"Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange

Owner 1 said:

Oh it would be so nice if your claims related to the Sale of Goods Act were actually made if you had a clear understanding of the provisions within it. If you really understood what it meant to have goods that were fit for sale, fit for their intended purposes, cancelling contracts, implied warranties.... if only you understood what it all meant.

Click to expand...

What I see, is a post that has absolutely no meaningful content whatsoever.

Just a mash-up of insults and put-down.

Not even a misrepresentation anymore - just rambling.

Well, I think the theory of meaningful debate with a Troll, just isn't gonna happy!

Too bad - I think 1wildhorse was looking forward to going head-to-head on facts and legalities.

Owner 1 said:

If Canadian Tire was as bad all day every day at every location as you would like to have people believe, we'd be broke. Many many years ago we would have failed. You would have dozens, maybe hundreds, heck maybe thousands of people on here with you giving input, offering up stories.

Click to expand...

Interesting theory.

Speaking of theories, I recall a recent post on Game Theory that was quite interesting.

It describe how you just aren't broke, quite yet.

An interesting read, I thought.

But perhaps you 'missed it'?

Owner 1 said:

Oh if you weren't so ridiculous. If you had any clue, any understanding of business or any idea what the statistics you use are really showing, you'd hide in a shell like a turtle and be embarassed by how poorly you have represented yourselves here.

YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE! YOU ARE FIGHTING A BATTLE WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY! YOU NEED A NEW HOBBY!

Click to expand...

Ah, back to the Trolling insults, I see.

Speaking of "credibility", have you finally run out of things to mispresent? Have you?

Oh, here's an idea: How about telling us again how they are all really just "Easy Returns" if you "Just keep your recept", yet so many things are "Non-returnable", like any of the multitude of non-returnable "Repair Only" products? (Or even "assembled bicycles", when one cannot purchase an unassembled one from you!).

Or would you instead just post a stream of ALL CAPITAL insults?

Hmm?

And this is all just because you were called out on all your misrepresentations, huh?

Way to lose it, Ace!

1wildhorse said:

yes.repair only warranty is not only immoral,it quite clearly goes against the sale of goods act,so could probably be construed as far as to say its actually ILLEGAL!

Click to expand...

Here's one of your own claiming it's illegal to have a repair only warranty.



just sayin

Seems obvious, that Mr. Moaner is simply ticked off that people keep posting the truth about their Industry-Worst return policies.

And it probably makes him/her extra super-duper mad, that we are frequently sampling the plethora of Canadian Customer Complaints, and storing them here in searchable format!

No wonder he/she is having little ALL CAPS hissy fits, and resorting to pathetic insults.

After all, the Devious and Brilliant campign of Trolling Posts and Misrepresentation just doesn't seem to be shutting up these people, who just keep on telling the TRUTH, dammit!

How DARE you not cave in under the daily pressure of the Great And Powerful Moaner1's Trolling B.S. machine?!?!?!

Owner 1 said:

A mistake to address warranties on a thread titled Repair only Warranty LOL yah that makes sense haha

Click to expand...

Indeed, the Title of this thread was taken from Canadian Tire's own, deceptive terminology.

So, it ironic that now, a Canadian Tire person is attempting to use their own, misrepresented terminology to their own financial advantage.

Because the real problem, if you are a customer, isn't with any particular Warranty that a Manufacturer is offering.

Indeed, it is CT (a retailer, not a Manufacturer), that has created a problem for the customer by having a Policy that means, No Returns, No Exchanges, Non-Returnable, for defective products that they misrepresented as being of merchantable quality.

But what to call this "no refund, no exchanges, non-refundable policy"?

Sneaky devils that they are, CT decided not to call a spade a spade. No, they decided to trick customers, by calling it a "Repair Only Warranty".

And so, some consumers have fallen into the trap of also calling this the Repair Only Warranty.

Nice going, Crappy People! Your deception sometimes works. But people are finding out what the term "Repair Only Warranty" REALLY means.

And it's also in the Title of this thread (which you've carefully ignored):

It is a POLICY of "No Refund, No Exchange", Non-Returnable.

Owner 1 said:

Here's one of your own claiming it's illegal to have a repair only warranty.

just sayin

Click to expand...

Nice misrepresentation, Troll.

You know perfectly well the 1wildhorse wasn't referring to a Warranty provided by a Manufacturer, but instead to a Policy by a Retailer.

Nice try, disruptive Troll.

A bit of a backlog of Trolling and misrepresentations, left over from the weekend:

Owner 1 said:

How is it that you know what CT negotiates with suppliers?

