How do you rate 7200 Market Crossing, Burnaby, BC store?

I wonder how many Canadians returned items in the "original condition and packaging" today.

According to the CT'er, every single one of them committed "fraud", but somehow the stores all let this happen.

Hard to believe any of their rantings anymore ...

Those items that you are describing in this example are not unwanted items. You're returning them and re-buying them. That makes it a wanted item.

This has zero to do with the returning of an unwanted item. It has everything to do with using a policy to cheat the sales flyer and get money back that you're not entitled to.
Way to go CT-Hater, you're showing exactly what this site is all about. Being a dishonest consumer for the purpose of gain. that should help your "cause" gain steam

You're a proven liar, a proven cheat and that's not a consumer advocate.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Those items that you are describing in this example are not unwanted items. You're returning them and re-buying them. That makes it a wanted item.

This has zero to do with the returning of an unwanted item. It has everything to do with using a policy to cheat the sales flyer and get money back that you're not entitled to.
Way to go CT-Hater, you're showing exactly what this site is all about. Being a dishonest consumer for the purpose of gain. that should help your "cause" gain steam

You're a proven liar, a proven cheat and that's not a consumer advocate.

Another furious outburst from the Angry CT Guy. I can just picture the mouth-foam flying.

The CT policy (Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire) doesn't even say it has to be "unwanted".

No, "Unwanted" is just a term people have been using to distiguish these from defective or unfit items. So, the argument about it being "wanted" has no relevance. Nice try, though. I don't think it will be enough to discourage customers who want to use the policy.

In fact, the site just says, "To return an item for exchange or refund, bring it to any Canadian Tire store within 90 days, in its original condition and packaging, with your receipt and issue of Canadian Tire 'Money'".

Nothing on there about why the customer wants to return it, what else they might do while in the store, where they are going for lunch, your favourite colour, or other irrelevant questions. Sorry!

This isn't "cheating". It's returning an item in accordance with CT's official policy. I realize the Angry CT Guy doesn't like that, and that it makes them blind with rage, but they really should learn some restraint. False accusations are so ... unnecessary.

There isn't anything dishonest going on, either. "I'd like to return this, please. It's in its original condition and packaging. Here's my debit card. Thank you!" Happens every day, in other stores, too.

And who on this site is a "a proven liar, a proven cheat"?

I'd be interested in seeing the "proof".

Oh, wait. There isn't any, LOL.

That must be very frustrating. Must be why the Angry CT Guy is so Angry all the time.

Who said you couldn't return an item, unopened or unused within 90 days....30 for electronics? No one....liar!
The issue was repurchasing an item that is on sale (because you paid full price previously) and then lying and using your old receipt to return the newly purchased item. It's fraud and faker advocate can spin it anyway he wants, doesn't change the fact it's fraud and doesn't change that after all this time and being so disproven in all the lies he tells, all he can do now is show his true colours of being a liar and a cheat.
Makes me wonder if his hate for CT was because he got caught at a store for lying or cheating and they banned him for life.....sure does make you wonder.

The impotent raging of Angry CT Guy continues.

It's quite amusing, actually.

Nothing seems to get his blood a-boilin' like consumers sharing tips on how to get a refund, all within CT's own policies.

So, how does Angry CT Guy react? Besides getting angry, I mean? By telling lies, of course - nothing new there, LOL.

There's quite a few of them packing into their posts, if you care to pick through them.

Lies about what consumers wrote.

Lies about the law, naturally.

Lies about what consumers have done.

If you go back to the original post (How do you rate 7200 Market Crossing, Burnaby, BC store?), you'll see that the customer wrote that they "went home to get first purchased item, and returned for a refund".

Since then, there have been numerous claims that this is "cheating" and even "fraud". None of which is true, by the way.

There was also some discussion about returning an old, unopened item with the receipt from a new one. Angry CT Guy snarled that this was (big surprise!) "fraud", but has completely failed to show how this is true. Also, no back-up on the claim of many "convictions" for exactly this type of transaction.

Oh, and the further muddy the waters, various CT people have chimed in with stuff about returning used items, or opening boxes in stores. Nothing really relevant, so don't be distracted!

Can a customer bring an unopened item and the original receipt for a refund within 90 days? Of course. Nobody has said otherwise.

Is this "cheating", "dishonesty" or "fraud"? The Angry CT Guy keeps shrieking that it is, but that's totally untrue.

And will the Angry CT Guy get angry if a customer decides to re-buy the item at the sale price? LMAO! It sure is fun to watch!

Yes, one has to pay close attention when dealing with Angry CT Guy - the truth never lasts too long.

A faker advocate telling the truth and ignoring any fact is normal on this site. That's why DavidLer now posts under unregistered.
Irrelevant and not to unique is the faker advocate....cheaters and liars have made retailers work even harder to protect their interests. Supporting fraud is just the latest admission of faker advocate, but it's nothing new.
Real consumer advocates, government ministries, BBB's, or even the law profession have never even once advocated what faker advocate has.....that's why he's a faker...and a liar and cheat as well, apparently.
Luckily, most people aren't like him.....most people abhor his thought process.....most people know he's a loser.

Wow, Mr. Angry CT Guy seems to be getting more and more angry!

Maybe he's mad because he has to "work even harder"?

Nah, it's all about his own store's policies that allow customers to get things cheaper. Well, those are the store's rules - "Too bad, so sad"!

Hard not to notice that Angry CT Guy has no real facts to offer. That's because they are all against him, LOL! Must be why he's so spittin' mad!

He sure isn't running out of lies or insults, though.

That's OK. As long as customer remember: the store's policy says you can return an unopened item for up to 90 days.

Call it an "unwanted item" or a "change of mind return", if you like that better. Whatever. Maybe you decided it was just too darn expensive. Whatever the reason, just take it on back for a refund.

Hey, look! It's on sale today, for 50% off! At those attractive, low-low, loss-leader, door-crasher prices, maybe you'll want it again! Woo-hoo! Bring on the savings!

Any 'fraud' involved? Nope.

Cheating? Lying? Nope and nope.

And then there's the hypothetical case of someone who has has an identical, unopened item at home .... still no proof that it's "fraud" to return a newer, identical, unopened item with the old receipt. I think that's making Angry CT Guy really made, too. Maybe if he wants to convince us it's "fraud", he could find some examples of all these "convictions" he wrote about?

Yeah, watch out for that Angry CT Guy. He sounds a little .... rabid.

Interesting theory about it being "fraud" to use an old receipt to return a newly purchased item.

So, where are all the convictions that the Angry CT Guy wrote about?

Still no examples of any fraud convictions, where a customer used the "90 day policy" to return the item they'd previously bought, with the proper receipt? Well, that one was kind of a stretch, when the Angry CT Guy blurted out that it was "fraud".

How about the easier case, where a customer has the original, unopened item at home, but to save a trip, returns an identical item that they just bought using the old receipt? Where are the examples of all the convictions that were claimed? How did CT convince a judge that the store suffered a financial loss, when customer was entitled all along to a refund on the original, unopened item?

Or how about this case: the customer had used the original item, and instead "re-bought" an unopened one, and returned that, instead of the original. How did CT produce evidence that the customer had opened the original, and therefore wasn't entitled to a refund? Did CT get a search warrant, and conduct a search of the customer's house? In any case, where are the examples of convictions in these cases? We were told there were a lot of them ...

And where are all these so-called "lies" told by consumers on this site? Haven't really seen any details or the proof that would be required.

Maybe Angry CT Guy just can't help but lie, when he gets all worked up, when customers bring things back for the refunds they are entitled to. And maybe he got a little over-zealous, and invented a few facts here and there. We should wait for the evidence to be presented before making up our minds ...