Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

  1. #21
    Senior Member CTH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,320
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Before Marlene leaves Crappy Tire forever, she should at least get back the extra $50 she spent on "Black Friday", owed to her because they dropped the price by 50% just days after the so-called "Black Friday" sale.

    Her best option is simply to bring in the first item, unopened, and return it with the matching receipt, using the "90 day" return option. Then she can re-buy it at the sale price (assuming she's still willing to be a customer of Crappy Tire). Nothing wrong with that, and it follows all their own rules - they just don't like it because it means they didn't get to screw over a customer with their bogus 7-day Price Guarantee rip-off. Too bad, CT!

    ---

    But here's an interesting scenario to consider: Is it fraud? Or no-fraud?

    - Lets say she Marlene wanted to buy a second, identical item. Why not? It was worth buying one - maybe she thought it was good enough that she wanted another!
    - She happens to have to first item in the trunk of her car when she goes back to the store.
    - She goes in to buy the second one. Hey! It's even on sale, half price!
    - She buys the second item at half-price, and puts it in her trunk, right beside the first one.
    - Then she drives around a bit. Does some errands or whatever.
    - But while she's out, she thinks, "Gee do I really need two of those?" She decides she doesn't need a second one, so she heads back to The Red Triangle of Crap.
    - On the drive, she takes some fast corners and hits a speed bump or two. Swerves to miss a squirrel, maybe.
    - Back at CT, she opens her trunk. Oops! The items have moved and shifted.
    - Which one was the first one she bought? And which was the second?

    According to the Crappy People, she absolutely, positively has to pick the right item, even though they are identical in every way.

    Why?

    Because if she accidentally pick the 2nd on and return it with the 1st receipt, she is guilty of FRAUD! She will go to jail, and the CT'ers have claimed that their conviction rate is 100%! Yikes! (But how do they know? Are they clairvoyant? Is that admissible evidence?)

    Only if she somehow can pick out the 1st item, and return THAT one with the 1st receipt, is she being law-abiding, and completely innocent on all charges.

    And her odds? Exactly 50/50.

    What is poor Marlene do?

    (Well, the Crappy People would say, "Keep both", LOL!)

    But obviously, it matters not which one Marlene picks, because they are identical, and as long as she is not trying to deceive anyone, there is no fraud at all, in the legal sense of the term.

    It wouldn't matter to Marlene, and it wouldn't matter to Canadian Tire, either. Identical is identical.

    Besides, nobody, not CT and not Marlene, could say for sure which item was purchased first.

    In fact, the only reason this comes up at all, is the Crappy People are looking for any excuse at all to keep Marlene's money, and this bogus "7 day" limit is there for exactly that reason.
    Last edited by CTH8R; December 14th, 2013 at 08:31 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member CTH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,320
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    It's interesting to also consider other scenarios.

    How about this case:

    The first package remained sealed the whole time, but she forgot to put it in her trunk before she left the house. She buys the second, puts it in her trunk, then drives around. When she returns to the store, she reaches into the truck, grabs a package, mistakenly thinks it's the 1st item, and mistakenly returns that one.

    Is this fraud? Of course not - nobody lost or gained anything they weren't entitled to. She had no intent to deceive, and gained nothing 'extra'.


    Now, how about this case:

    What if, during all the driving around, one of the packages accidentally tore open? When she peaks in the trunk to find the 1st item, and can't figure out which is which, Marlene would be wise to choose the unopened one, and return that one. It's still 50/50 that the unopened one was truly the 1st one, and everything is correct. But what if it was the 1st that tore open? Is she now guilty of fraud, just because of random chance? Can any wrong-doing be confirmed in such a case? Again, nobody is losing or gaining anything extra. Should she go to jail because of a flip of a coin?


    And what if she had deliberately opened the first package, "just to check", but then forgot that she'd done so? Who could prove that the package wasn't knocked open in transit? Who could prove that the one she chose to return wasn't the first one all along? Is the store losing anything that they aren't on the hook for to begin with?


    My point is this: fraud requires intent to gain something that is not owed, from someone who is not obliged to give it.

    In many such cases, the Crappy People are looking for any loop-hole and any lawyerly excuse to weasel out of their obligations, whether under the 90-day return rule, or the ridiculously short Price Guarantee rules.

  3. #23
    Senior Member CTH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,320
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    This might be useful, to those who are (or atleat, are pretending to be), starting at absolute Square Zero on the definition of the 'mysterious and elusive' term "fraud":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

    Also, I found this post from September, on definitions of fraud, if anyone is genuinely seeking insight. By the way, it shows how what the stores are doing, could meet the definition of a criminal fraud:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post9996


    There is the common-language definition of 'deception', but that's very different from the criminal definition.

