Is Brendan Fraser a creepy retail cheapskate?
We can't say that we've never returned clothing after wearing it, but we can say that we've never bought clothes with the intention of returning them. Saving a buck is nice, but we draw the line at completely destroying a sales person's week -- unless they deserve it. Apparently, Brendan Fraser may not have the same code of ethics. According to a report in the National Enquirer -- which has become surprisingly trustworthy source -- he returned thousands of dollars worth of design duds that he bought for a hifalutin' shindig at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The Mummy star reportedly went through some covert dry cleaning to cover up his penny pinching. From the article:
Brendan Fraser... spent thousands on designer clothes he wore to a special event, then sneakily reattached the tags and returned them to the story for a refund after hurry-up dry cleaning!
Insiders say Frugal Fraser's assistant arranged a 2:30 am laundry pickup at his swank BevHills hotel, insisting that the dirtied duds had to be ready by daylight because "the items were being returned to the store" where he bought them.
Is this Fraser's early morning cover-up tantamount to a retail Watergate? Or is Brendan just getting a burned by the media because he's a super rich movie star? If you've ever worked in customer service, you've no doubt seen the depths that some cheapskates will go through. How does this re-tagging incident rank?
Fraser, being a famous movie star, could have probably made these 'covert' returns a little less shady. Wherever he bought them, we're pretty sure they would have taken the garments back without all the shenanigans. Reattaching the store tags, if that part of the story is correct, just seems kinda creepy.
[via Celebitchy}






Kristen, 8-11-2008, 4:32PM
I really, really hope this isn't true. I've always liked him a lot -- he seems like a nice guy, and I just can't imagine why he would need to return designer clothes. He's in two major movies this summer, for Pete's sake! Brendan, say it ain't so!
Reply »