New member
hi guys.im new to this site,but like many others im having a problem with our favourite super store.my issue is current,there is a lawsuit in place,and i dont really want to go into too many details,because there are many spies here.....
anyway the upshot of my case is that i sued our friends.they defaulted,by not replying to the claim within the time period.i went to court,and the judge ruled in my favour.however i just learned within the last few days that they have conveniently attempted to sidestep the issue.the manufacturor has signed an agreement(without my knowledge) with CT that THEY accept full responsibility for the crappy product.
so my question is this.
under the sale of goods act british columbia i sued CT under the IMPLIED warranty that states that a product must function for a reasonable period of time.is this implied warranty always a condition between seller(CT) and the buyer(myself),or will they be able to argue that because the manufacturor(which i honestly believe they deliberately cooked this up between themselves in order to avoid having to pay up)agreed to take full responsibility for the goods in question?its kinda despicable is it not?
also because they didnt respond to my original claim within the legal timeframe,is this matter irrelevent?
i value your opinions on this subject.
thanks in advance
wow can noone help with this?i would have thought that mr CT owner would love to get his teeth into this one.as it happens the lawyer responded to my email and was no help whatsoever.it seems i must continue to tread this path alone.
I am only familiar with the Ontario laws, but I found this pretty easily:

Sale of Goods Act

Seems pretty similar to Ontario, where anybody can be the Buyer, and the Seller can be anybody, not just the manufacturer. The standard seems to be higher for those who are in the "ordinary course of business" (so not just re-selling their personal property, like at a yard sale).

I see no reason to think that Crappy Tire wouldn't fall under this law.

However, the Ontario Consumer Protection Act is broader in scope, clearly applies to ordinary consumers buying from a retailer, and provides greater protection to consumers that the SOGA. It just references the SOGA for the definition of "merchantable".

Hope that helps - I might be able to find out more later this week.
ok.my confusion is that i was under the impression that 'the seller' is canadian tire,and that the implied warranty was in effect between me(the buyer) and CT. however the manufacturor(who arent even based in canada) signed a waiver between themselves and CT saying that they took full responsibility for the goods,and any and all such claims for damages in respect of the goods etc etc.i cannot see anything under the sale of goods act where it actually says that the manufacturor is the seller(i didnt buy the crappy thing from them DIRECTLY).obviously i wasnt made aware of this little private deal cooked up between themselves until a couple of days ago.no part of my claim deviates from the sale of goods act(i havent claimed for mental stress or any of that stuff,im merely attempting to get a refund plus the costs involved relating to the crappy thing not working.)im still not sure how the manufacturor even comes into this,my contract of purchase was with CT NOT the manu,and im presuming that this means that CT is the seller no matter what they cooked up between themselves(or am i wrong?).this is the whole crux of the matter.seems like noone legally ive contacted will give me a straight fukkin answer.i appreciate your help,and any further light you can shed on this will be very much appreciated.id seriously like to back to court and be able to KICK CT LAWYERS BUTT
actually thinking it through a little more,doesnt it say somewhere that if there are other conditions(like for example the manu taking direct responsibility for their crappy product),that these conditions/warranties have to be made clear AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SALE?and so this idea that they can sidestep the whole thing is yet another example of BULLSHIT?
i seem to remember reading through earlier posts that CT guy or whatever his name was was boasting about how the courtrooms were littered with the bones of those who had dared to challenge the might of the great CTs corporate lawyers,as if that was something to be proud about.i mean how reprehensible.i can only imagine that the vast majority of people who felt so disgruntled with the way that CT had treated them that the only recourse was though the court system only to be shot down in flames werent a bunch of thieves or wrongdoers,but rather simple law abiding folk like myself.this is totally an awesome way to build up a loyal consumer base.NOT.well i must admit im a little scared by the idea of going up against the might of yourselves,and it will probably end in tears,but those tears wont last long,i certainly wont be losing too much sleep over my course of actions,because i KNOW i have been shamefully treated by your horrible company,but what i will do is LEARN from the experience and pass on all acquired wisdom gained from this to people like us(the innocent rabbits caught in the glare of your crappy headlamps),in the hope that others wont make the same mistakes that i have probably made.
however there is a chance that i may actually WIN,lets face it the judge has already ruled in my favour,and it will take a very convincing argument from your horrible little people.i hope some of you actually read this stuff,and remember what HUMANITY is about because obviously you have no idea about it and i hope you all crawl back under your rocks and die horribly.
oh and if i lose i will probably ask the judge for time to pay,like maybe 5 cents a month(maybe he will even grant me the option of using CT money to pay this)
Like I said, I'd rely more on the CPA, rather than the SOGA.

