CT Challenger

New member
This topic keeps coming up in other threads. Maybe it deserves its own thread.

In one case, a customer had two identical and unopened items. The Crappy People said it would be "fraud" to return the older item using the receipt from the newer item.

However, when asked to provide something to back up their theory, none of the Crappy People have been able to do so.

Another case is when a customer has two identical items, where the older item was found to be defective. Again, the Crappy People has said it would be "fraud" to return the older defective item, using the receipt from the newer item.

The Crappy People have written that "any deception is fraud" and that, "If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%".

Again, the Crappy People have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever of this claim, either.

They've been asked to provide some proof from a reliable source that this falls under the legal definition of 'fraud' in Canada. They've had lots of definitions offered, but they all say the store has to suffer a loss (or "injury"), and the customer has to gain something they aren't entitled to. But this just isn't the case, if the customer is already entitled to a refund or exchange.

They also haven't been able to show any web sites that describe this specific situation (i.e., using a new receipt to return an old item) and says its 'fraud'. Lots of other activities are listed as fraudulant - just not this one.

Finally, the Crappy People have been asked to show some cases where people have been convicted of the crime of fraud for using a newer receipt to return an older item at Canadian Tire.

They haven't provided a single one. Not at Canadian Tire, and not at any other store in Canada, either.

What's surprising is how eager they are to convince customers to not attempt this type of return.

They've used threats. They've called people names. They've said this is "theft" and "robbery".

You'd think if they had some examples of laws and convictions available, they'd be trotting them out at every opportunity.

Keep in mind, nobody is 'recommending fraud' or 'defending fraud'. We are just discussing what counts as fraud, which is a legitimate topic.

I fully expect more threats, insults and false accusations on this subject.

What would be useful is some actual evidence.
 

CT Challenger

New member
YOu may or may not be aware that simple cases of theft and fraud rarely if ever get published anywhere...news, newspapers etc...

Well, here's a story about a case earlier this year.

It involved an "intentionally smudged receipt".

Fraud attempt lands pair in jail - The Whig Standard - Ontario, CA

For sure, attempting a return of a second item with the same, tampered receipt is clearly a crime.

(Plus, being on probation at the time probably didn't help in the sentencing.)

Of course, I'd never 'defend' or 'recommend' an actual fraud, like the pair in Kingston tried.

It's just that there's still no evidence at all, that it's a 'fraud' to return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later

No reason to think the store would suffer an "injury" (they are on the hook for a return), so no 'fraud'.

No reason to think the customer would get something they weren't entitled to (they were already entitled to a return), so no 'fraud'.

Not included in the list of 'frauds' that have been provided.

No cases of convictions for this type of return.

You'd think if the "conviction rate is 100%", there'd at least be one news story, at some point.

Gee, maybe that's because it's not fraud at all, if a customer returns something you actually bought, and is unopened, or defective?
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Well, here's a story about a case earlier this year.

It involved an "intentionally smudged receipt".

Fraud attempt lands pair in jail - The Whig Standard - Ontario, CA

For sure, attempting a return of a second item with the same, tampered receipt is clearly a crime.

(Plus, being on probation at the time probably didn't help in the sentencing.)

Of course, I'd never 'defend' or 'recommend' an actual fraud, like the pair in Kingston tried.

It's just that there's still no evidence at all, that it's a 'fraud' to return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later

No reason to think the store would suffer an "injury" (they are on the hook for a return), so no 'fraud'.

No reason to think the customer would get something they weren't entitled to (they were already entitled to a return), so no 'fraud'.

Not included in the list of 'frauds' that have been provided.

No cases of convictions for this type of return.

You'd think if the "conviction rate is 100%", there'd at least be one news story, at some point.

Gee, maybe that's because it's not fraud at all, if a customer returns something you actually bought, and is unopened, or defective?

There's no back tracking on your previous acceptance of retail fraud and there is no way YOU'RE interpretation of anything is meaningful or relevant. You've been proven to be a faker advocate time and again and no one is fooled.
Sorry faker, the world doesn't think like you and never will.
 

CT Challenger

New member
There's no back tracking on your previous acceptance of retail fraud

Sorry - who accepted "retail fraud"?

Did a consumer here accept that "retail fraud" includes 'return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later'?

I just don't see that anywhere. Sorry!

You've been proven to be a faker advocate time and again

Reallly? There's a definition somewhere of what a "faker advocate" is?

Again, I just don't see that anywhere - sorry again!

And, theres now some 'proof' that a specific unregistered poster meets the definition of "faker advocate"?

