Right...an explanation of the differences described here.

My understanding is that it does not. Above $10 it's at the discretion of of the issuer to either redeem for cash or replace the gift card at no fee. Below $10 and they have to cash it out if requested.

I'm still baffled as to why gift cards are a thing. A nice gesture sure, but so is straight up money (which has never been easier to transfer than now), and it comes with no strings attached other than what the giver wishes it to be used for.

why didn't you quote the whole answer? the next sentence is pretty material.

i found what you quoted here: http://www.dca.ca.gov/...al_guides/s-11.shtml

anyway, i read that first sentence as "a retailer has to do one or the other--redeem it for cash OR issue a new card, but they can choose to do one and not the other if they wish.

here's the part you left out:

[quote=http://www.dca.ca.gov/...al_guides/s-11.shtml]
A. This depends on the policy of the seller. The gift certificate law states that a seller must either redeem a gift certificate or gift card sold after January 1, 1997, for its cash value, or replace it with a new certificate or card at no cost.18 However, California's Legislative Counsel has concluded that a seller is not required to redeem a gift certificate in cash when requested by a consumer.19 Thus, some gift certificate sellers redeem the gift certificate for cash or a combination of merchandise and cash, while some issue a new certificate for any balance remaining after the original certificate is redeemed. A gift certificate or gift card without an expiration date is valid until it is redeemed or replaced.20

Notwithstanding any policy of the seller, effective January 1, 2008, a gift certificate with a cash value of less than ten dollars ($10) is redeemable in cash (not a new certificate or merchandise) for its cash value.21 Cash for purposes of this section includes currency or check.22 Where a seller accepts funds toward a gift certificate from one or more contributors as a gift for another person (the "recipient"), the seller must give each contributor a full refund of the amount paid toward the certificate if the time in which the recipient may redeem the funds by purchasing a gift certificate is clearly disclosed in writing to contributors and recipient and the recipient does not redeem the funds by the time disclosed.23[/quote]

some people perceive handing over cash as the least amount of thought one could ever put into a gift. this isn't necessarily true (cash could be given by a really thoughtful person, for sure!), but a gift card demonstrates that the giver made some effort to factor in something about the recipient.

this case is a bit weird in that it is husband and wife + it's a large purchase....but in most gift situations it is poor form for the recipient to complain about the gift. if this was the guy's friend giving him a $4k gift (let's pretend it is merchandise) and he "only" got $3,880 when he returned it, should he complain? since it's his spouse he probably viewed the $4k as "his" money, so i get that this specific situation can cause someone to feel a bit more entitled.

it may also be generational. my mother recently bought a gift for my son, which was very nice; the gift didn't work, so she took it back to the store; unfortunately they were out of stock.

i looked up the item on amazon.com and it was available immediately for less money, but it turns out she wound up getting a gift card instead of a refund. she felt that was a good decision--instead of accepting cash back she wanted a card which would then require her to wait however long until the store got another. (it was NOT about giving the card to my son and letting him pick his own gift instead.)

made perfect sense to her and none to me. if she really wanted to patronize that (chain) store, she could have used that cash refund at a later time.

/tangent.

It's because people feel like handing over cash as a present is a cop out gift. Like saying "I don't know you well enough to buy you a meaningful gift, so here is $100 so you can go buy something you want...or go put it in a stripper's g-string."

Personally, nothing makes me happier than getting a check or cash as a gift instead of a Schwinn helmet because "The nice man at Target said it was the most 'aero' one in the store!"

I didn't quote the rest of it because it isn't relevant. Before the gift certificate was purchased the retailer agreed that it could be returned for a refund. So that part is not in dispute. The part that is in dispute is the end of the sentence there which says "at no cost." I read that to mean that you can get either a store credit from the retailer, or a cash refund, and that is up to the policy of the retailer. In this case the retailer agreed to a cash (credit card) refund up front. They aren't offering a store credit for the $100 that they aren't refunding. So in this case there is a cost of $100.
Thanks everyone for the replies. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I don't expect the shop to take a hit in credit card charges and so if the fee is to cover that then I'm ok with it. I agree that a gift certificate was not the best choice in this situation, but it was a nice gesture and I'm certainly not going to give my partner a hard time about it. However I'm not sure that the shop really took a $100 hit for this transaction. And the part I didn't mention is that they took their time processing the refund, so she also had to pay interest to her credit card company for the month that the charge was there, which also kinda sucks.
I just put this out there to see if we were right to be upset about this. The fact that some of you feel it isn't unreasonable does make me feel a little better. Now I just need to get to work putting that money towards the bike I really want and then I'm sure I will be able to let this go. :-)

well, to be more specific i think your quote had no relevance because you were worried about the shop's verbal agreement with your wife.

when you added the quote (because you wanted some legal opinion to support your claim), it then becomes relevant to quote the whole thing because....


well, the more informed legal opinion that is presented in the footnote to the very next sentence that you chose not to quote as it is not relevant disagrees with your reading and basically says it is the retailer's call.


just seems like wishful thinking for you to make that interpretation.


it's not really their call for how you manage your finances. she could have made payment on her card (guessing that even if she made this purchase on the last day of a CC cycle she still had 3, 4 weeks until her payment was due) and gotten the refund later.


here's a tip: phone the card company and explain what happened. if she's a good customer chances are they will wipe away all those charges.


for the next time this happens, if her payment is coming due and a retailer has not issued a timely refund, just call the card company and let them know the situation. she won't incur any fees.


some people might be reacting to your selective quote....maybe.

for the record, i DO think it is $hitty for the shop employee to go against his word. that's where my beef would be. it's hard for us to tell exactly what happened because no one in this thread (not even you) was there when the promise was made.

the law appears not to be on your side, though.

I'm a little confused about what we are reading differently here. My understanding of the law is that it is up to the retailer to either offer a refund or offer a store credit. It is not up to the retailer to decide whether there is a cost. The law says at no cost. There isn't a dispute about whether we can get a credit or whether we can get a refund, the shop has agreed to refund. I agree that if they said it is only good for store credit that the law supports that and we would have to go along with it. But they are agreeing to a refund, in which case the law says it should be at no cost.

ok--gotcha. thanks for clarifying for me.

as i see it, you could call them out on this and they might:
a) say "gee you're right" & hand you a stack of 40 $100 bills.
b) say "you know what....you're right, so we've decided we don't do refunds, we only give store credits."
c) say "you're right....but can you at least pay the transaction fee?"
d) say "take us to court." i have no idea what would transpire, but based on what i read there was nothing about them changing their mind/policy (even if it seems morally wrong) and it would be up to the courts to decide.

which is most likely?

i am a believer in doing the right thing and generally give people the benefit of the doubt. i hope the answer is "a" and would happily settle for "c", but "b" is a risk.