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.
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.