CTH8R

New member
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:

CTH8R

New member
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.
 

CTH8R

New member
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/g...book-people-hate-crappy-tire-94.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:

Sangria5

New member
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/g...book-people-hate-crappy-tire-94.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.
 

CT Challenger

New member
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:

Sangria5

New member
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.
 

CTH8R

New member
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:

Sangria5

New member
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.
 

CT Challenger

New member
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:

CTH8R

New member
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:

CTH8R

New member
So, what have we learned:

- Some deceptions aren't criminal frauds (despite what SAngria says they 'think').

- A criminal fraud requires someone to get something they weren't entitled to.

- Sangria writes, sounds, complains and attacks consumers exactly like Angry CT Guy used to.

- The Angry Troll seems ok with innocent people being falsely accused of the crime of fraud, as long as CT got to keep some money.

- CTers like to call just about anything 'fraud', if that might discourage a customer from getting the refund they are entitled to.

- SAngryTroll gets all tough-on-crime when they pretend a consumer lied, but think their own lies are OK.

- If a consumer dares to discuss legal and ethical issues, they are vulnerable to being falsely accused of being criminals and liars.

- When your wife asks if those pants make her butt look fat, that is a time when a 'little white lie' can help everyone (but it's not a crime, despite what the SAngryTroll claims).
 
Last edited:

Sangria5

New member
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.

Nice back-peddle there. That is right, lies are not ok. Now go convince your other half.
 

CTH8R

New member
The SAngryTroll seems unaware of the irony, when they lie about lies, including false accusations.

By their own definition, they are committing the crime of Fraud, through their repeated lies!

Toronto seems unable to rid itself of its dishonest mayor, and we seem unable to rid ourselves of this vile Troll.

But don't be distracted: The evidence is in, and it's not a fraud, if you are entitled to the refund!

The only problem? SAngryTroll might have to give some money back to their customers!
 

Sangria5

New member
The SAngryTroll seems unaware of the irony, when they lie about lies, including false accusations.

By their own definition, they are committing the crime of Fraud, through their repeated lies!

Toronto seems unable to rid itself of its dishonest mayor, and we seem unable to rid ourselves of this vile Troll.

But don't be distracted: The evidence is in, and it's not a fraud, if you are entitled to the refund!

The only problem? SAngryTroll might have to give some money back to their customers!


Who said I have customers, work for Canadian Tire, or that legitimate refunds are fraud? Talk about false accusations and lies. Wow.
 

CT Challenger

New member
No point in even viewing the putrid droppings deposited by the vile SAngryTroll.

The thinks that can be investigated, usually turn out to be a out-right lies.

The rest are just B.S., insults, and attempts to stir up pointless controversy.

Please don't "Feed" the Troll!
 
Last edited:
Top