Defective part causes engine damage

I was starting to worry that the CT'er wouldn't be providing any more of their free entertainment, but luckily they weighed in for another round. Too funny!

Keep in mind that the topic of this thread is liability for defective products. That's a nuance the CT'er seems to be missing out on.

It's also amusing to note all the points where the CT has been challenged, but has failed to shore up their flimsy case, or even back-track on their absurd claims. Things like ratings of professionals, or so-called "lies" by consumers. All easily disproven. But any retraction or apology from the CT'er? Nope, just another round of lies and BS.

Let's have a look:

- "The artilce was from 2007". So what? The current version of the Ontario SOGA hasn't changed since 1990!

- "surely ... there would be an example where he won". Has the CT'er performed an exhaustive search, and proven that "he" (actually, the article was written by a "she") hasn't won any cases? No, of course not. The CT'er just wants you to assume they have not won any, and so you shouldn't believe what she wrote! Besides, you can easily find many cases that have been won based on the SOGA and other laws, too.

- "Nothing in CanLii about SOGA or CPA." This is hilarious! It only takes a few seconds to search CanLII to find a wealth cases on these laws, for each province and territory. For SOGA, the sites lists 85 cases for Sask, 28 for NS, 74 for BC, and so on. For the CPA, Sask has 69, NS has 21 ... you get the idea.

- "Nothing on illegalities of a policy." Huh? Where did THAT come from? Another thread, I think. Don't be distracted! The topic is liability for defective products.

- "Resch liability claim was not about SOGA, it was about liability in not dealing with a known defective bike." The claim was absolutely about SOGA. Do a little research! A lot of interesting points about SOGA were explored. (But the SOGA was found only to apply to the buyer, not to the boy CT severely injured.)

(And, gee, I wonder if the original poster's water pump also had a 'known defect', and CT sold it to him anyway? It's not like these things have never happened before ...)

- "supporting of Fraud". Again, Huh? I guess this is something else being dragged in from another thead - heck, from another site - to muddy the waters. The CT'er sure is desperate for something to prop up their losing arguments. Pretty funny!

You know, you'd think the CT'er would at least do a little research before posting such nonsense here, but that would be less amusing, LOL.

Besides, then we'd have fewer oft-told lies to add to the collection, here:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

CanLii lists lots of case law, but if faker advocate did a little reading, he'd see that the majority are labour relations issues and delving a little deeper he'd find that lots of these lawsuits were NOT judged in the plaintiffs favor.
Faker advocate sure does like to stretch out the "threads" to deflect away the truth and not sure why he hasn't just admitted there isn't even ONE example of CT or ANY other retailer having an illegal policy.
Bullshit may baffle brains, but faker advocate is not doing a very good job baffling anyone.

The CT'er must be a part-time comedian - pretty entertaining, to see what they'll try to pull off next!

Yes, if you search CanLII keep for cases on labour relations, then that's what you'll find.

But consumers who want to read about cases for the Sale of Goods Act or Consumer Protection Act, should search for that.

Nice try, CT'er!

It's true that not all cases were found in the plaintiff's favour. Which can be useful to consumers, to see where others have failed, and avoid those pit-falls.

Yes, CanLII is a very good resource for any consumer who's suffered a loss from the actions of a CT'er. From a defective water pump, for example.

Happy reading, consumer!

Yes, happy reading indeed. LOL.

Consumers may also be amused to check out the long, long list of commonly told lies by the CT'er:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

It's pretty entertaining, the lengths they will go to, to trick consumers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Consumers may also be amused to check out the long, long list of commonly told lies by the CT'er:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

It's pretty entertaining, the lengths they will go to, to trick consumers.

This coming from a defender of fraud, a liar who thinks his bullshit baffles brains? Yes, the truthful faker advocate....don't forget to donate....they take pay pal in US dollars....lol

It's even more entertaining when the CT'er lies have all been exposed, and they run out of new lies about the law and fact. It just keeps getting funnier!

Now they are reduced to a scramble for some lies to tell about consumers, and some absurd accusations. What's really funny is, they couldn't come up with anything new - just the same old, disproven stories!

Be sure to check out their long list of lies, including the lies about so-called fraud, here:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

Consumers interested in liability for damage caused by defective products should have a look at this page - it says it can be easier to sue the retailer, rather than the manufacturer. Interesting!

http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/pub...ronto12507.pdf

Consumers interested in case law should do some searches on CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute.

LOL you really are dense. I have taken the liberty of copying the conclusion of the lawyers link that you provided to "help" fellow consumers.

CONCLUSION
Anyone who allows a defective product to enter the stream of commerce may potentially be liable for damages
caused by that product in a subrogated action. Under Canadian law, however, it is usually necessary to prove not just the existence of a defect in a product that caused a loss, but also that its defective design or manufacture was the result of egligence, or that there was a failure to warn potential customers or users of risks associated with the use of the product.
The Ontario Sale of Goods Act may provide an alternative ground of recovery for plaintiffs in product liability
actions. Where an insurer can show that its insured has purchased a defective product in the ordinary way from a seller of such products, in circumstances where the product was used for its intended purpose, the insurer may have excellent recovery prospects against the seller, regardless of whether there was any fault or negligence on the part of the seller. In any event, the opinion of a lawyer experienced in product liability claims and negligence cases should always be obtained in order to evaluate the recovery potential of a loss which may have been caused or contributed to by a defective product.


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

hahah FAIL - so this great link to help says under Canadian Law, you likely won't have any rights AND contact a lawyer who specializes in product liability claims for more expertise.

Great advice you provide, and great experts you are referencing. You may not have rights under the law AND contact an expert. Thanks lawyer....thanks for nothing


Good job advocate, you have done well

Notice how DavidLer (and his other personalities posting on here) have disappeared after the supporting of Fraud and not being able to find even ONE example that CT's or ANY other retailer has illegal return policies. Yes, the faker advocate certainly was proven a liar for touting his opinions as facts....LMAO!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL you really are dense. I have taken the liberty of copying the conclusion of the lawyers link that you provided to "help" fellow consumers.

CONCLUSION
Anyone who allows a defective product to enter the stream of commerce may potentially be liable for damages
caused by that product in a subrogated action. Under Canadian law, however, it is usually necessary to prove not just the existence of a defect in a product that caused a loss, but also that its defective design or manufacture was the result of egligence, or that there was a failure to warn potential customers or users of risks associated with the use of the product.
The Ontario Sale of Goods Act may provide an alternative ground of recovery for plaintiffs in product liability
actions. Where an insurer can show that its insured has purchased a defective product in the ordinary way from a seller of such products, in circumstances where the product was used for its intended purpose, the insurer may have excellent recovery prospects against the seller, regardless of whether there was any fault or negligence on the part of the seller. In any event, the opinion of a lawyer experienced in product liability claims and negligence cases should always be obtained in order to evaluate the recovery potential of a loss which may have been caused or contributed to by a defective product.

thanks for posting that.

looks pretty useful.

i really like the part where canadian tire can be held liable for damage caused by the defective products they sell.

thanks for letting up know about the ontario sale of goods act - i like an 'excellent recovery prospect'!