Page 4 of 33 First ... 2345614 ... Last
Results 31 to 40 of 322

Thread: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

  1. #31
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT me View Post
    First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


    Having said that;
    1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

    2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

    So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.
    Actually if I may cut in here, Ct Me you did say a few times the posts were false, incorrect, exaggerated and so on. We can all see what you've written. Now your saying different.

  2. #32
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Okay genius, you're right, I haven't backed up anything. Oh wait, i have asked you repeatedly for proof of the claim you made against the Brantford owner and you have provided zero!

    So let me tell you how the financial "rent" works, and how the owner does not pay rent to the landlord

    Canadian Tire Corporation owns many of the properties and buildings occupied by CT stores. The store owner pays rent to the Corporation based 100% on sales. if they sell 1 million, they pay small a percentage of those sales to the Corp. If they sell 20 million, they pay the same small percentage of the sales to the Corp. That is all of the rent a CT owner pays. Nothing more, nothing less.

    In the case where the Corp is not the landlord and it's a company like SmartCentre or FirstGulf or whoever that owns the property/building, the owner of the store STILL pays the same percentage rent based on sales to Canadian Tire Corporation. The Corporation holds the lease on the building from the landlord and pays them whatever agreed upon amount. There is no financial payment from a store owner to a third party landlord in any case anywhere in the Country.

    ************************************************

    For the record, here is the cut and paste of what i said to begin this line of questioning.

    I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


    In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it

    ************************************************** *********

    1) I asked for proof of the Brantford information
    2) i stated clearly that your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners is false. Two seperate paragraphs. Two seperate thoughts.

    So, I might suggest that it is YOUR reading comprehension that needs some improvement. Hey look, I strung more then two thoughts together.

    So hot shot, what did you "little girl" dig up?

  3. #33
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Oh and before I forget, since you're convinced that it is I that can't form a thought and have decided that you are the judge and jury for such..... I might point something out.... your statement "Why am I not surprised as you are so typical of a CT..." doesn't make sense. I am typical of a Canadian Tire?

    Well said Captain Intelligence.

    I anticipate I will not being hearing any further intelligence insults from you unless of course you are comfortable playing the role of hypocrit.

    Have a great day

  4. #34
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post
    Oh and before I forget, since you're convinced that it is I that can't form a thought and have decided that you are the judge and jury for such..... I might point something out.... your statement "Why am I not surprised as you are so typical of a CT..." doesn't make sense. I am typical of a Canadian Tire?

    Well said Captain Intelligence.

    I anticipate I will not being hearing any further intelligence insults from you unless of course you are comfortable playing the role of hypocrit.

    Have a great day
    You can't read, you can't understand and you can't do a basic search!?!? Fucking waste of skin. No surprise there.

    What are you afraid of? Just have your parents and grand parents co-sign for you. Tell them it's money in the bank. Big bad CT toady afraid that a little girl will beat you? I can't give you more of a handicap than that.

    My youngest read your post and asked "why is she so dumb when she's a grown up?" And before I could respond my daughter answers " so doctors can experiment on them before they get to the smart people" lol.

    Along the way she found a few more interesting cases before starting her homework. It turns out CTC has done some wrong, including fined for violating the Canadian Environmental Protections Act, 3.5 million dollar award for a personal injury, even trade mark infringement.

    CTC vs McFadden WIPO
    Resch vs CTC
    The Queen vs CTC

    And what do you have ct me? Still nothing huh.Do yourself a favour, sign an organ donor card and then swan dive off something no higher than 4 stories. Don't worry about your organs. Your useless brain will provide enough of a cushion so that your organs don't get ruined for deserving people.

  5. #35
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0339's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    So your daughter is reading this and getting involved? Great, i'm sure she is learning a lot from her role model father who can't string together a few sentences without a bunch of f*ck you's and insults that belong to hooligans on playgrounds and in bar fights. You're a real super star sir.
    If this is the kind of people this site attracts, bring 'em on. If clowns like you hate CT, GOOD.... I have no interest in my team serving loud mouth, unreasonable people such as yourself.