You can sue the manufacturer if you want, but you'll likely be better off the sue the retailer (as "seller").

When you purchase something, you are forming a contract with the seller, and it falls under the CPA.

There has been some debate on various sites about the terms in that contract, and whether the pre-defined policies of the store are actually terms of the contract. Generally, it's not how stores operate anyway - it seems you can't sue them in order to force them to adhere to their own policies, and the policies usually have a statement about "at our discretion", so they leave themselves a big loop hole.

But clearly some 3rd party can't just come along later & trying to change the terms of YOUR contract with the retailer - that's just B.S.

Nobody else can make some agreement that takes away any of your rights - that's spelled out clearly in the CPA (Ontario, anyway). Even you can't sign away your own rights, let alone someone else the store deals with.

But it's still not clear to me why, if "the judge has already ruled in my favour", you aren't able to get compensation from CT immediately? Can't you just use your court order to seize the assets of the store, if you choose?

(But I like you idea to pay in CT Money!)
i had a look through the CPA,and to be honest i forund it a little confusing.i dont spose you could point me to where exactly it says that when i buy something it forms the contract with the seller please?that will be EXTREMELY helpful.
i feel like a guy going into a gunfight armed only with a ping pong ball lol
(and that a 3rd party cant just come along and make an agreement that changes my rights).thankyou so much youre being most helpful,and itd be a big ping pong ball in the eye of the gunslinger....
and yes that was my thinking too,that because a judgement has already been made,that all remains is to sort out how CT are going to pay me.however because of the spanner thrown into the works by this dodgy agreement cooked up between manu and CT i just wanna make sure my facts are straight before going for it.i live hours from town,so cant just go in there at the drop of a hat.thanx again.

A while back somebody posted a link or two to the Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch.

I did a quick Google, and found this. Talks about getting refunds for defective goods.

Buying Defective Goods

I seem to recall some posts from the Crappy People denouncing this site. Based on what? I don't recall. Possibly that lawyers know less about the law than the student-minimum-wage returns clerks?

Maybe call these guys up, and see what they say?

Like I said, I mostly know Ontario!
Last edited:
yes i actually read this site first before even putting in the claim.the cba also provides a lawyer referral service where you can get a half hour session with a suitable lawyer for $25 plus tax.but guess what?it has to be face to face,and the nearest one to me thats signed up to this program happens to be in kelowna(or 1 full days drive for me 1 way).not really helpful unless you live in vancouver or whatnot.kinda disappointing.....
but i would seriously like for you to point me to exactly where it talks about the agreement between buyer and seller in the CPA.i think that would just add even more weight to what i already have.
You need to be aware that this is not some kind of expert legal forum. Rather, it is a forum where ordinary consumers (such as yourself, I assume), can help one-another.

But I must say, it seems very odd that you claim to have won your case before a judge, yet you don't seem to know very much at all about the laws you must have used to win.

And you seem to be saying that your case is still unresolved, despite the fact that "a judgement has already been made". It all sems very strange.

But, that being said, I'm sure there are people here who can help you move things forward, if you are willing to put in some effort on your end.

Since you are the person in BC, and those are the laws of your land, how about doing a little homework, and people here can help fill in the details?

From what you've said, a good starting place would be, to actually look through the Act, and figure out the main pieces of your puzzle, i.e.:

- Who is the "supplier"?
- Who is the "consumer"?
- What were the "goods"?
- Was there a "consumer transaction"?

