Defective part causes engine damage

[Guest-0517]

I built a new engine with my truck, I replaced the water pump with one bought from canadian tire. The water pump
failed after two days and in the process milled 4-5mm off the engine block water pump cavity. I've received quotes
ranging from 5000-7000$ to have the damage repaired.

Now the issue is that the engine still works and a representative from CT is saying since I'm still able to drive there is
no harm done. They have offered 1000$ in canadian tire money for the water pump that failed, a new water pump and for a new radiator since so many metal shavings passed through the engine and are stuck in the rad. I need much more
from them. my engine was 100% mint prior to the defective part with all the pictures to prove a new un-used engine.
Can anyone tell me where the law stands on this matter ? I feel I may have to file a small claims case. Or any advise on getting canadian tire to settle. thanks

 

[Guest-0517]

please guys any input is helpful everyone feel free to leave your $0.02

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

in my experience with NAPA and CarQuest, unless you're a licensed technician or an auto shop, you will not get compensation.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

in my experience with NAPA and CarQuest, unless you're a licensed technician or an auto shop, you will not get compensation.

Yep, beyond my expertise as well. I would call the customer relations number at CT (they have a special department for automotive) and get their opinion. They will mediate between a store and you, and try to find a resolution. If the store is in the wrong, they will be adamant that you are compensated....all stores have insurance for major muck ups.
Hope this helps.

 

[CT Challenger]

I'm sure that anyone affiliated with CT would be very happy if the customer just called their 1-800, were told, "No, you can't get any money from us", and the customer just ate the loss themselves.

However, customers might want to look into options for recovering damages from the seller of the defective product.

For instance, have a look at this article regarding Ontario's Sale of Goods Act:

"Using Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act to Recover Damages caused by Defective Products in a Subrogated Action"

http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/toronto12507.pdf

I realize it's only written by a lawyer, who clearly won't know as much about legalities as the pimply teenager at the parts counter, but what do you have to lose by checking?

 

[Angry CT Guy]

I'm sure that anyone affiliated with CT would be very happy if the customer just called their 1-800, were told, "No, you can't get any money from us", and the customer just ate the loss themselves.

However, customers might want to look into options for recovering damages from the seller of the defective product.

For instance, have a look at this article regarding Ontario's Sale of Goods Act:

"Using Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act to Recover Damages caused by Defective Products in a Subrogated Action"

http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/toronto12507.pdf

I realize it's only written by a lawyer, who clearly won't know as much about legalities as the pimply teenager at the parts counter, but what do you have to lose by checking?

Nice theory. Any examples where it actually worked? Probably not given the conclusion at the end of the article.

I like how lawyers use the word "may" a lot in their theories. I'm sure the will have no problem taking a retainer on the hopes they "may" win their argument in court....lol. Probably why lawyers are one notch below real estate agents on the totem pole of beloved professions.

 

[CT Challenger]

It's interesting to see some information here that may be useful to consumers.

But as a bonus, we get all this free entertainment, watching the CT'er try to dodge and weave, grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to convince consumers not to look into their rights.

Lots of tactics are at work here:

- Well, it's only a "theory", so don't bother checking.

- Oh, look, the word "may" was used, so it's not a sure thing - it's won't be worth looking into.

- Gee, those lawyers will take you money and do nothing for you - yes, fear the lawyers!

- There are no examples of the SOGA being applies to defective products, so don't waste your time.

(Actually there are plenty of cases of liability for defective products. Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation is just one example ... no wonder the CT'er doesn't like lawyers, LOL!)

Speaking of 'theories', the CT'er sure does have a lot of them - and all of them are wrong.

Like this b.s. about "lawyers are one notch below real estate agents".

Not according to the study I turned up after 0.22 seconds with Google. Canadians placed lawyers a full four notches above Realtors, and higher than Politicians, Car Salespeople, Unionists, Publicists, Insurance Brokers and Journalists.

http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020225eng.pdf

Maybe someone can find a more recent study, but you get the idea.

Yes, the CT'er just makes up crap, because the facts are stacked against them.

And, of course, one can't help but wonder just how useful this information must be to consumers, if the CT'er are spending so much time and effort, trying to convince consumers to not even look into it.

But one will find quite quickly that there is plenty of useful information out there. Informaton that the CT'er clearly doesn't like.

Don't forget to check out the growing list of the most commonly told lies by the CT'er:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

 

[Angry CT Guy]

It's interesting to see some information here that may be useful to consumers.

But as a bonus, we get all this free entertainment, watching the CT'er try to dodge and weave, grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to convince consumers not to look into their rights.

Lots of tactics are at work here:

- Well, it's only a "theory", so don't bother checking.

