I worked, past tense, at another fairly large retail chain. The coupon doesn't lose the store money, that money is paid to them by the manufacturer of items, (Mattel, Hasbro, Levi, etc.) as a reimbursement to the business. That's a manufacturers coupon. That's different from vendor coupons, which cut into (but not eradicate) the profit that the individual store makes from selling the item.If we took vendor coupons inappropriately, the store made less profit, but wasn't out any money. If we took manufacturer coupons inappropriately, then the item manufacturer wouldn't reimburse the store for the value of the coupon and the store would take a financial loss.
Then, the cashier gets a reprimand and after repeat incident, fired.
And I think your impression that the language on a coupon can be interpreted in the way you say. As said earlier, if the consumer wants to avoid potential argument, then they should always err on the one coupon per reciept side unless explicity told otherwise.
After all, if you really wanted the product in the first place, you'd be willing to pay full price for it. How cheap does one have to be to insist on saving that whole extra dollar? To nitpick over coupons, from either side, is a petty and shallow act.
