EVOLVE TREADMILL,TEMPO -Canadian Tire ,3516 8th ave NE Calgary - CAN'T BE RETURNED!!!!!!!

[gorry]

I bought a treadmill a week ago. On the first hour of use I noticed that the running belt keep coming of center and the equipment makes to much noise. I tried to contact TEMPO the manufacturer. Initially there was a recording saying" we are experiencing high volume calls please call us again in the next business day". I tried again and again when I finally was waiting for the a representative. After waiting for 45 minutes my call was disconnected.
In the next day after the purchase I went back to the Canadian Tire that I bought the equipment from. For my surprise the manager said that they wouldn't do a refund!!!
They said that a RA (return authorization) was needed from the manufacturer and that would take few
days. Now after many calls they are saying that I should deal this the manufacturer. No return for this item!!!
One of the managers not helpful at all ,the other one unpleasant not to say rude.

Anyone has any suggestions about what should I do ?

 

[DavidLeR]

The CT web site ("Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire") says, "If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply".

As I understand it, the manufacturer makes arrangements with Canadian Tire ahead of time regarding refunds and exchanges. Sometime, the manufacturers have agreed to give CT a refund for the defective item, so the store is OK to give you a refund.

Other times, the manufacturer wants to approve the refund/exchange with a Return Authorization. It would seem the manufacturer has refused to approve the Return. Either that, or the store has stopped trying to get one for you.

In other cases, it's basically a "no returns" item, and CT will refuse to give you your money back or an exchange (presumably because the manufacturer won't give CT the money back).

Now, there are different Consumer Protection laws in each province. Here in Ontario, there is the "Sale of Goods Act" and the "Consumer Protection Act" of 2002, which say the merchant has to give a refund on defective items. However, it can still be a fight (as you'll see in the "Sale of Goods Act" thread on this site).

I suggest you contact your provincial consumer protection office, and see what options you have in Alberta. I was told by the Ontario office that a letter threatening to sue the store based the laws here might scare the store into giving a refund. But you might have to actually sue the store to get anything back.

It's a crap-shoot whether or not items in a store are defective, and another gamble whether Crappy Tire will stand behind what they sell.

Unless you are 100% sure you'll be happy with it when you get home, don't buy from Crappy Tire - you could be stuck with it, or have to sue to get your money back.

Better to go to another store; one that will stand behind what they sell, instead of hiding behind the "manufacturer’s warranty".

(It's quite possible that a self-proclaimed store owner may chime in on this thread, tell you that this is all a bunch of B.S. and claim that you should cave into the demands of the store. Do your own research!)

 

[DavidLeR]

I did a little checking, and I found this:

http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/pdf/tipsheets/Unfair_Practices_the_Fair_Trading_Act.pdf

I suggest you do some research into the Fair Trading Act. In particular, it is an "Unfair Practice" when "Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if that representation is untrue." This might be the case for your treadmill (i.e., Canadian Tire represented it as working properly by selling it to you, but the belt came off, and it was excessively noisy).

The act may entitle you to a refund. And in Ontario, if you paid by credit card, there is a provision to get the transaction reversed, based on misrepresentation.

You might want to call "Consumer Contact Centre. In Edmonton (780) 427-4088. Toll-free in Alberta 1-877-427-4088".

 

[Guest-0371]

Thank you DavidLeR for your reply, very much appreciated.
As you suggested I contacted the "Consumer Contact Centre". They said that the only way I would be able to return the equipment would be through the Small Claims Court. But before I did my last call to the CT Customer Service (1-866-746-7287) and I mentioned that I was calling for the last time. And that I had no option but to take to the Small Claims Court. He put me on hold , trying to reach the manager from the store here in Calgary. After few minutes he said that he was unable to reach the manager. And the answer to my questions was NO, WE WILL NOT TAKE THE TREADMILL BACK, please contact the manufacturer TEMPO FITNESS.
Next day I went initially to register to make a "company search" (cost me $16 for a full search) just to make sure I had the right company name. The name I found for the Canadian Tire 326 was C.HEAD LIMITED. After that I went to the Court House were I filled out the forms and paid the $100 fee.
I was suggested to use as defendant name "C. HEAD LIMITED operating as Canadian Tire 326". With the papers I went to Canada Post to "serve the documents" mailing by registered mail. Then I went back to the Court House, gave them the receipt from the postal office and signed another document attesting that I mailed the documents to the defendant.
Few days after the manger from CT called me and said "no problem, you can bring the EVOLVE TREADMILL back for a refund". Today I finally gave that piece of junk back to CT and had my refund.
They just don't care if you are saying that they are going to be sued. Until they get the Court papers they will not do anything. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
For anyone considering to buy an item from TEMPO FITNESS I would say that you are looking for trouble.
Even CT have trouble reaching them. Try to reach their customer service before you make a purchase.
Thank you DavidLeR for your reply to my post.

And I will never do any purchase at CT again.



Consumer Contact Centre. Toll-free in Alberta 1-877-427-4088
Civil (Small Claims Court)

 

[DavidLeR]

Thank you DavidLeR for your reply, very much appreciated.

I've been posting many messages in hopes of helping someone just like you. So I'm very glad for you!

Thank you for getting back to us, and letting us know what you did, and how it worked.

So far, these posts have just been a lot of speculation, so it's good to finally hear from someone who actually went this route.

Today I finally gave that piece of junk back to CT and had my refund.

Based on what I've seen elsewhere on this site, I expect we'll hear from store owners claiming this can't possibly be true, you must be making it all up, let's see some proof, no store would ever do that, etc.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe you. Hopefully we'll get some more reports on this site of other ripped-off customers who've made the system work for them.

Too bad you had to spend the extra money doing all the paper-work, but at least you were able to reduce your losses.

For anyone considering to buy an item from TEMPO FITNESS I would say that you are looking for trouble.

If these treadmills really are bad products, I hope CT will figure this out and stop selling them. It may take a lot of lawsuits, though, to drive up their costs.

Perhaps they will also start abiding by the consumer protection laws of the provinces in which they operate. I'm not holding my breath while I wait, though. When they cheat customers on lower-priced items, it's not worth it for the customer to sue.

Try to reach their customer service before you make a purchase.

Excellent idea. Unless the store has a decent return policy, you may find out that the manufacturer isn't reliable.

And I will never do any purchase at CT again.

I've said it before: if you can't be 100% sure that the item will do its job for a full year, don't buy it there - go someplace that will give you your money back without having to sue them first.

Things like soap and nails should be pretty safe. Even with light-bulbs and toasters, you are taking a chance. How can we know what arrangement CT made with the manufacturer ahead of time, and if CT will try to screw us over?

Thanks again for the update.

 

[Guest-0412]

The return policy for some products can be very complicated, as it depends on the warranty of the manufacturer sometimes. I tried several times myself to reach tempo fitness, and they can be hard to reach. The returns for Fitness equipment at CT 326 needs a RA number from the manufacturer, and the customer representative will need to confirm that RA number with the manufacturer before giving anything back to customer. Most products in the store get exchanged if defective, but it is not the case for a treadmill.

The first thing they try to do by requesting a RA number is that you communicate with the vendor/manufacturer to get it fix. Most problem with treadmills will be dealt with by sending a replacement part to customer. Higher quality treadmills also include in-home service of technician. This kind of warranty(repair warranty) as the advantage of lowering the quantity of treadmill sent to the canadian landfills. A defective evolve treadmill wouldnt have that in-home service to my knowledge, and a replacement part would nt be sent, as that treadmill comes all assembled. So if the treadmill is not performing what it is suppose to do ("quiet operation" is ambiguous term and might not be an argument strong enought unless shown otherwise), you should eventually get a RA number and be able to return it. Problem is, long time to reach the manufacturer.

The other reason to call manufacturer first for a problem with a treadmill is to avoid the hussle of carrying back and forth a heavy piece of equipment. Some treadmills weight more than 300 lbs, and many people need to ask a friend or pay for a delivery.