Click to expand...

First, it is widely known that retailers, including Crappy Tire Corp, enter into negotiations with their suppliers. How could they not? Is the Troll attempting to deny even this basic fact?

Secondly, the results of negotiations regarding refunds and exchanges can be easily determined, by seeing what type of limitations Crappy Tire imposes on specific products, when they are discovered to be defective. Full Refund? (Not likely!) Exchange Only? (Only if you are lucky!) Repair Only? (Quite possible, if it has a motor, and if you don't know to even ask if it can be refunded or exchanged.)

In case any customers have lingering doubts, you can compare the return policies on identical products which are sold at other retailers with very different retun policies. I suggest you start with products that are tagged on the CT website with these key words: "This product has no warranty". Ask at your local, friendly Crappy Tire store what the return policy is on items with that tag. Then see if you can find any other retailer, anywhere in Canada that sells it "as-is", non-returnable.

But let us not forget what was posted not long ago, under a different name:

CT Me / Lawguy said:

the store does not enter into an agreement with the manufacturer. the corporation does this on behalf of all stores.

Click to expand...

Nice try, Disruptive Troll!

Owner 1 said:

We are certainly bound to honour the warranties and policies

Click to expand...

Once again, this misrepresents the difference between a Retailer and a Manufacturer.

If my problem is with the retailer, and the products they sold me, then it's got nothing to do with the Manufacturer at all.

Sure, the retailer will want to get repaid for the dud product the manufacturer sent them. And for sure the retailer will be out-of-pocket if they made a deal to accept defective products from the manufacturer, without any recourse to credits or refunds from the manufacturer. But, heck, that's not he customer's fault or problem.

And "honouring policies"? Gimme a break! There's a clause that stays they can ignore their own policy any time they want to, LOL! Not very helpful to the customer!

Owner 1 said:

If the policy says no return, then it's no return. If the warranty states repair, then it goes for repair. If the warranty says exchange for a new one only, then exchange for a new one it is. Sorry boys and girls, that's how it goes.

Click to expand...

This completely misrepresents the applicability of the relevant legislation governing consumer transactions, especially the Consumer Protection Act.

I think the Troll knows this, though, if the do actually work in retail. They might not want to admit it, if it might hurt them financially, to have consumers take advantage of the laws the are in place to protect them.

Owner 1 said:

That's the way warranties work.

Click to expand...

Not at all true, for Manufacturer's warranties! These have nothing to do with the policies of a specific store. Which I expect the Troll already knows.

Nice try, Deceitful Troll!

Owner 1 said:

Same as your car. Buy a new one, the warranty is as set out by the manufacturer. If your Honda Accord has a policy that covers bumper to bumper for 80,000km and only power train after that for another 80,000 that's what you're stuck with. AND you might drop it off for two days, and be without a car. That's how our lawn tractors would work too.
If a Mercedes breaks down and has a 120,000km bumper to bumper, same deal. It's in the shop. Only difference is, you probably have a guaranteed car program, so you roll a loaner Benz for a few days. You can't demand your money back lol

Click to expand...

Interesting how the Troll is now misrepresenting the laws governing the sale of new cars, as being applicable to gardening equipment, LOL!

As if a car is equivalent in cost, complexity, durability, etc. to a lawn mower or even a lawn tractor.

But this is all just a repeat of similar discussing that were already wrapped up before, such as the following:

CT Me / Lawguy said:

no different then an automobile repair... it goes in, see you in a day or two, its repaired, you found another way to work or school or what have you.

Click to expand...

Contracts for the purchase of a new vehicle are "no different" from the over-the-counter purchase a pressure-washer?

Nice Troll post! Hilarious!

Actually, we should keep in mind that the terminology of the Consumer Protection Act (the one in Ontario, at least), does talk about an "Implied Warranty" of fitness, to which the Retailer is bound.

However, it is the Manufacturer (not the retailer), who offers the "Express Warranty" - which is what The Moaner keeps going on and on about.

CTH8R said:

What I see, is a post that has absolutely no meaningful content whatsoever.

Just a mash-up of insults and put-down.

Not even a misrepresentation anymore - just rambling.

Well, I think the theory of meaningful debate with a Troll, just isn't gonna happy!

Too bad - I think 1wildhorse was looking forward to going head-to-head on facts and legalities.

Click to expand...