Let us know how your research goes, and we'll take it from there!
Last edited:
yes its all a little odd to me too lol.
ill try to explain.
yes im the buyer,and i bought the goods from CT.
because of their refusal to refund me(or even repair the unit) after the crappy thing stopped working 3 times(never lasted more than about 10 days without breaking down),i took the step of bringing a claim against CT.a lawyer told me that the norm was to sue the seller i.e. CT,and when i asked her about whether or not to claim against the manu,she assured me that it was definitely the seller.(although when i emailed her about this very point a few days ago she totally denied giving me any legal advice).anyway i served the papers via registered mail,and CT didnt respond within the 14 day period that they are given to do this.when i went back to the court they told me to put in a default hearing notice,which i did.this was heard in CTs absence(they dont even get notified because they are in default).the judge agreed with my story and awarded mr the full amount.
it was only after all of this,when i contacted CT to discuss payment,that i was informed of the agreement made between themselves and the manu.
which is why i came on here to see if they were allowed to do that.i know very little of the law,and how it works,but i saw no mention about something like this on the SOGA.i appreciate that you arent lawyers.
like i say i won a judgement,but im just wondering if because of this dodgy agreement set up between CT and the manu,whether they are in fact allowed to do this.no such agreement was ever discussed when i bought the crappy thing,so i think that for them to do this is probably against the terms of either SOGA or CPA,but im not 100% sure....
there is absolutely no help whatsoever coming from lawyers,which kinda makes things scary.i guess ill just have to follow through to a payment hearing and hope that we are in fact correct,and that CT is still responsible in spite of the agreement that they and the manu cooked up between themselves.hope that makes sense.
ok i can now shed a little more light on this.i just spoke to the supreme court clerk in the local court thats dealing with the matter.(the small goods person is working another job which is why i couldnt speak to her).anyway the manu is champion. bought a generator from CT.anyway the upshot is that neither CT nor champion replied to the original lawsuit i brought against CT.i was concerned because i vaguely remembered reading something about if a 3rd party wanted to get involved i.e. take responsibility for the product,that they had 42 or 43 days(i cant remember which) to reply to the court letting them know about the change.however since neither party did this CT are still in default,and so we are hopefully flying towards getting a payment hearing sorted.
what i have learned is exactly what we were thinking.a 3rd party cannot just assume this responsibility.the initial contract in place between seller and buyer is exactly that,and needs a courts permission to be changed.so liability rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the SELLER.
think about it.my genny fucked up after a few days,then quit completely within 10.was really hard to start.valves were sticking,which is definitely a manufacturing defect.what would happen if the seller was allowed to just pass responsibility off to the manufacturor(who might not even be based in the country?).the idea that there are repair only warranties sets a very dangerous precedent.in the future will it become that you buy new products at your own risk?that when you get your brand new washing machine home and it doesnt work that you have to get it repaired?thats total bollocks.and this is mainly why i brought the action against CT,in order to show that they cannot just tell me to fuck off and ill go away like a little sheep.it clearly states in the SOGA that goods have to last a reasonable amount of time,and if that is not so,then the seller has breached the warranty,and you are fully entitled to a refund,PLUS any and all incidental expenses arising from the failure of said dodgy crappy product.(the generator cost me $350,and the amount that has been awarded to me so fat stands at nearly $4,500.)if none of us put up with the bullshit attitude shown by the crappy management,and we actually take legal steps(which isnt actually that hard,you find that the court personnel-certainly as far as ive been concerned theyve bent over backwards to explain how to go about shit-are actually pretty dam astute in such matters,which means u dont need a lawyer),then before too long they will be forced into changing their crappy policies which have absolutely no relevence in LAW.
Well, that's great news! You won your case!

It would have been even better if the judge had looked at the facts and the law, and given a ruling on that. But, a win is a win, even if it's through CT defaulting.

It sound like they threw in this thing about the manufacturer at the last minute, to try and cloud the issue, and maybe to try to get you to back down or have last-minute doubts. Glad you didn't fall for it!
Last edited: