Does this seem stupid to you too?
Asked by
XOIIO (
18328
)
February 26th, 2011
So we have 2 stores in our area that compete, IGA and Sobeys. IGA had gotten some award for the best cheese or service or something. A year later Sobeys bought out IGA, and when I went back the plaques were exactly the same, but had the Sobeys label on the now.
Doesn’t it seem wrong that buying out a company transferes the awards? I think that they should start over, it seems like total bull that they changed the name.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
Was the label just stuck on, or actually engraved into the plaque? Because that would not only be misleading, but kind of a waste of money.
If they bought the store, they may probably bought all that goes with it. The shelves, the groceries on the shelves, the cash registers, parking lot, sinks in the bathroom, the lights on the ceiling, even the mailing address. I really don’t see how also buying the rights to that award would be the exception to prove the rule.
I wouldn’t call it stupid, I’d call it scummy.
@john65pennington – How did they save money having the plaques re-engraved with the Sobeys information? Unless the organization that gave the award gave them a new plaque for free, they paid for it.
@XOIIO – I don’t know how the grocery business works, but with banks, when you have a merger, you “buy” the history too. So if Bank A was founded in 1870 and Bank B in 1868 and the two banks merge, the “new” bank is considered to have been founded in 1868. There may be some technicalities in there like what name is kept, etc., but in general, the histories get merged. Maybe in the grocery business you get to keep the award history?
If they bought the cheese (or service) that won the award, and are still offering it, I guess it would be ok with me. However, if the old store’s cheese (or service) no longer exists, and has been completely replaced by the new owner’s cheese (or service), then it seems deceitful to me.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