    From what I recall, there has to be:

    - A deliberate deception (not just an 'honest mistake').
    - The deception results in a gain that the perpetrator is not entitled to.
    - The deception has to result in a loss to the person being deceived.

    They might try to pull the 'gee, we didn't know' defence, but then these are people who claim to be 'well versed in the law'.

    But it seems clear that their deception resulted in a gain for them (not giving the refund you were entitled to) and a loss to you (being stuck with a non-functioning product).
    Last edited by CTH8R; January 31st, 2014 at 11:16 PM.

  4. #24

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Quote Originally Posted by CTH8R View Post
    This might be useful, to those who are (or atleat, are pretending to be), starting at absolute Square Zero on the definition of the 'mysterious and elusive' term "fraud":

    Fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Also, I found this post from September, on definitions of fraud, if anyone is genuinely seeking insight. By the way, it shows how what the stores are doing, could meet the definition of a criminal fraud:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post9996


    There is the common-language definition of 'deception', but that's very different from the criminal definition.

    From what I recall, there has to be:

    - A deliberate deception (not just an 'honest mistake').
    - The deception results in a gain that the perpetrator is not entitled to.
    - The deception has to result in a loss to the person being deceived.

    They might try to pull the 'gee, we didn't know' defence, but then these are people who claim to be 'well versed in the law'.

    But it seems clear that their deception resulted in a gain for them (not giving the refund you were entitled to) and a loss to you (being stuck with a non-functioning product).

    Not sure what you are even talking about, but I think that ANY deception would be considered fraud. If there are deceptions that you feel are "ok under certain circumstances", please list them for the rest of us.

  5. #25

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    The SAngryTroll is simply ignoring the answers already provided, and trying to twist what other people wrote.

    Let's not waste any more time on the SAngryTroll and their disruptive behaviour.
    Last edited by CT Challenger; February 1st, 2014 at 12:53 PM.

  6. #26

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Challenger View Post
    The SAngryTroll is simply ignoring the answers already provided, and trying to twist what other people wrote.

    Let's not waste any more time on the SAngryTroll and their disruptive behaviour.
    "twist what other people wrote"? That must be one of them thar good lies, I guess.

  7. #27
    Senior Member CTH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,320
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    I guess this is what trolls do - put words into other people's mouths, just to stir up trouble.

    No sense wasting time addressing the SAngryTroll's disagreeable nature.
    Last edited by CTH8R; February 1st, 2014 at 07:12 PM.

  8. #28

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Quote Originally Posted by CTH8R View Post
    I guess this is what trolls do - put words into other people's mouths, just to stir up trouble.

    No sense wasting time addressing the SAngryTroll's disagreeable nature.

    by posting the false claim again. Favourites include, "CT has no Repair Only Policy" or "Every lie is a fraud".

    Not my words. Galenger's words. Just curious as to what lies are ok and which one's are not. I SUPPOSE that I could trust the content on here, but when one of the posters thinks it's ok to lie sometimes, well, then I have a difficult time believing he and his two pseudonym posters. Sorry.

  9. #29

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Lies and fraud are different. That doesn't make either one OK. But the SAngryTroll just wants to twist that around, to restart an old debate. If nobody 'bites', SAngriaTroll will just settle for trying to insult people.

    I say, Begone, wicked Troll. Perhaps it's venom will be welcome elsewhere.
    Last edited by CT Challenger; February 2nd, 2014 at 07:35 AM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member CTH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,320
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fraud to Return Identical Products With Different Receipts?

    Despite some valiant efforts, this threat seems to have been steered into the ditch by the angry CTer. Lets see if we can get it back up on its wheels ...
    Last edited by CTH8R; February 2nd, 2014 at 06:21 PM.

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

Similar Threads

  1. Products With "No Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange, No Repair (As-Is)
    By DavidLeR in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: September 10th, 2012, 10:01 PM
  2. Return policy
    By Bob in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:38 PM
  3. Can't return anything
    By Guest-0376 in forum Canadian Tire 40 Hunterhorn Dr. N.E., Calgary, AB
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 7th, 2010, 10:00 AM
  4. Ask a question: TIRE CHAIN RETURN
    By CT_MANAGER in forum Employees Speak Out
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 1st, 2010, 12:13 PM
  5. Canadian Tire Return issue
    By Christopher in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 6th, 2010, 07:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions