not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without

A storeowner told me a story recently that I think probably every storeowner has dealt with at one time or another. He has a very liberal return policy. If something is wrong with an item, he will make it right, period. He is that kind of guy. His philosophy is if you keep the customer happy, he will return and purchase more from you in the long run. He realizes that the value of a customer is not a one-time sale. But having that customer return many times during his lifetime and them tell other people of the good experiences he has had in dealing with that store owner is what makes a business successful.

However in one particular instance, he made a mistake with a good customer over a two-dollar item. The family had been good customers over the years and had purchased lots of items from him. However, lately they had not been shopping with him as much as usual. One of the big discount stores had opened nearby and his sales had decreased.

On this particular day, the family had came in and purchased several items including a wooden paddle with the ball tied to it. Every kid has had at least one in his or her life. Even adults get into the act to see who is the best at bouncing this ball on the paddle.

About two hours later, the little boy came back into the store with the wooden paddle and it was broken. The boy asked if he could get another one because he broke this one. “How in the world did this kid break that wooden paddle?” the owner wondered. He told the little boy that he would not give him another one free. The little boy left the store crying and his family has not returned to his store and it has been over a year now since that incident.

What would you do in that situation? Was the store owner right not to give another one to the young boy. Obviously, the boy had broken the toy. The owner thought that the child should learn responsibility for his actions. Although, the toy only cost two dollars, the owner did not think that he should have given him another. He told me that he also thought that the parents were not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without

experiences he has had in dealing with that store owner is what makes a business successful.

However in one particular instance, he made a mistake with a good customer over a two-dollar item. The family had been good customers over the years and had purchased lots of items from him. However, lately they had not been shopping with him as much as usual. One of the big discount stores had opened nearby and his sales had decreased.

On this particular day, the family had came in and purchased several items including a wooden paddle with the ball tied to it. Every kid has had at least one in his or her life. Even adults get into the act to see who is the best at bouncing this ball on the paddle.

About two hours later, the little boy came back into the store with the wooden paddle and it was broken. The boy asked if he could get another one because he broke this one. “How in the world did this kid break that wooden paddle?” the owner wondered. He told the little boy that he would not give him another one free. The little boy left the store crying and his family has not returned to his store and it has been over a year now since that incident.

What would you do in that situation? Was the store owner right not to give another one to the young boy. Obviously, the boy had broken the toy. The owner thought that the child should learn responsibility for his actions. Although, the toy only cost two dollars, the owner did not think that he should have given him another. He told me that he also thought that the parents were not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without

ncluding a wooden paddle with the ball tied to it. Every kid has had at least one in his or her life. Even adults get into the act to see who is the best at bouncing this ball on the paddle.

About two hours later, the little boy came back into the store with the wooden paddle and it was broken. The boy asked if he could get another one because he broke this one. “How in the world did this kid break that wooden paddle?” the owner wondered. He told the little boy that he would not give him another one free. The little boy left the store crying and his family has not returned to his store and it has been over a year now since that incident.

What would you do in that situation? Was the store owner right not to give another one to the young boy. Obviously, the boy had broken the toy. The owner thought that the child should learn responsibility for his actions. Although, the toy only cost two dollars, the owner did not think that he should have given him another. He told me that he also thought that the parents were not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without

he little boy left the store crying and his family has not returned to his store and it has been over a year now since that incident.

What would you do in that situation? Was the store owner right not to give another one to the young boy. Obviously, the boy had broken the toy. The owner thought that the child should learn responsibility for his actions. Although, the toy only cost two dollars, the owner did not think that he should have given him another. He told me that he also thought that the parents were not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without

not teaching their child anything about responsibility and that he should have taken care of his toys.

What really happened to the toy does not matter. Whose fault is not an issue. The issue is whether or not the owner should have replaced the broken toy. Although the owner was right because the boy had broken the paddle, he could have handled the situation differently and perhaps not lost a good customer in the process.

The business owner had three options.

He could have replaced the item without question. This would have been the easiest option, however, the child would not learn anything about responsibility. But it would have kept him happy and his family probably would have continued shopping there.

He could have talked to the parents and worked something out with them. Even if he finally replaced the toy, at least the parents would know that he thought they were taking advantage of his business.

And finally, as he did, he could have refused to replace the toy. However, in the long run, that decision may have cost him hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in sales.

The parents were wrong for sending a child into a business to replace a toy that he had broken. And they are wrong for not shopping there anymore. But not all parents think things through and leave it to others to show children the real world.

So, what would you do?