Shopping Discussion

[Canadian tire] CHANGED price match guarantee. Now without 10% canadian tire dollar

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 10th, 2017 6:32 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Oct 11, 2012
60 posts
44 upvotes
TORONTO

[Canadian tire] CHANGED price match guarantee. Now without 10% canadian tire dollar

Canadian tire has now pulled a fast one on customers. Price match policy now goes without the 10% that they have been doing all this while.

All signs have been removed from the stores and website also changed.
17 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 3, 2014
1916 posts
843 upvotes
Vancouver(ish)
dealhungry1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2017 11:50 am
Canadian tire has now pulled a fast one on customers. Price match policy now goes without the 10% that they have been doing all this while.

All signs have been removed from the stores and website also changed.
So they've changed their policy, and it appears that they have removed references to their old policy (based on the information provided by you). How is that a 'fast one'? Last time I looked retailers weren't provided to give all Canadians written advance notice of a change in policy.

They are one of the last companies offering a bonus of price difference as part of their price match policy.
Proud RFD member since January 31, 2007. Feel free to add 3,034 to my post count.
Deal Addict
Nov 26, 2008
2071 posts
639 upvotes
North York
dang that's too bad, thanks for letting us know. i only price matched there twice and both times it was as bad or worse than best buy with feet dragging and needing authorization etc. the 10% ct cash reward was pretty huge tho.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
2453 posts
542 upvotes
Whitehorse, YT
That means there is no gain in price matching. Why reward CTC with your business when their regular price is higher?
Deal Addict
Mar 5, 2012
1805 posts
125 upvotes
Guelph
ALLCAPS wrote:
May 3rd, 2017 5:25 pm
So they've changed their policy, and it appears that they have removed references to their old policy (based on the information provided by you). How is that a 'fast one'? Last time I looked retailers weren't provided to give all Canadians written advance notice of a change in policy.

They are one of the last companies offering a bonus of price difference as part of their price match policy.
Lol how does this guy get downvotes for this?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
2453 posts
542 upvotes
Whitehorse, YT
dtm252535 wrote:
May 4th, 2017 10:59 am
Lol how does this guy get downvotes for this?
There are company reps posting here.
Deal Addict
Mar 5, 2012
1805 posts
125 upvotes
Guelph
Marzipan wrote:
May 4th, 2017 11:10 am
There are company reps posting here.
Perhaps, but what he said was 100% accurate and factual, not sure how that warrants downvotes here.
[OP]
Newbie
Oct 11, 2012
60 posts
44 upvotes
TORONTO
I think the issue was the choice of words.
Deal Addict
Nov 25, 2014
1342 posts
554 upvotes
Newton Brook, ON
dtm252535 wrote:
May 4th, 2017 11:20 am
Perhaps, but what he said was 100% accurate and factual, not sure how that warrants downvotes here.
I don't know. Maybe sometimes pointing out obvious facts that everyone already knows makes you seem like a pedantic troll, especially when you can't tell the difference between a casual idiom (fast one) and a legal accusation.
You need someone with an umbrella not a fork
Deal Addict
Nov 26, 2008
2071 posts
639 upvotes
North York
dealhungry1 wrote:
May 4th, 2017 11:56 am
I think the issue was the choice of words.
there are a lot of ppl eager to scam retailers around these parts and some people are so put off about it that any comments that seem moderately expectant of retailer generosity set off some defensiveness.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 3, 2014
1916 posts
843 upvotes
Vancouver(ish)
dealhungry1 wrote:
May 4th, 2017 11:56 am
I think the issue was the choice of words.
So what, exactly, were my words that are at issue?
  • Where I agreed with you that they had apparently changed their policy and removed references to the old policy?
  • Where I asked you how it is - as you put it - a "fast one" (a choice of words which is usually used to infer deceit, unfair practices, dishonest dealing, etc)?
  • Where I stated that the company is not required to give written notification of a change in policy?
  • Where I stated that CT was one of the last remaining companies to offer a bonus in addition to matching prices, anyway?
Please...from my original response, feel free to quote in context the choice of words that are the issue.

I'm thinking it's more the fact that I wasn't in complete agreement with you that Canadian Tire was some sort of evil company for changing their corporate policy and removing references to their old policy.

If anything, I would submit it was your choice of words that was the issue here. If you hadn't inferred that Crappy Tire was doing something sneaky (which, IMO, they're not), this would have been a valuable, informative post and definitely worthy of many upvotes.
Last edited by ALLCAPS on May 4th, 2017 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Proud RFD member since January 31, 2007. Feel free to add 3,034 to my post count.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 3, 2014
1916 posts
843 upvotes
Vancouver(ish)
nmclean wrote:
May 4th, 2017 12:06 pm
I don't know. Maybe sometimes pointing out obvious facts that everyone already knows makes you seem like a pedantic troll, especially when you can't tell the difference between a casual idiom (fast one) and a legal accusation.
Well considering that this is a discussion forum and not a court of law, clearly the casual idioms are what the forum is based on... For example - if someone says something is a "hot deal", is that an idiom or is it an actual reference to something being on fire or otherwise extremely warm?

The inference in the first sentence of the OP was that the company was doing something sneaky by changing their policy (something they're fully entitled to do) or updating their signage. That inference was not necessary.

If the OP had simply stated that the policy was changing, this would have been an upvote-worthy thread because of its valuable, informative nature.
Proud RFD member since January 31, 2007. Feel free to add 3,034 to my post count.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 3, 2014
1916 posts
843 upvotes
Vancouver(ish)
Marzipan wrote:
May 4th, 2017 11:10 am
There are company reps posting here.
So someone with an opinion that isn't negative toward a retailer/merchant (whatever) is suddenly a company rep?
Proud RFD member since January 31, 2007. Feel free to add 3,034 to my post count.
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2001
14112 posts
4575 upvotes
ALLCAPS wrote:
May 4th, 2017 5:20 pm
So someone with an opinion that isn't negative toward a retailer/merchant (whatever) is suddenly a company rep?
You have enough posts to know one of the rules in RFD is: Anyone who speaks in favour of Canadian Tire or Canada Post must work for them because they are among the worst companies around. Their impressive success compared to their peers is all because they are a crappy company.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 14, 2005
11023 posts
1522 upvotes
City of Vancouver
Thanks, OP! I didn't know about this change in policy!
De gustibus non est disputandum
Crazy people will make even sane people crazy.

Top