YUP i most certainly was,basically if one or more of the implied warranties is broken by the RETAILER(not the manufacturor),then they have broken the condition of sale(your receipt),and you have every right to demand your money back.....

funnily enough even his examples are with MANUFACTURORS,and as you say john deere have a 30 day money back guarantee....and they aint even the retailer.canadian tire on the other hand you buy something,get it home,doesnt work TOUGH.....its not cool,to have a no RETURN policy is even worse(i didnt even know you had that on some of your products,i shudder to think what),the repair only warranty goes against the terms of the sale of goods act(which incidentally is actually a LAW not a POLICY),anyway im back to court on thursday so hopefully we will find out a little more about how the JUDGE sees it.....must remember to keep the receipts for all my travel accomodation and food costs so they can be added to the bill.....

further thought to you mr owner1.all the examples you have provided so far cite manufacturor policies(which in the main are similar),but you havent provided one example from a major RETAILER...and since the sale of goods act governs the trade between consumer and retailer,in all honesty what the manufacturor decides is between you and them and shouldnt be of any concern to the consumer.so if you can provide ONE example of a repair only policy from another RETAILER,just ONE,then that will give me pause for thought.JUST ONE.......
and im not talking an east indian corner store for dodgy milk thats past its sell by date.

Owner 1 said:

A mistake to address warranties on a thread titled Repair only Warranty LOL yah that makes sense hahah
How is it that you know what CT negotiates with suppliers? LOL that's just talking out of your hat.

Click to expand...

and again you refer to the deals between yourselves and the manufacturors....it has absolutely no relevence or bearing on the SALE OF GOODS ACT

ok ive looked up the sale of goods act
Sale of Goods Act
i refer you to 2 parts here,sections 18 and 56.and i quote
Implied conditions as to quality or fitness

18 Subject to this and any other Act, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale or lease, except as follows:

(a) if the buyer or lessee, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller or lessor the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer or lessee relies on the seller's or lessor's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller's or lessor's business to supply, whether the seller or lessor is the manufacturer or not, there is an implied condition that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose; except that in the case of a contract for the sale or lease of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose;

(b) if goods are bought by description from a seller or lessor who deals in goods of that description, whether the seller or lessor is the manufacturer or not, there is an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality; but if the buyer or lessee has examined the goods there is no implied condition as regards defects that the examination ought to have revealed;

(c) there is an implied condition that the goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease;

(d) an implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade;

(e) an express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent with it.

Remedy for breach of warranty

56 (1) If there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or if the buyer elects, or is compelled, to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not merely because of the breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but the buyer may

(a) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or

(b) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty.

(2) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.

(3) In the case of breach of warranty of quality, the loss is, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer and the value they would have had if they had answered to the warranty.

(4) The fact that the buyer has set up the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price does not prevent the buyer from maintaining an action for the same breach of warranty if the buyer has suffered further damage.

in other words,in the case of faulty goods that
(c) there is an implied condition that the goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease
and when this is broken we can
the buyer is not merely because of the breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods, but the buyer may

(a) set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or

(b) maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty.

in other words,what we can do is not only DEMAND a refund,but also take you to court for any other expenses suffered as a result of the appliances failure.
mr owner you asked me to show you where exactly it said we are entitled to a refund on faulty goods,and i have complied.your turn.

Owner 1 said:

So again, the Canadian Bar posting has zero reference to a specific law, code, regulation or rule. It simply says ask for a refund or threaten to sue. No indication as to what your rights actually are.

Go ahead post your links again to Sale of Goods Act and again I will ask for the SPECIFIC section, rule or regulation that states in black and white that a retailer must refund your money if you are not satisfied, or if the item needs to be fixed. Simple task young fellow. Find me those words, or a version of the words that states MUST REFUND MONEY!

Click to expand...

and dont call me young fellow its insulting.

and therefore i sum up.
the sale of goods act absolutely indicated that in the case of faulty goods i have every right to REJECT the contract(of implied warranties).this means that i am entitled to a refund.when one of your crappy managers REFUSES to grant me my reasonable request,they are violating the terms of the sale of goods act.
and so concusion.
by refusing to refund,you are violating the sale of goods act,which is a law, which means that you are BREAKING THE LAW.therefore your policy of repair only warranty must be ILLEGAL because it directly violates the terms of the sale of goods act.
PERIOD.

oh and if you think im wrong here then i have quite clearly libelled your company.please feel free to bring a suit against me.i will even be happy to forward my name and address.the sooner your ridiculous policies are brought out into the open the better as far as im concerned.hell i dont even need a lawyer,its pretty clear to me.if not then why not?maybe because the judge might actually agree with me that your so called policies are in direct breach of the sale of goods act?