CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
That ought to shut down faker advocate on this topic!

Of course he'll just jump back to another topic and try to bring it back to life.

That's okay though, he's fun to play with
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Paid too much by WHO's calculation? YOURS?
Your billion dollar figure continues to be unproven. the cost was $770 million - where's the extra quarter million coming from ? liar

Bought A sporting good store? LMAO Ummm no
How about bought the largest sports chain in Canada AND added it to the SECOND largest sports retailer in Canada....Canadian Tire. What's that? OH right, we are number one and two. hard to suck when you're top and well...top again. LOL

89 years and still leading the pack... now how can that be?
lack of other options forcing customers to CT? - nope
millions of canadians are stupid, and staying stupid 89 years later? - nope

Or could it be that Canadian Tire overall does do a good job, continues to expand, add new stores, add new products, add new services and from a financial perspective outpaces the competition for decades running? CORRECT

Thanks for playing

You call that achievement? 89 years of what? Nothing but a train wreck and a laugh riot. No truth in you being number 1 at all, is there? Any proof? Oh that's right, you can't prove it and have this nasty habit of flapping gum. And you call everyone else here wacko. You certainly aren't the biggest retailer or the most profitable in Canada, so where's the number 1 from?

Lets look at some global players shall we? Walmart, started in 1962. Where are they now? And the founders wealth? Billions and billions.

Lululemon, started in 1998 worth over 6 Billion. And the owner? He was in a small publication, you wouldn't have even noticed it.

Chip Wilson - Forbes

Hmmm....how's about another entrepreneur started ATCO in 1937, and the founders? Yeah, Ron Southern on Canada's rich list every year.

How about a guy who started off as a clown doing street acts in 1984? Surely he wouldn't amount to anything....right, according to CT ? Nope wrong again. They wrote about him in the same little magazine
Guy Laliberte - Forbes

Notice the links I gave are pretty much current.

So where's big bad 89 year Crappy Troll? Any thing that stands out? Any rich list? Any billionaires? Anything aside from bad customer service and privacy violations?
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Wouldn't know, wouldn't care. I wanted a better life for my family, so multi-millionaire sounded good enough to me.
I'm sure you took the same risks and are highly successful....LMAO!
Faker advocate still hasn't figured out that with over 600 plus sucks.com sites, many more complaint blogs and the like, that the only way to get ahead is to work hard. Easy to be a critic, harder to make it in the business world. 89 years sounds good enough for me. At a half million dollars a year, I don't plan to work until I'm 60.
 

CT Challenger

New member
Here's the case where parents sued Crappy Tire in Quebec for 2 defective bicycles:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-14.html#post5615

I decided to run the Google Translator on this, to see what it came up with.

The original posting was here: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-14.html#post5615

The (rough) translation is:


----

PRESIDING:

HON MARIE-André Villeneuve, J.C.Q

CLAUDE GAGNON

Plaintiff

c.

CANADIAN TIRE

Defendant

JUDGEMENT

[1] The plaintiff, individually and as guardian to her two minor son, claims $ 661.54 to the defendant because it has sold two bikes that have proven dangerous both in the design of the use.

[2] The defendant argues that it has sold several similar models and it is not aware of any other complaint. However, despite this, she offers to return the bikes and pay the claimant the price paid when the purchase is $ 299.04 provides that the applicant state unsatisfactory.

THE FACTS:

[3] On May 24, 2003, the plaintiff purchased two regular bikes (18 speed) in the new defendant for the benefit of his two minor son Patrick and Simon aged respectively 14 and 12.

[4] On May 27, 2003, Simon uses his bicycle for the first time. In wanting to slow down while descending a street, but it brakes the rear wheel is lifted suddenly carries a spin which causes the sudden drop Simon forward. It suffered a compound fracture of the arm that requires surgery and hospitalization for several days as well as the establishment of a cast.

[5] On or about June 19, 2003, Patrick uses his bicycle for the fifth day. Trying to avoid a dog, he was forced to stop again but the rear wheel of the bicycle is raised abruptly. Patrick was almost ejected from his bike but luckily it comes out with a few scratches.

[6] At the hearing, the Court examined the two bikes. As noted in the applicant, the wheels go wrong, the pedal is loose and can break the rear tires to use because it is virtually out of the rim. No doubt the bicycles that have hardly been used are in poor condition and have not used in normal use for a reasonable time. The applicant has the right to offer to return the bicycle to the defendant and to be reimbursed the price paid.

[7] As noted in the applicant, it is not mountain bike which requires special handling to avoid accidents. True, as pointed out by the representative of the defendant that the application of the brakes just before can be dangerous.

[8] However, in the case submitted, the applicant said that he supported on the brake slightly before due diligence and that the rear wheel raised instantly. The brakes are too powerful for the weight and size of bikes.

[9] The Tribunal finds that, given these circumstances, the two bikes were dangerous and caused injury especially to Simon who was hospitalized. The Court awards the sum of $ 135.50 for ambulance fees, $ 7.00 entry fee to the beach which has benefited Simon, $ 20.00 in parking fees.

[10] The plaintiff seeks $ 200.00 as wages lost due to medical appointments. He did not produce any document in support of this claim.

[11] The Tribunal also awarded him a sum of $ 150.00 as a hardship and inconvenience.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

WELCOMES the application in part of the plaintiff;

ENDORSES the plaintiff's offer to hand over the two bicycles to the defendant and ordered him to comply;

ORDERS the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ 611.94, with interest at the legal rate from the assignment, or August 15, 2003, plus the additional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code Quebec and court costs;

THE WHOLE with costs.
 
Top