Store Credit

[Guest-0255]

Anyone heard of the store policy change? I don't know if this is specific to the Chilliwack store only, or all Canadian tires, but it seems that if you now take something back, even if the product is clearly defective, you will be given a choice of taking an exchange (does not need to be the exact same product) or store credit. This is even if you have the receipt and just purchased the item. The store credit doesn't sound too bad, until you find out that if you don't use it within 30 days it expires. It is also only on a slip of paper - so if you lose it, or forget to use it within the 30 days, you are out of luck.

Imagine if you purchased a $500 item, only to get it home and find out it was defective (for products that you put together yourself, you may not realize it until you start to put it together.) So you take it back to the store, and find out that they are out of stock on that product and do not have any similar product. It was an item you needed, and now you have a $500 store credit that you have to use within 30 days, and they probably won't be getting any more of the product you needed in stock. So what do you do? Spend the store credit on $500 worth of stuff you don't really need, knowing that you will need to go to another store and spend another $500 on the item you did need?

This policy has made me stop shopping at Canadian Tire. It was even worse when I went back to spend the store credit before it expired, buying random stuff such as cleaning supplies that I know I would eventually use (since the led lantern I wanted to buy was out of stock and may not come back in) only to come home and find out that I was charged the regular price on cleaning products that were marked as on sale on the shelf. No, I didn't misread the price on the shelf - the regular price was marked as 3.99, the sale price was 2.79. I was charged 3.99 - and I bought two. I supposed tomorrow if I go back the sign will be gone and they will insist I am wrong.

 

[Guest-0468]

This sounds like a dumb, anti-customer policy.
I could see and accept this if it applied after a specific amount of time - say 14 or 30 days.
but if you buy something (i.e. gas generator) and it is defective, and they can't give you a replacement right away (or within a reasonable amount of time - say 7 days) and it is within an accepted amount of time, then it should be cash refund.

 

[DavidLeR]

You may be interested in this earlier post in the "Sale of Goods" thread:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...plaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html#post2408"

It references the BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association:

"Buying Defective Goods"

That site says:

"What should you do if you discover the goods you’ve bought are defective? You should immediately return the goods to the seller. Request an exchange for replacement goods. If a replacement product isn’t available, ask for a refund."

Similar laws exist in Ontario, but the CT store owner/dealers sure don't like it when word gets out.

Be prepared for a bunch of posts from owner/dealers saying that there's no such law, or it doesn't apply in your case, etc.

The law is pretty clear, and the CT policy is in violation of it. Anybody except a CT owner/dealer would call the policy "illegal", but it gets them very upset. I guess the truth hurts.

Just contact the numbers at the link, and follow their advise.

Good luck!

 

[Angry CT Guy]

You may be interested in this earlier post in the "Sale of Goods" thread:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...plaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html#post2408"

It references the BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association:

"Buying Defective Goods"

That site says:

"What should you do if you discover the goods you’ve bought are defective? You should immediately return the goods to the seller. Request an exchange for replacement goods. If a replacement product isn’t available, ask for a refund."

Similar laws exist in Ontario, but the CT store owner/dealers sure don't like it when word gets out.

Be prepared for a bunch of posts from owner/dealers saying that there's no such law, or it doesn't apply in your case, etc.

The law is pretty clear, and the CT policy is in violation of it. Anybody except a CT owner/dealer would call the policy "illegal", but it gets them very upset. I guess the truth hurts.

Just contact the numbers at the link, and follow their advise.

Good luck!

Umm....why would the BC bar association say ask for an exchange first? Why wouldn't they have said demand a refund under the CPA. That would follow your theory if it were true...but thanks for posting more proof that your theory is incorrect.

 

[CT Challenger]

Umm....why would the BC bar association say ask for an exchange first?

Ah, I see the CT Owner/Liars have arrived, as predicted.

They have somehow managed to skip right past the part that says "you (the buyer) have the right to reject the goods and cancel the contract. You’re entitled to get back the money you paid".

But I guess the CT Owner/Liars don't like that part.

Why wouldn't they have said demand a refund under the CPA.

I guess the owner/liars think their customers are pretty dumb.

That the customer would think, "Gee, the site said I should ask for an exchange, so that's all I'm entitled to".

Same old pattern we've seen many times, both here and in the stores.

Lie to the customer, try to deny them their rights, try to keep their money when they are entitled to a refund.

Great advertising for the local Crappy Tire store - "buy here and get cheated".

Best to steer as far from these traps as possible.

Tell your friends about these aweful stores, too, and their devious policies.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Ah, I see the CT Owner/Liars have arrived, as predicted.

They have somehow managed to skip right past the part that says "you (the buyer) have the right to reject the goods and cancel the contract. You’re entitled to get back the money you paid".

But I guess the CT Owner/Liars don't like that part.



I guess the owner/liars think their customers are pretty dumb.

That the customer would think, "Gee, the site said I should ask for an exchange, so that's all I'm entitled to".

Same old pattern we've seen many times, both here and in the stores.

Lie to the customer, try to deny them their rights, try to keep their money when they are entitled to a refund.

Great advertising for the local Crappy Tire store - "buy here and get cheated".

Best to steer as far from these traps as possible.

Tell your friends about these aweful stores, too, and their devious policies.

If that were true, wouldn't the BC bar association have said so? But they didn't say so did they?

Try to keep up.

You see, the BC bar association would be a credible source, and we already know that you are not.

 

[CT Challenger]

If that were true, wouldn't the BC bar association have said so? But they didn't say so did they?

Typical bs by a CT owner/liar to deceive customers.

The site says, "you (the buyer) have the right to reject the goods and cancel the contract. You’re entitled to get back the money you paid".

But you don't like that, so you dodge and weave. You lie and deceive. You try to ridicule people. You say black is white, and water isn't wet.

People aren't stupid, which is too bad for the owner/liars.

You are just shooting yourself in the foot by continuing to lie to customers.

We are learning not to trust the owner/liars. We are beginning to know our rights, and are going to be applying them.

Better get used to it.

Maybe you can open a White Auto Store in Texas. LOL hilarious.

 

[Guest-0367]

... only to come home and find out that I was charged the regular price on cleaning products that were marked as on sale on the shelf. No, I didn't misread the price on the shelf - the regular price was marked as 3.99, the sale price was 2.79. I was charged 3.99 - and I bought two. I supposed tomorrow if I go back the sign will be gone and they will insist I am wrong.

In Quebec there is a law that if the item scans at a higher price, then you get $10 off the lower price. For an item costing less than $10, the item is free.

In Ontario, many stores (including Crappy Tire) are supposed to follow the Scanning Code of Practice that has basically the same rules.

Check out this thread:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...-chat/701-getting-free-stuff-ctc-legally.html

In Ontario and Quebec, you are entitled to the first item for free, and the second item at the sale price.

However, many customers have reported that stores do not abide by the code (big surprise).

Assuming you ever set foot in one of these stores again, you should check your receipt before you leave, to have the best chance at catching these "errors" (i.e. scams).

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

Typical bs by a CT owner/liar to deceive customers.

The site says, "you (the buyer) have the right to reject the goods and cancel the contract. You’re entitled to get back the money you paid".

But you don't like that, so you dodge and weave. You lie and deceive. You try to ridicule people. You say black is white, and water isn't wet.

People aren't stupid, which is too bad for the owner/liars.

You are just shooting yourself in the foot by continuing to lie to customers.

We are learning not to trust the owner/liars. We are beginning to know our rights, and are going to be applying them.

Better get used to it.

Maybe you can open a White Auto Store in Texas. LOL hilarious.

You can reject goods BEFORE accepting delivery and cancel the contract and get your money back. Once you have accepted the goods ie - paid for it and take it out of the store, this area of the CPA does NOT apply.
Example - order a bedroom suite from Leons or the Brick. pay for it. upon delivery it's particle board not real wood. You have the right to reject the delivery and cancel the contract, receive refund.
Once you accept delivery of an item, you must follow different rules and procedures if you are unsatisfied with goods or their performance.

 

[Guest-0367]

You can reject goods BEFORE accepting delivery and cancel the contract and get your money back.

Absolutely. You are describing a 'future performance contract', which is covered under the Act.

Also covered are ordinary retail purchases from a store, as described in the referenced web page, which was the case with the original poster.

Once you have accepted the goods ie - paid for it and take it out of the store, this area of the CPA does NOT apply.

Oh-oh. And you were doing so well, too.

Now we have to decide if you are a liar, or a moron.

If you've read the site and the Act and not understood it, you are a moron.

If you haven't even bothered to read either, or read them and are deliberately misrepresenting them, you are a liar.

So, which is it?

Are you a moron, or liar?

Example - order a bedroom suite from Leons or the Brick. pay for it. upon delivery it's particle board not real wood. You have the right to reject the delivery and cancel the contract, receive refund.