    Now on to the task at hand. CT employs over 55,000 people in Canada. We have 480 Ct stores, plus hundreds of gas bars and however many PartSource stores. This is a mega corporation.... $9 billion dollars. Of course there will be lawsuits. Google the same with any company.... you'll find lawsuits. Loblaws, Shoppers DRug Mart, Walmart Canada, Tim Hortons, Home Hardware... take your pick. Thats why companies have lawyers. Lawsuits happen in the world of business. Clearly you have zero comprehension of what happens in the business world. 55,000 people is the size of a small city. Suggesting that we should not do any wrong and that we're bad because we've been sued is like saying a city of 55,000 people needs no police officers. With that many people, products, buildings and transactions, there will be problems. GUARANTEED

    Your specific points of mention. McFadden was not us being sued. It was us attempting to gain control of a website domain. We lost. Big deal. Dude still owns crappytire.com your point = fail
    Rensch vs ? majority fault found to be the responsibility of ProCycle, the manufacturers of CCM bicycles. Now what? Are you going to go say CCM sucks because they got sued lol

    I also noted you haven't responded to the rent issue. You've clearly been beat on this topic. I know the facts. You don't. Can you provide any information about your claim that an owner failed to pay rent to a landlord or can we call that a dead issue in which you've been beaten?

    Also, still awaiting your much bragged about information on the Brantford claim you made. I personally know the aforementioned owner from the Fort Erie bicycle lawsuit and am interested in the Brantford one having known two Brantford owners personally.

  6. #36
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You can't read, you can't understand and you can't do a basic search!?!?
    So, about Canadian Tire: does it ever suck, eh?

    I need to buy a new faucet for my mom's house in Niagara Falls. Do you think I should go to the Home Depot, Rona, Home Hardware or plumbing store in my home town? Or, should I wait until I get to NF, and buy it at the HD/Rona/HH down there?

    Either way, there's zero chance that I'll buy it you-know-where, just in case it doesn't fit, and the CT returns clerk has a hissy fit about "repair only" warranties or open boxes.

    Yup, good ol' Crappy Tire. Won't be seeing me in there any time soon.

    I'm sure their draconian return policies are savin' them loads of money, by driving away customers.

  7. #37
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Yawn. A CT moron who likes to bully and bullshit. So typical. You reek of such desperation to win and be right. Why is that? You can deny those two specific cases all you want retard. The facts are that CTC thought they could push people around in an underhanded way. I'll say this again, maybe for the last time. Those and other cases are all in the public records for everyone to see. You fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    ...am interested in the Brantford one having known two Brantford owners personally.
    Then why don't you call them to find out?!?!? The truth is you don't know them. Another fail. Getting bored already.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    If this is the kind of people this site attracts... you hate CT
    I hate CT?!?! Here, on this site? Really?!?!? Somebody want to smack some hallelujah her way?!? Yawn. CT's dumbest getting dumber. Recaler.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    This is a mega corporation.... $9 billion dollars.
    Oh no 9 billion whole dollars. Really!!! I'm surprised you didn't round it up to 10 billion. I wonder what you call Tim Hortons, a much bigger company by valuation. How about mega mega Tim Hortons.

    The funny thing is CTC financials and the markets say differently. Let's not have those facts get in the way. You're only off by 4 billion and change. Again, all in the public records. Since you're already up there scraping facts out of your ass, try looking for your head.
    Yawn...escabechar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Clearly you have zero comprehension of what happens in the business world
    This coming from a fat ass middle aged retail clerk? Most kids quit retail and then get into a profession when they're all grown up. Were your parents mean to you in the trailer? Did you even make it past high school? I didn't think so. Do something quick you ain't getting younger. Before long you'll be another lady living with cats. Maybe you already are. Frustrarse. Zzzzzz
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    McFadden was not us being sued. It was us attempting to gain control of a website domain. We lost. Big deal.
    It must've been a big deal as your legal team spent piles and piles of money and well over a year preparing for it and bullying him along the way. He had only 20 days to prepare. You guys could've gotten the name from the start but too slow and stupid to jump on it. Versagen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Rensch vs CTC ...Now what? Are you going to go say CCM sucks because they got sued lol
    A boy was left permanently disfigured and brain damaged because you knowingly sold him a defective bike. Angamia.