- Oh, look, the word "may" was used, so it's not a sure thing - it's won't be worth looking into.

- Gee, those lawyers will take you money and do nothing for you - yes, fear the lawyers!

- There are no examples of the SOGA being applies to defective products, so don't waste your time.

(Actually there are plenty of cases of liability for defective products. Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation is just one example ... no wonder the CT'er doesn't like lawyers, LOL!)

Speaking of 'theories', the CT'er sure does have a lot of them - and all of them are wrong.

Like this b.s. about "lawyers are one notch below real estate agents".

Not according to the study I turned up after 0.22 seconds with Google. Canadians placed lawyers a full four notches above Realtors, and higher than Politicians, Car Salespeople, Unionists, Publicists, Insurance Brokers and Journalists.

http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/020225eng.pdf

Maybe someone can find a more recent study, but you get the idea.

Yes, the CT'er just makes up crap, because the facts are stacked against them.

And, of course, one can't help but wonder just how useful this information must be to consumers, if the CT'er are spending so much time and effort, trying to convince consumers to not even look into it.

But one will find quite quickly that there is plenty of useful information out there. Informaton that the CT'er clearly doesn't like.

Don't forget to check out the growing list of the most commonly told lies by the CT'er:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

No one said consumers don't have rights, liar faker advocate. It's just your opinion of them that is misleading. How you making out with even one example that CT or ANY other retailer has illegal policies?....LOL. Must be taking a lot longer than 22 seconds on google. Faker advocates, so easy to disprove their opinion. And once you supported fraud, you can place yourself on the list below politicians...lmao.

 

[CT Challenger]

Boy, the CT'er sure doesn't like being proven wrong - again, LOL.

Proven wrong on the SOGA and liability.

Proven wrong on ratings of professions.

Now, we get another amusing round of denials and lies, all easily disproven.

- Regarding "No one said consumers don't have rights, liar", that's absolutely correct. But there is the implication that a consumer was a "liar" in this regard, and that's not true at all.

- The opinions given here regarding SOGA are found at the lawyer's web site (and are not those of a consumer posting here).

- The survey results aren't the opinion of a consumer, either.

- Nothing has been shown where a consumer posting here has supported fraud - just another incorrect "opinion" of the CT'er.

Really, it's all just more dodging and weaving, trying to distract consumers from the laws that give them rights, and hoping to discourage consumers from looking further.

It all makes for another fun read, but on a serious note, it really does reinforce the need to do one's own research before taking a CT'ers word on anything.

For liability issues, check out all the case law (plenty of it), including Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation here:

CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

Regarding credibility, check out more commonly posted lies of the CT'er here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Boy, the CT'er sure doesn't like being proven wrong - again, LOL.

Proven wrong on the SOGA and liability.

Proven wrong on ratings of professions.

Now, we get another amusing round of denials and lies, all easily disproven.

- Regarding "No one said consumers don't have rights, liar", that's absolutely correct. But there is the implication that a consumer was a "liar" in this regard, and that's not true at all.

- The opinions given here regarding SOGA are found at the lawyer's web site (and are not those of a consumer posting here).

- The survey results aren't the opinion of a consumer, either.

- Nothing has been shown where a consumer posting here has supported fraud - just another incorrect "opinion" of the CT'er.

Really, it's all just more dodging and weaving, trying to distract consumers from the laws that give them rights, and hoping to discourage consumers from looking further.

It all makes for another fun read, but on a serious note, it really does reinforce the need to do one's own research before taking a CT'ers word on anything.

For liability issues, check out all the case law (plenty of it), including Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation here:

CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

Regarding credibility, check out more commonly posted lies of the CT'er here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

Lol...the lawyers article was from 2007....surely in 4 years there would be an example where he won even one case, or maybe from another lawyer, or maybe the Ministry would post it on it's site, or a BBB would report it. But not even one. Nothing in CanLii about SOGA or CPA. Nothing on illegalities of a policy. Resch liability claim was not about SOGA, it was about liability in not dealing with a known defective bike.
Faker advocate sure likes to spin the lies....I'm assuming he doesn't like the ZERO examples of illegal policies by CT or ANY other retailer.....and of course there is that supporting of Fraud when he posted as DavidLer on redflags.
Tsk, Tsk.

 

[CT Challenger]

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:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...o-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here-23.html

 

[Angry CT Guy]

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.

 

[CT Challenger]

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!

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Yes, happy reading indeed. LOL.

 

[CT Challenger]

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

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

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

 

[Angry CT Guy]

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

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

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

 

[CT Challenger]

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:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

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/publications/toronto12507.pdf

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

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

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

 

[Angry CT Guy]

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!

 

[CT Challenger]

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'!