The fact that the Act covers future performance contracts doesn't mean that other types of contracts are not covered.

The site says, "what you can do if you’ve bought a product or items (called “goods”), which turn out to be defective".

It doesn't say "before accepting delivery" or "for future performance agreements only".

Typical.

CT rep's looking for any squeaky little loop hole to wriggle through. Anything to deceive the customer and keep their money.

Too bad your desired loop-hole doesn't exist.

Too bad for you that consumers are too smart for your tricks.

I'm starting to lean more towards "liar" and less towards "moron", but I'm waiting for your confession, one way or the other.

Once you accept delivery of an item, you must follow different rules and procedures if you are unsatisfied with goods or their performance.

Yup, I'm thinking "liar" now.

Am I wrong?

Or are you really just a moron?

Either way, not much of an advertisement for the wonders of shopping at Crappy Tire.

 

[Guest-0367]

i vote for 'moron' over 'liar'

clearly this joker has no idea what the law says but wants to sound impressive so makes stuff up

 

[Guest-0367]

Absolutely, this person is a liar.

Make no mistake, Canadian Tire and its representatives stand to gain financially with each customer who doesn't get a refund for a defective product.

Luckliy the BS the rep's post is so transparent that nobody is fooled.

To quote the Dilbert strip, "I demand a plausible lie!"

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, thanks for playing, better luck next time, that will be all. Next.

LOL hilarious!

 

[CT Challenger]

This policy has made me stop shopping at Canadian Tire ...

You've been caught up in the death spiral that CT has entered.

They want to make more money, but can’t expand their stores.

So they stock crappy items, then implement abusive policies to avoid refunds, thus squeezing more out of their customers.

The customers get ticked off & leave (as you have done), so the store has to squeeze the remaining customers harder.

This continues until they go the way of Zellers, Bargain Harold’s and Eatons.

Innocent people such as yourself aren’t aware that the policies are changing, and think the old rules still apply.

You just got caught in the down-draft of a sinking ship.

I do feel bad for all the customers they will cheat before they mercifully close their doors.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

You've been caught up in the death spiral that CT has entered.

They want to make more money, but can’t expand their stores.

So they stock crappy items, then implement abusive policies to avoid refunds, thus squeezing more out of their customers.

The customers get ticked off & leave (as you have done), so the store has to squeeze the remaining customers harder.

This continues until they go the way of Zellers, Bargain Harold’s and Eatons.

Innocent people such as yourself aren’t aware that the policies are changing, and think the old rules still apply.

You just got caught in the down-draft of a sinking ship.

I do feel bad for all the customers they will cheat before they mercifully close their doors.

Ahh yes it's that death spiral of increasing sales and profits! Sounds like a sinking ship to me hahaha
By the way, do you read? Can't expand stores? have you investigated how many stores received expansions in say 2008, 2009, 2010 and starting in 2011? How about how many extra stores in new markets have been built during the same period? Can't expand? where's that come from?

 

[CT Challenger]

Ahh yes it's that death spiral of increasing sales

Increasing sales? What are you smoking?

OK, compared to the 5.6% dive your sales took in 2009, I guess any kind of increase out of that hole will sound good.

But even your increase in 2010 leaves you far short of what you were in 2008.

Agreed, your profits are up.

Now, how do you suppose a business with lower sales manages to increase profits? Well, by cutting expenses.

Expenses such as, oh, how about refunds to customers who deserve them? Now that would improve profits nicely.

And drive away the customer base in the long-term.

By the way, do you read? Can't expand stores? have you investigated how many stores received expansions in say 2008, 2009, 2010 and starting in 2011?

Yup. Why just in 2010 alone, the number of stores sky-rocketed from just 479 all the way up to 485!

A HUGE mega-increase of 6!

That's almost 1.3%, in just one year!!!

And square footage went up by well over 0.3%! You can almost feel the earth shake!

Can't expand? where's that come from?

OK, so you were able to tack on a half-dozen stores. Big whoop.

Now, if you REALLY want to expand, I hear Texas is a good place. It'll only cost you $300 million or so, and a big lawsuit with the dealers.

On second though, just stay home & continue to cheat Canadians.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

Increasing sales? What are you smoking?

OK, compared to the 5.6% dive your sales took in 2009, I guess any kind of increase out of that hole will sound good.

But even your increase in 2010 leaves you far short of what you were in 2008.

