On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Udo Spallek <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > Am Montag, den 27.12.2010, 19:29 -0800 schrieb Ian Wilson: > > I guess I wasn't exactly sure how returns of actual products(ie. not > > containers) should be handled but it would be nice if they could be > > handled within the realm of a sale. > > I agree that "damaged" products that are type stockable should not be > > returned to storage. The return of damaged products is a good > > example. Does that affect stock and accounting or just stock? I do > > not understand what must be done in the case of accounting when a > > damaged good is returned. > AFAIK, this depends hardly on the kind of product you use and at least > in Germany on the warranty laws of the government. E.g. having sold a > product with two years warranty. The customer brings the product back > to you within this time. Then you need to check if the defect does not > violate the conditions in your given warranties. If the defect violates > the warranty, it is a simple repair service paid completely by your > customer. If not, yourself, your supplier or the producer needed to pay > the repair. In both cases you have expenses, so accounting is included > anyway. > I hadn't considered this either. This is another complication of a return. I'm starting to think returns will need their own complete interface/model and this can be linked in the sale or in the pay wizard. > > > Let's assume for now that damaged products will be discarded instead > > of re-used or sold at a discount. > Discard: I would move it from incomming/storage location (when using a > warehouse) to a Lost and Found location. If you and your customer does > not pay for this movement accounting is not included, afais. But > sometimes there are costs for proper disposal. > Reuse/Second-Hand: I would put them into the storage and give them a > "used" label. > I think handling second-hand products will be very complicated. It might be easier to just make them somehow a separate product linked to their original. > > > I guess that in the case of damaged stockable products that nothing > > will be done at all regarding stock when they are returned. > You receive something from someone and you need to disposal it. If there > is no special process/cost for the disposal in your company, you just > put the broken parts in the dust-bin. Without any stock and accounting > moves. > > > The return of composite containers on the other hand seems like a less > > likely example. Why wouldn't the crate and the bottles both be all > > products themselves? > This I have seen at a shop software for gas stations. They have the two > special product types: > * full products > * empties (deposit) > > Each 'full product' is combined with one 'empty' (or more, when you have > different packaging units). When you sell a 'full product' your customer > pays its price and additionally the price of the empty. When your > customer brings back the 'empty', you buy it from him for the price of > the 'empty'. You can sell your collected 'empties' to you supplier for > the same price. > This is interesting but a business could make this "policy" and still use tryton as is. Ie. always add the product and the container to a sale. I looked this up and in California, United States there are a limited number of container types that are considered "re-usable" and permit being listed as a separate item(as a deposit). My containers are not one of them so they are taxed and included in the product price. We would still need a way to handle returned containers though but I think this case(separate deposit for containers) could be solved with an extension. > > > Otherwise what happens when a crate is returned with all bottles but > > 1?(Assume that 1 bottle was broken and was discarded prior to the > > customer returning the containers) > When a shop sells a crate of lemonade, they sell in detail e.g. > 20 bottles of lemonade á 1.00 = 20.00 (full product) > 20 bottle deposit á 0.15 = 3.00 (empties) > 1 crate deposit á 4.5 = 4.50 (empty) > ------------------------------------- > Total: 27.50 to receive from customer > > When the customer brings back bottles and crate the shop 'buys' them > from the customer: > 19 bottle deposit á 0.15 = 2.85 (empties) > 1 crate deposit á 4.5 = 4.50 (empty) > ------------------------------------- > Total 7.35 to pay to the customer > > This works good when the deposit is constant and when having an obvious > criteria to decide if a return is acceptable or broken. But I am not > sure if you can use this model for your requirements. > > > Are there more business cases/examples/edge-cases than the two above? > I am unsure if the former named gift-certificates are a valid case for > this. But maybe models of rental and leasing services have some > similarities. > > Regards > -- > Udo Spallek > > ------------------------------------ > virtual things > Preisler & Spallek GbR > Munich - Aix-la-Chapelle > > Windeckstr. 77 > 81375 Munich - Germany > Tel: +49 (89) 710 481 55 > Fax: +49 (89) 710 481 56 > > [email protected] > http://www.virtual-things.biz > > > -- > [email protected] mailing list > -- [email protected] mailing list