Again, I just don't see that anywhere - sorry #3!

So ....

1 - Still no examples of anybody being convicted of "fraud" for using a receipt from a new item to return an old, unopened item. Not from your store (assuming you have one). None from any store at all!

2 - Still no reputable sources (or any sources at all!) that say "any deception is fraud".

3 - Still no evidence that, "If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%".

4 - Still not even a single example of anybody being convicted for using a receipt from a new item to return an old, open and defective item that they recently purchased.

And now we could add:

5 - Still no evidnence that the consumers who post here have previously accepted the Crappy People's definition of "fraud".

6 - Still no definition of "faker advocate", or proof that any consumer meet that definition.

Do you think you might be able to provide ANY of that?

Or are you still just full of crap?

Still waiting ...
 

CT Challenger

New member
YOu may or may not be aware that simple cases of theft and fraud rarely if ever get published anywhere...news, newspapers etc...

Interested about that altered receipt case from Kingston. A pretty "simple case", involving less than $100.

Here's another one, in the last year. This one is employee fraud, at the returns desk:

Canadian Tire defrauded by employee - Peterborough Examiner - Ontario, CA

Over $6000 - seems to be employees are more ambitious, lol.

But nothing in there about it being fraud to 'return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later'.

Gee, where's the proof of all these cases the Crappy People have been spouting off about?

Still waiting!
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
I can't even understand how you think that could be legal. YOu buy an item with a one year warranty. 6 months later buy another one, use that receipt to return the original purchase and now you have a new one. You could play this game all year long and extend a one year warranty forever. You don't see an issue with that?

Years ago as a Service manager I had a guy who would pay for the lifetime of the tire warranty and buy a new set of 4. Just as they were down to the end of their tread life he'd come in and say they were defective, replace all 4.
naturallY i sent him packing. Is he attempting fraud or do you faker consumer advocates believe this is okay?
I'm sure there's something in the CPA or SGA that allows him to do that LOL oh wait, no there isn't.
He's a theif!!!
 

CT Challenger

New member
I can't even understand how you think that could be legal. YOu buy an item with a one year warranty. 6 months later buy another one, use that receipt to return the original purchase and now you have a new one. You could play this game all year long and extend a one year warranty forever. You don't see an issue with that?

I can't understand how The Crappy People think this is illegal (to return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later.)

I can't understand why the Crappy People can't find a single web site that describes this.

I can't understand why the Crappy People can't find a single case of anyone being convicted of fraud for doing this.

Hey, here's an idea!

Maybe, if the item is still under warranty, and the customer gets a working one, then the customer is just getting what they are entitled to: a working one!!

Yeah! That sure fits!

It sure is looking like it's not really fraud at all!
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
I can't understand how The Crappy People think this is illegal (to return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later.)

I can't understand why the Crappy People can't find a single web site that describes this.

I can't understand why the Crappy People can't find a single case of anyone being convicted of fraud for doing this.

Hey, here's an idea!

Maybe, if the item is still under warranty, and the customer gets a working one, then the customer is just getting what they are entitled to: a working one!!

Yeah! That sure fits!

It sure is looking like it's not really fraud at all!

If the customer had his original receipt in the first place, he'd get the product he is entitled to under warranty.
If he loses his receipt he is not entitled to the warranty for the defective item.

It is the customers responsibility to keep your documentation. period.
 

CT Challenger

New member
If the customer had his original receipt in the first place, he'd get the product he is entitled to under warranty.

Of course, we all know there are several problems with that.

There are many ways to prove that an item was purchased from Crappy Tire, and that it's still under the Crappy Tire warranty, but there are countless stories of customers who were still denied a legitimate refund or replacement.

For instance, a life-time Crappy Tire warranty requires keeping a little slip of paper for decades. If it's a product that is made exclusively for Crappy Tire, then the store has no basis for denying a replacement, but the Crappy Stores will use a missing 10-year-old receipt as an excuse to deny a refund.

Then there are the Crappy Tire stores that print receipts on crappy paper, so it deteriorates. Or on thermal paper that quickly fades. Then the poor customer is screwed, through the poor choices of the store.

Of course, many other stores (Home Depot, for instance) actually keep track of what you bought, so you don't need to meticulously track every receipt, the way Crappy Tire does.

Plus there are many ways to prove that the transaction took place, like bank statements and credit card statements. But stories abound of customers who were denied refunds, replacements or warranty repairs, even though they could prove that they purchased the item.

None of these Crappy actions count as good customer service: just Crappy Service.