Agreed, your profits are up.

lol good benchmarking. In 2009, the economy got it's ass handed to it! keep grasping at straws looking for a way out of YOUR lies.

Now, how do you suppose a business with lower sales manages to increase profits? Well, by cutting expenses.

Expenses such as, oh, how about refunds to customers who deserve them? Now that would improve profits nicely.

And drive away the customer base in the long-term.

Again, increasing sales does NOT equal driving away customers. Those two little metrics fly in the face of eachother. So which is it?

Increasing profits by cheating customers out of returns? haha yah good strategy and likely scenario.
Can you prove that this is the case? No sir you can't. You have invented a LOT of information about what you think is actually happening.

By the way, do you read? Can't expand stores? have you investigated how many stores received expansions in say 2008, 2009, 2010 and starting in 2011?

Yup. Why just in 2010 alone, the number of stores sky-rocketed from just 479 all the way up to 485!
A HUGE mega-increase of 6!
That's almost 1.3%, in just one year!!!
And square footage went up by well over 0.3%! You can almost feel the earth shake!

Lets compare to say your beloved Lowes who has taken 4 years to get 22 stores up and running. yes, mega company lowes, less then 6 per year in canada.
How about Home Depot . They opened a staggering 11 new stores in 2009 ACROSS THE WORLD! Wow, that's impressive.

OK, so you were able to tack on a half-dozen stores. Big whoop.
Now, if you REALLY want to expand, I hear Texas is a good place. It'll only cost you $300 million or so, and a big lawsuit with the dealers.
On second though, just stay home & continue to cheat Canadians.

you're loving the mistake from 3 decades ago! how about something ummm relevant? current?
If we're playing "old mistakes' perhaps the one your parents made 30, 40 or 50 years ago can come into play if we're on this path.

 

[CT Challenger]

Again, increasing sales does NOT equal driving away customers.

Uh, who the heck said that?

Aren't you paying attention? Sales are still way down from 2008. Try to follow along.

It's the rip-off policies that will drive away customers, dumb-ass. As in, the short-term stratgey to cheat people out of refunds, in order to save costs now, but at the expense of customers later on. Get it?

No, probably not.

you're loving the mistake from 3 decades ago!

Oh, yeah!

Plus all the disproven CT lies about dealers not losing any money. LOL!

lIf we're playing "old mistakes' perhaps the one your parents made 30, 40 or 50 years ago can come into play if we're on this path.

Oh, very clever.

When you are losing on the financials, resort to personal attacks.

That's the kind of downward spiral I'm talkin' about.

Lucky for us, we've already bailed on your sorry butts, and will enjoy watching you go down in flames.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Increasing sales? What are you smoking?

OK, compared to the 5.6% dive your sales took in 2009, I guess any kind of increase out of that hole will sound good.

But even your increase in 2010 leaves you far short of what you were in 2008.

Agreed, your profits are up.

Now, how do you suppose a business with lower sales manages to increase profits? Well, by cutting expenses.

Expenses such as, oh, how about refunds to customers who deserve them? Now that would improve profits nicely.

And drive away the customer base in the long-term.

By the way, do you read? Can't expand stores? have you investigated how many stores received expansions in say 2008, 2009, 2010 and starting in 2011?

Yup. Why just in 2010 alone, the number of stores sky-rocketed from just 479 all the way up to 485!

A HUGE mega-increase of 6!

That's almost 1.3%, in just one year!!!

And square footage went up by well over 0.3%! You can almost feel the earth shake!



OK, so you were able to tack on a half-dozen stores. Big whoop.

Now, if you REALLY want to expand, I hear Texas is a good place. It'll only cost you $300 million or so, and a big lawsuit with the dealers.

On second though, just stay home & continue to cheat Canadians.

Yacht boy likes to think he knows something, of course his facts are always off and he has this problem with women....but know worry hasn't fooled many on this faker advocate site.

 

[CT Challenger]

really awsome growth back in 2009 too.

went all the way from 475 stores to 479

whoopee!

Funny how adding stores actually caused a decline in sales

good work ct!

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

How convenient , again ignoring the facts about Lowes and Home Depot that are presented.
How do you respond to Lowe's slow growth of adding stores in Canada?
How do you respond to Home Depot's pathetic growth of 11 stores GLOBALLY during same period?

or do you choose to ignore them because it shoots down your argument that CT isn't expanding?

Or, were you just wrong and in fact CT's pace of growth is right on target with every other retailer? Yah, that's it!