    I've had enough of CT stupidity to last a life time. This is over. When you jump off the roof of your store, aim for the soft concrete head first. Before you jump make sure some kids have their cell phones out. It'll go viral on youtube.

  8. #38
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    You want public records... here read this. It`s called an annual report
    http://corp.canadiantire.ca/EN/Inves...TC_AR_2009.pdf
    Corporation annual revenue is actually 10 billion, perhaps I should have rounded up. 9 billion was low

    As far as I can see you have proven nothing. All you`ve been successful at is dodging the losses you face and throwing insults in retaliation.

    I don`t and didn`t deny the lawsuits. I clarified them with real facts. Makes them far less impactful and terrible then you attempted to make them out to be. My point on the Brantford owner was WHO? YOu know the ct owners move from store to store frequently? It could be anyone for the last 20 years or more.

    Hilarious that you call me bully lol You began the argument, you made your claims, now you're calling me a bully because you have been unable to step up to the plate. None of your i hate ct counterparts have piped up to come to your aid because you're wrong. All you can do is run your mouth with insults.

    step up and play or sit down and shut your mouth.

    that will be all

    next

  9. #39
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    PS: Tim Hortons annual revenue is $2.2 billion. less then 1/4 of CTC so no i would not call them mega mega corporation.

    public records again

  10. #40
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Stupid return policy to hide employee theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    Corporation annual revenue is actually 10 billion, perhaps I should have rounded up. 9 billion was low
    Oh, what a relief it is to hear the CT doesn’t actually suck, and this whole web page can just simply be removed because, since CT has the annual revenue you claimed, and not the lower revenue somebody else claimed, surely CT can’t suck at all.

    Oh, wait a second. Isn’t it the case that bigger companies are more likely to suck than smaller ones? Darn, maybe CT still does suck after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    I don`t and didn`t deny the lawsuits. I clarified them with real facts.
    Well, at least I can feel good about that, now can’t I? Some un-named lawsuits with some store or other were resolved in CT’s favour, or didn’t exist at all (I lost track), or something. Well, obviously a “mega corporation” with teams of lawyers who win cases can’t suck, now can they? Some good news there, clearly.

    Oh, hang on. What about all those personal experiences I’ve had about how CT really does suck for customer service, dispute resolution, shoddy vehicle repairs, selling crappy product they don’t stand behind and (where have I heard this before?) a “Stupid return policy”?

    Gosh, I guess there’s a slim chance they still do suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    None of your i hate ct counterparts have piped up to come to your aid because you're wrong.
    As an “I hate CT counterpart”, my not piping up sooner doesn’t mean that you are right, that somebody else is wrong, or that CT doesn’t actually suck big-time.

    It just means that I already know that CT sucks in multitudinous ways, and these lawsuits and their outcomes in no way change that fact. And, knowing very little about these cases, I didn’t have anything to contribute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    step up and play or sit down and shut your mouth.
    Um, do you have any more “real facts” about these cases, or is that annual report all you've got?

    Isn’t this the report CEO Stephen Wetmore was referring to when he said (in essence) that Canadian Tire sucks? See article at this link: "Canadian Tire chief shuffles management, tells employees to shape up - thestar.com".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    that will be all
    I sure hope so, but somehow I doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct Me View Post
    next
    That wouldn’t be me, would it?

Page 4 of 33 First ... 2345614 ... Last

Similar Threads

  1. Return Policy is false advertizing
    By Guest-0042 in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 14th, 2014, 05:50 PM
  2. Return policy
    By Bob in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:38 PM
  3. Ask an Employee
    By Employee in forum Employees Speak Out
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2012, 11:08 PM
  4. Canadian Tire doesn't honor their return policy?
    By Guest-0160 in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: June 6th, 2011, 12:13 PM
  5. stupid b**ch hit my son......
    By dizzy in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 2010, 03:06 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions