work for one case but still charge for each client. They make it look like they are trying to help "all the people who were wronged" when, in fact, they can make more money by increasing the number of people they claim to represent without having to do the work of multiple cases. It's just a sleazy way for lawyers to make money without actually helping people.

The benchmark attourney's fees commonly accepted by the courts is around 25% of the total payout. So if a lawyer can get a class of 10,000 people instead of 100 people, he can make 100 times more money for the same amount of work.

pastor macman wrote:

I don't.

I don't think they should get any. Let the people who want to sue do so. My problem with it is that lawyers come in and make it a class action suit so they only have to do the actual work for one case but still charge for each client. They make it look like they are trying to help "all the people who were wronged" when, in fact, they can make more money by increasing the number of people they claim to represent without having to do the work of multiple cases. It's just a sleazy way for lawyers to make money without actually helping people.


The benchmark attourney's fees commonly accepted by the courts is around 25% of the total payout. So if a lawyer can get a class of 10,000 people instead of 100 people, he can make 100 times more money for the same amount of work.

...and you're quite sure that you understand what a 'class action' suit is, or what goes into pursuing it?  In your mind, a suit representing one functions identically to a suit representing thousands?  They don't get to charge for each client, they receive a percentage of the final jury or settlement judgment. 

Consider this:  You get smurfed over by some huge corporation on a product that cost you $200.  Do you personally possess the thousands of dollars that would be necessary to pursue a suit against them?  Would the return ever be worth it?

It's certainly true that some people believe that lawsuits cost nothing and that lawyers should be willing to represent them for nothing to pursue a personal claim against a defendant with much greater resources.  The fact of the matter is that class actions allow a plaintiff with little to no resources to pursue a much more powerful defendant, while making it worthwhile for their counsel, who puts months (if not years) of work and resources into the hope that something is achieved from the whole process.



Get rid of class actions and see if anyone would ever be willing to take on the incredibly costly work that would be necessary to sue a giant like Apple for the cost of your $500 iPhone.

Sure you've thought this one through?