If he loses his receipt he is not entitled to the warranty for the defective item.

Really? You're sure about that? Despite being about to prove in other ways that they purchased the item on a particular day?

No, the laws in this regard do NOT state that a receipt is required. This is something that the Crappy People made up.

If a consumer can demonstrate that they purchased the item, and it's still under warranty, then the store still has the same legal obligations.

Besides, there are many stories of consumers who had a valid receipt, yet Crappy Tire refuses a legitimate refund or exchange. Take the "repair only" items for instance.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Why have any policies at all? Why would any store do anything to protect themselves from the likes of you? Why don't stores let the customer interpret their own version of the truth, you know, based on their socio-economic upbringing?
Yeah, like that will ever happen, LOL!
And for the record, lifetime warranty doesn't mean you only have to buy one for the rest of your life...it's for manufacturers's defects. If you use it lots and over time it just wears out, that's not a defect, but wear and tear and no warranty covers normal wear and tear.....imbecile.
 

CT Challenger

New member
Why have any policies at all?

An interesting question. You seen to be somewhat familiar with the basics of retailing, yet you ask such a fundamental question. Surprising!

There are several scenarios in which customers may desire a refund or exchange.

For instance, there are the 'unsatisfactory' or 'unwanted' items. In these cases, refunds and exchanges are not madated by any laws. However, the reason for a store to have 'any policies at all', is to encourage customers to shop at that store, confident that they will have some protection if the product does not perform to their satisfaction. However, this confidence is lost if consumers start to hear that legitimate refunds are being refused at specific retailers, such as what we see with Crappy Tire.

Another reason to have policies is to ensure that the store complies with the legislation concerning the sale of goods, and consumer protection legislation. In this case, a store policy is actually irrelevant, since the policies cannot supercede the laws. However, it would be helpful if the official policies of the store were in line with the legislation. Sadly, Crappy Tire falls short in this regard, too.

Another reason for policies is the adminstration of warranties, if the retailer chooses to do so. This really isn't necessary, however, because consumers are already entitled to refunds (or exchanges, if they wish) under the legislation. Or, a customer might choose to deal with the manufacturer directly, under the warranty the manufacturer provided (instead of any warranty the store might choose to offer).

Why would any store do anything to protect themselves from the likes of you?

"Protect themselves"? From what? From having to honour their legal obligations?

Certainly, if something is illegal, the stores are free to 'protect' themselves.

The problem is, that nobody has yet offered any compelling evidence that it is 'illegal' to "return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later.".

Sorry!

Why don't stores let the customer interpret their own version of the truth, you know, based on their socio-economic upbringing?

An interesting idea, which the Crappy People keep proposing.

I don't think any consumers have yet offered and opinion on this proposal, though.

And for the record, lifetime warranty doesn't mean you only have to buy one for the rest of your life...it's for manufacturers's defects. If you use it lots and over time it just wears out, that's not a defect, but wear and tear and no warranty covers normal wear and tear...imbecile.

Agreed. Why, did someone post here stating otherwise?

But a product that does not meet a reasonable standard of durability is still defective under the Sale of Good Act.

And is the name-calling really necessary?
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Why have any policies at all? Why would any store do anything to protect themselves from the likes of you? Why don't stores let the customer interpret their own version of the truth, you know, based on their socio-economic upbringing?
Yeah, like that will ever happen, LOL!
Now you're being stupid, and using big words you don't know the meaning of. Ok, expand on how the socio-economic upbring of your customers impact the warranties and the returns of the items you sell. Then, explain the Walmart phenomena with 419 Billion in sales in 2011. I'm sure you already know they're in 28 countries. By the way, they got started in 1962, and you got started in 1922, a 40 year head start on them and you're still grappling simple issues. How many countries are you in?

Walmartstores.com: Investor Relations - Investors

Customers only want to be treated fairly and have you back up products and services that don't work. After all, you do carefully select and test only quality items before you put it on your shelves, right?

Didn't somebody write about getting his car ruined when you got transmission fluid in his brake lines? And now might have to sue because you guys deny responsibility even though he has proof. A few years ago my naive daughter bought one of those convenient small cooking devices from while in school. She used it a few times when it suddenly began smoking and left burn marks on the cover and triggered the fire alarm. It was obviously defective, yet she was denied a return when she tried getting a refund. Then I stepped in and got her money back, with no help from the customer service hotline.

What is clear though, is that CT owners arbitrarily honor their policies when you feel like it. We've already seen two examples of CT owners convicted and fined for fraud. Why would you do that if dealers are supposedly so rich and successful? Could it be that you're not all so rich and successful like you would have us believe? How would an owner, who's pretending to be rich and successful, but needs cash in reality, treat customer returns and store policies? How would they run the store?

And for the record, lifetime warranty doesn't mean you only have to buy one for the rest of your life...it's for manufacturer's defects. If you use it lots and over time it just wears out, that's not a defect, but wear and tear and no warranty covers normal wear and tear.....imbecile.
Those are premium products and the reason why people pay a premium for it. What do you train your staff to say in the sales pitch? "If there's ever a problem, bring it back because it's got a lifetime guarantee" or something along those lines. Lots of good tools out there that wear out prematurely. Maybe it's from a bad batch. That happens. Thank goodness the manufacturers and the good stores take it back without accusing the customer of something malicious like you guys do. The manufacturers, if they're interested, examine the broken tools and use it to improve the quality. Or at least the good ones do anyways.
 

CT Challenger

New member
Now you're being stupid, and using big words you don't know the meaning of. Ok, expand on how the socio-economic upbring of your customers impact the warranties and the returns of the items you sell. Then, explain the Walmart phenomena with 419 Billion in sales in 2011. I'm sure you already know they're in 28 countries. By the way, they got started in 1962, and you got started in 1922, a 40 year head start on them and you're still grappling simple issues. How many countries are you in?

Walmartstores.com: Investor Relations - Investors

Customers only want to be treated fairly and have you back up products and services that don't work. After all, you do carefully select and test only quality items before you put it on your shelves, right?

Didn't somebody write about getting his car ruined when you got transmission fluid in his brake lines? And now might have to sue because you guys deny responsibility even though he has proof. A few years ago my naive daughter bought one of those convenient small cooking devices from while in school. She used it a few times when it suddenly began smoking and left burn marks on the cover and triggered the fire alarm. It was obviously defective, yet she was denied a return when she tried getting a refund. Then I stepped in and got her money back, with no help from the customer service hotline.

What is clear though, is that CT owners arbitrarily honor their policies when you feel like it. We've already seen two examples of CT owners convicted and fined for fraud. Why would you do that if dealers are supposedly so rich and successful? Could it be that you're not all so rich and successful like you would have us believe? How would an owner, who's pretending to be rich and successful, but needs cash in reality, treat customer returns and store policies? How would they run the store?


Those are premium products and the reason why people pay a premium for it. What do you train your staff to say in the sales pitch? "If there's ever a problem, bring it back because it's got a lifetime guarantee" or something along those lines. Lots of good tools out there that wear out prematurely. Maybe it's from a bad batch. That happens. Thank goodness the manufacturers and the good stores take it back without accusing the customer of something malicious like you guys do. The manufacturers, if they're interested, examine the broken tools and use it to improve the quality. Or at least the good ones do anyways.

well said!
 

CT Challenger

New member
Now you're being stupid, and using big words you don't know the meaning of. Ok, expand on how the socio-economic upbring of your customers impact the warranties and the returns of the items you sell. Then, explain the Walmart phenomena with 419 Billion in sales in 2011. I'm sure you already know they're in 28 countries. By the way, they got started in 1962, and you got started in 1922, a 40 year head start on them and you're still grappling simple issues. How many countries are you in?

Walmartstores.com: Investor Relations - Investors

Customers only want to be treated fairly and have you back up products and services that don't work. After all, you do carefully select and test only quality items before you put it on your shelves, right?

Didn't somebody write about getting his car ruined when you got transmission fluid in his brake lines? And now might have to sue because you guys deny responsibility even though he has proof. A few years ago my naive daughter bought one of those convenient small cooking devices from while in school. She used it a few times when it suddenly began smoking and left burn marks on the cover and triggered the fire alarm. It was obviously defective, yet she was denied a return when she tried getting a refund. Then I stepped in and got her money back, with no help from the customer service hotline.

What is clear though, is that CT owners arbitrarily honor their policies when you feel like it. We've already seen two examples of CT owners convicted and fined for fraud. Why would you do that if dealers are supposedly so rich and successful? Could it be that you're not all so rich and successful like you would have us believe? How would an owner, who's pretending to be rich and successful, but needs cash in reality, treat customer returns and store policies? How would they run the store?


Those are premium products and the reason why people pay a premium for it. What do you train your staff to say in the sales pitch? "If there's ever a problem, bring it back because it's got a lifetime guarantee" or something along those lines. Lots of good tools out there that wear out prematurely. Maybe it's from a bad batch. That happens. Thank goodness the manufacturers and the good stores take it back without accusing the customer of something malicious like you guys do. The manufacturers, if they're interested, examine the broken tools and use it to improve the quality. Or at least the good ones do anyways.

well said!
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
An interesting question. You seen to be somewhat familiar with the basics of retailing, yet you ask such a fundamental question. Surprising!

There are several scenarios in which customers may desire a refund or exchange.

For instance, there are the 'unsatisfactory' or 'unwanted' items. In these cases, refunds and exchanges are not madated by any laws. However, the reason for a store to have 'any policies at all', is to encourage customers to shop at that store, confident that they will have some protection if the product does not perform to their satisfaction. However, this confidence is lost if consumers start to hear that legitimate refunds are being refused at specific retailers, such as what we see with Crappy Tire.

Another reason to have policies is to ensure that the store complies with the legislation concerning the sale of goods, and consumer protection legislation. In this case, a store policy is actually irrelevant, since the policies cannot supercede the laws. However, it would be helpful if the official policies of the store were in line with the legislation. Sadly, Crappy Tire falls short in this regard, too.

Another reason for policies is the adminstration of warranties, if the retailer chooses to do so. This really isn't necessary, however, because consumers are already entitled to refunds (or exchanges, if they wish) under the legislation. Or, a customer might choose to deal with the manufacturer directly, under the warranty the manufacturer provided (instead of any warranty the store might choose to offer).



"Protect themselves"? From what? From having to honour their legal obligations?

Certainly, if something is illegal, the stores are free to 'protect' themselves.

The problem is, that nobody has yet offered any compelling evidence that it is 'illegal' to "return an item you've purchased, using a receipt for an identical item that you've purchased later.".

Sorry!



An interesting idea, which the Crappy People keep proposing.

I don't think any consumers have yet offered and opinion on this proposal, though.



Agreed. Why, did someone post here stating otherwise?

But a product that does not meet a reasonable standard of durability is still defective under the Sale of Good Act.

And is the name-calling really necessary?

lol so sarcastic.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Big difference between a life time guarantee and a life time WARRANTY. Find me a warranty that says it covers normal wear and tear.
The problem with you clowns is that you want it all your way. No business survives with your mentality. Check out all the other complaint blogs, sucks.com sites, etc. I guess not one major business will survive if you believe forum posters; but we all know that's not true because they are the vast vast minority of actual consumers.
Nice try though
 

CT Challenger

New member
Interesting post, with some strange opinions about "guarantees" and "warrantees".

Crappy People certainly do seem eager to raise topics, no matter what the topic of the tread.

Anyway ....

1 - Still no examples of anybody being convicted of "fraud" for using a receipt from a new item to return an old, unopened item. Not from your store (assuming you have one). None from any store at all!

2 - Still no reputable sources (or any sources at all!) that say "any deception is fraud".

3 - Still no evidence that, "If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%".

4 - Still not even a single example of anybody being convicted for using a receipt from a new item to return an old, open and defective item that they recently purchased.

5 - Still no evidnence that the consumers who post here have previously accepted the Crappy People's definition of "fraud".

6 - Still no definition of "faker advocate", or proof that any consumer meet that definition.


Do you think you might be able to provide ANY of that?

Or are you still just full of crap?

Still waiting ...
 

CT Challenger

New member
Interesting thread over on Red Flag Deals.

A customer wants a 'price adjustment', but Crappy is refusing.

Someone suggested returning the old item, but that got one of the CT Defenders screaming it'd be "fraud".

canadian tire - price adjustment on an item that goes on sale a few weeks later? - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

As usual, no proof was offered; just the same, unsubstantiated claims.

Interesting how the general agreement on the thread was, that Canadian Tire has the worst policies around.
 

CTH8R

New member
Well, a couple of years have gone by, but not much has changed over at Crappy Tire:


Marlene C.: On Black Firday I purchased an item as an Xmas Present only to find that within 10 days it was half price. I went to one of the Canadian Tire Stores in Regina to see if I could get the $50 plus tax back.. answer No only 7 day price guarantee! I then suggested buying another at the reduced price and returning it with the previous bill..well guess what I was told that was Fraud!!! Are you kidding me.. FRAUD! I am done shopping at Canadian Tire! It used to be a reputable place, but within the last year or two the non-Canadian staff have become very rude and inconsiderate and have changed the shopping experience for me! They are also very reluctant to accept returns for anything. Better to give cash and let your family buy the items that they want, where they want and where warranty and returns are not an issue!
 
Top