In any case, before buying expensive products from any store, a wise customer ask about return policy for the product, the warranty for it, ask to try it or see a display if available. Customer also have to understand and go on a less busy day sometime, both to try the product or to return it, as retail staff might be busy with a thousand customers, or the line up for returns strech to the entrance door. If it is a big inconvenience to show up at store on week days, try to go early on weekends, and take phone number of store to call back for warranty informations, thus avoiding to wait in line for 45 minutes on a saturday afternoon.

 

[DavidLeR]

Thanks for the information, and especially for the tips on when to shop, how to shop, and how to deal with returns.

However, some of your statements are incorrect, at least in provinces that have a Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The return policy for some products can be very complicated, as it depends on the warranty of the manufacturer sometimes.

In most provinces, the CPA says that the retailer (including Canadian Tire) has to provide a refund or exchange (at the customer's discretion) for a defective item, regardless of the warranty or the store's policy.

For Ontario, see this thread:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html

I tried several times myself to reach tempo fitness, and they can be hard to reach.

It might be worth getting your refund straight from the store, based on the CPA, instead of trying to reach the manufacturer.

The returns for Fitness equipment at CT 326 needs a RA number from the manufacturer, and the customer representative will need to confirm that RA number with the manufacturer before giving anything back to customer.

If the store complies with the law, and gives the customer a refund, then the store can figure out all that RA stuff for themselves, without dragging the customer into it.

Most products in the store get exchanged if defective, but it is not the case for a treadmill.

The CPA says that all defective products can be refunded or exchanged, depending on what the customer wants. (There's no special law for tread-mills).

The first thing they try to do by requesting a RA number is that you communicate with the vendor/manufacturer to get it fix.

Sure, if that's what the customer wants. I'm just pointing out that there are other options (like refund or exchange by CT).

One of the reasons people say, "Canadian Tire Sucks" is because of this illegal "repair only" policy, and the untrue claim that "the manufacturer's warranty will apply".

I'm not saying that manufacturer's warranties aren't useful, or that dealing with the manufacturer isn't an option. Just that there are other options.

Instead of providing customers with the refunds or exchanges they are entitled to, the CT corporation tries to deceive people who don't know their legal rights, and denies innocent customers a fair remedy.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Davidler........can you give me the section of the Ontario CPA you are referring to in regards to customers being entitled to a refund or exchange on defective items. I can't find it, although there is a section on what a customer is entitled to if the seller refuses to honor the warranty.
Thanks

 

[lawguy]

Davidler........can you give me the section of the Ontario CPA you are referring to in regards to customers being entitled to a refund or exchange on defective items. I can't find it, although there is a section on what a customer is entitled to if the seller refuses to honor the warranty.
Thanks

you cant find it because it doesn`t exist. as far as i can tell, davidler has a loose interpretation of the words contained in the act and is trying to twist them into a bunch of legal bullshit thinking he is entitled to something. i work in law, in ontario. i have a ton of experience in consumer law. when you pay for your item at canadian tire or another store you are entering a legal contract. that contract is you agreeing to the terms of that specific product. in the case of anything at ct, the receipt clearly states that you can return any unused unopened item within 90 days with a receipt to any store. no receipt, no warranty or return must be honoured by law. the retailer may or may not choose to help you at their discretion if you don`t have proof of purchase.
with a receipt, if the product is defective you are now bound by the warranty. the retailer determines the warranty for the product, which can include exchange, refund or (sorry davidlers) repair, for the period of time they specify. most customers have zero idea what the warranty of everything they buy is because they never ask especially consumer goods, until they try to return it or exchange it, then they ask about the warranty.

be very cautious with the wording of such acts. in breach of contract situations, failure to deliver pre-ordered goods, and sales of services, you are protected to a high extent as a customer and refunds are the standard result. in a fair exchange of goods, such as you walk in to a store, knowingly purchase a heater (example) pay for it in full, and take delivery of the goods immediately you entered into the sellers terms of sale and are not entitled to a refund once the item is opened or used. you are not protected to the extent you are reading. the consumer protection act, and all of the related acts are simply designed to protect the consumer in the event that the seller fails to meet warranty obligations. these acts will not and do not dictate to the sellers that a refund is your right.

davidler i don`t know where you have obtained your facts but i would strongly urge caution in telling these other forum users that they are entitled by law to something. truth is, retailers spend millions to ensure that they know the laws and operate within them. the chances that you know something they don`t, is if i can put it gently, slightly arrogant on your part. if you won`t trust them, that`s understandable but trust a legal expert, no law entitles you to a refund. repair warranties are legal and quite common. keep your receipts, without them, there is no obligation or legal right to anything.

hope this helps

 

[DavidLeR]

Davidler........can you give me the section of the Ontario CPA you are referring to in regards to customers being entitled to a refund or exchange on defective items. I can't find it, although there is a section on what a customer is entitled to if the seller refuses to honor the warranty.
Thanks

Certainly.

Please refer to the following resources:

1) For a overview of this topic, see my earlier post on a different thread, with links to interpretations and summaries by various consumer advocates, lawyers, and goverment agencies:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...plaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html#post2553" (i.e., post #35 of the tread)

See also this page by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario (who passed the laws):

"Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002"


2) More to your question, links to the actual legislation, along with my own well-intended (put non-professional) interpretations, see this post:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-2.html#post2581" (i.e., post #43 of the thread).


3) If you want to hear from the relevant Ontario government agency yourself, contact
In Ontario the Ministry of Consumer Services at "Ministry of Consumer Services - Consumer Protection, Consumer Education, Consumer Information" or call them at 1-800-889-9768.

I hope these are of use to you in your research.

Or, your could just take the word of "lawguy", and just assume that none of this exists. Maybe if retailers ignore it long enough, it'll all just go away?

 

[DavidLeR]

Dear “lawguy”:

Sorry for the delay, but it only now, on this frigid Sunday afternoon, that I've had time to sit down and truly absorb the full ridiculousness of your first and only post (as "lawguy", anyway) on this forum.

My prior comments were only regarding the implied warranty that the CPA imposes on retailers.

But for some reason you’ve decided to broaden this discussion into other areas, in which you lack even a fundamental understanding.

Take consumer purchases, for instance. You don’t seem to even know how they operate.

when you pay for your item at canadian tire or another store you are entering a legal contract. that contract is you agreeing to the terms of that specific product.

in a fair exchange of goods, such as you walk in to a store, knowingly purchase a heater (example) pay for it in full, and take delivery of the goods immediately you entered into the sellers terms of sale …

This is completely wrong. (Plus, how would I 'unknowingly' purchase something??)

There are no terms that the buyer must adhere to.

In your heater example (are you sure you don't want to use 'pressure washer'?), what are these special “terms”? No, there are none. After I’ve paid for the heater, I own it, and can do with it what I choose, as far as contract law is concerned.

Perhaps you meant that the explicit manufacturer’s warranty may contain terms the buyer must follow for the warranty to remain valid?

Speaking of which, let’s review your “expert” opinion on manufacturers’ warranties:

if the product is defective you are now bound by the warranty.

This is not just wrong, but completely backwards. It is the manufacturer (not the buyer) who is bound by the terms of the explicit manufacturer’s warranty.

(As well, the manufacturer and retailer are bound by the implied warranty of the CPA.)

the retailer determines the warranty for the product

It is my understanding that the manufacturer determines the explicit warranty for the product (although this might be negotiated with a specific retailer, such as lessening the terms of the explicit warranty in order to offer it at a lower price)

----

davidler i don`t know where you have obtained your facts

Well, now you do: the links I my previous post on this thread.

If you have bothered to do any research at all, I expect that you’ve now read from the many professionals who have a greater understanding of these issues than you and I, and the one's I've referenced all state that a customer in Ontario is entitled to a refund from the retailer for a defective item.

This is true regardless of whether the package has been opened, the item used, or any statements in the manufacturer’s explicit warranties or store policies.

i work in law, in ontario. i have a ton of experience in consumer law

trust a legal expert

So, let me get this straight:

• You’ve only posted here once (at least, under the name “lawguy”).
• You know very little about retail sales and warranties in general.
• You know next to nothing about consumer protection legislation.
• You claim to be an "expert" with "tons of experience", yet clearly know less than even a newbie.
• You jump in here, make a lot of false claims, and talk a lot of crap about me, personally.

Yet you think it is ME who is "arrogant"?


My only objective is to help innocent customers get the legal remedies to which they are entitled.

Your only objective seems to be persuading people that these rights do not even exist, or if they do exist, to not use them.

You must be affiliated with the laughable “CT Me”, who tried to peddle similar rubbish here, not too long ago.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

DavidLeR, there are many examples of customers returning items as defective, because they used it, didn't like it, had buyer's remorse, found another one cheaper somewhere else, the item is now on sale and they paid full price, and the list goes on. Under your interpretation of the Ontario CPA rules, the buyer (committing fraud by stating an item is defective, when in fact it is not) would be entitled to a refund. I've read through the entire CPA rules and they are open to a lot of interpretation. There is nothing that specifically says a customer is entitled to a refund on truly defective items, but there seems to be recourse if a warranty is not honored.
As always people are entitled to their own opinion, but "buyer beware" is a common phrase, and I've never heard of "seller beware" before. What you are stating as your opinion just doesn't make common sense, in my opinion.

 

[DavidLeR]

Under your interpretation ...

As always people are entitled to their own opinion...

What you are stating as your opinion ...

You, CT-Me and 'lawguy' all seem to have the same basic (yet inexplicable) misunderstanding.

You have all claimed at one time or another that these are merely the opinions and/or interpretations of DavidLeR. This is not at all correct.

My recent posts have only providing a summary of the numerous links previously provided (see "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...plaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html#post2553") to articles by reputable people who say things like this:

"a retailer is liable to a purchaser for a defective product"
"retailers have to sell you a product that works"
"there is an 'implied condition of merchantability' (freedom from defects) "
​

And what have you provided?

Only your own opinion, which also must fall under "buyer beware".

And, of course, no references. Not even one. Not even a quote from the Act itself.

You claim to have actually read the Act, as have I, and I agree that it is far from clear. That's why it's worthwhile to consider the opinions of the experts I've quoted, and to contact the relevant Ministry for one's own specific case.

I see you've also raised another crop of out-of-scope topics, such as fraud, change-of-mind returns, and manufacturer's warranties. I'll save those for another day.

I may be overly suspicious, but my guess is that you are likely just another unscrupulous retailer intent on protecting your bottom line at the expense of the innocent customers, whom you admit to seeing as just a bunch of scam artists.

But, that's just my opinion.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

davidler
i have done some reading back to previous posts you refer to, including debates between you and ctme and now the unregistered no name person so that i can understand your position. unregistered has the correct interpretation in his her most recent post. nowhere does any legislation or act state that a store must give a refund for anything. the protection act applies if a stated warranty is not honoured by the store or maker of a product. thats why its called a protection act, to protect a customer against breaking the rules of their selling agreement. it is not called the customer can have whatever they demand act lol

your talks of warranties are partially correct. u say a heater, so we can use that example. yes the manufacturer is bound by the warranty that is set out AND the consumer is bound by the same warranty. you argued previously about repairs and say they are illegal. they are not. if thats what the warranty says, then both customer and seller have to work within the rules of the repair for that product. if the warranty is replacement only, then both seller and buyer are stuck to a replacement for their defective whatever it may be. if the warranty states refund, then a refund is the option. if the seller does not honour whatever that stated warranty s for whatever product, then the protection act applies.

from what i've read of your posts, you seem to believe that the warranty only applies to the seller or maker of an item and that a buyer can demand whatever they want inside or outside of those terms. you are 100% incorrect.

you accuse me of no research, and that you've read the laws. good for you. my work almost every day is reading and interpreting legalities and advising my clients on them as it applies to their situation. i have a pretty good understanding of what holds up and what doesn't in a court of law. your interpretations, (and you stated yourself that there is a lot of open to interpretation areas) are not quite on par with what judges base their decisions on. youve done your homework by reading and researching but your conclusions seem to fit your desire to slam a store rather then the considering the same being presented to a judge.

as a side note i noticed while reading previous posts, a significant lack of back up from other people here. when it comes to slamming the store service and quality of products , there were are tons of people jumping in to back you up. when it comes to the legalities and these acts and legislations, you seem to have no support. i wonder why that is?

 

[DavidLeR]

Oh, please - spare me.

Next you’ll be saying that the CPA only applies to bulk sales of lumber to builders.

I also see you are now resorting to CT Me’s tactic of putting ridiculous words in my mouth, then trying to use that as evidence that I must be wrong about other things, too.

I've provided many links to reputable sites offering credible interpretations of the Acts. I’ve also provided links to the legislation, and a walk-through of what it says on this topic.

My favorite statement is from Ellen Roseman: “If you find a dud in the package when you open it, don't let them shrug off their obligation to give your money back”.

All of this evidence makes it very clear that an Ontario retailer must provide a refund for defective goods to a consumer who asks for one.

Surely an “expert” such as yourself could provide at least a few references to sources that support your claim, and not rely on a lot of guess-work, and your own dubious opinion. If you are going to start quoting from CT Me, you are indeed desperate.

If I thought for one second that you had any credibility at all on this site, I’d be tempted to argue with you. But you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with your absurd views on retail sales and warranties.

Since you have zero credibility, have no sources to quote, and have not directly responded to any of my evidence, I won’t waste any more time on someone whose mind is made up, and doesn’t want to be bothered with the facts.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

davidler

i have zero interest in developing credibility on a site which i don't plan to frequent long term. besides, developing credibility on the internet is not of any value for the every day forum user or blogger.

anyways back to the point of discussion. as mentioned you have clearly done your homework and extensive research. i have not referenced any information or provided links because you have provided all of the accurate links. Consumer Protection Act, Sale of Goods act, those are all the correct places to go to obtain the information related to a lot of what this forum seem to be dicsussing. i was attempting to give you some credit for excellent research.

regardless of waht you may believe, i actually was trying to help. there is a reason lawyers have jobs, to interpret all of the legal grey areas that exist in policies, contracts, rules, laws, governing bodies and a whole host of terminology that may or may not make sense to someone without extensive background knowledge. thats why law fees are high. you have the option to believe in whole or in part the information that i have provided, there will be no impact to me either way, i wont be offended. what i can tell you concretely that legally no store MUST provide a refund for anything. in the case of canadian tire, here is the statment;

to return an item for exchange or refund, bring it to any canadian tire store within 90 days, in original condition and packaging with receipt. returns without the original receipt or packaging are accepted at canadian tire's discretion.
(-- that portion covers a non-wanted item return -- with a receipt in original condition and package. up to ct if those two elements do not exist.)
if a product is defective, the manufacturers warranty willl apply.
(-- that section covers any defective product within the specified warranty period. if that warranty says repair, that's what applies - both store and buyer are bound to this)
credit to the original method of payment or store credit will be provided as required. some exceptions may apply. your name, address and phone number will be required. this information is colleted used and retained to help prevent fraud and may only be disclosed within canadian tire. valid photo id may be required to confirm this information.
(-- that section covers the stores right to ask for id for any return, and the option to provide credit instead of cash back.)

when you buy ANYTHING at canadian tire, this is the contract you agree to.

hope this helps

 

[DavidLeR]

what i can tell you concretely that legally no store MUST provide a refund for anything. in the case of canadian tire, here is the statment;

Once again I say: Please provide some references to back up your claims!

If you don't, I guess I'll have to decide whether to believe you, or credible people like Ellen Roseman, and all the others.

Oh, and thank you for posting the non-compliant Canadian Tire work-around, that they hope will help them dodge the laws of Ontario.

But that hardly counts as research.

As for the contract? The CPA says that nothing can negate the rights provided by it, including bogus statments on the CT web site.

As you surely know, an illegal contract is void.

hope this helps

Helps whom? The stores?

As always, I am hoping to help the customers, instead.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

i hope for the sake of whoever comes here for advice, that you are not the one providing it or you will lead many people down a path to sure disappointment.

i am not here to prove anything to anyone. i prove things in a court of law, in front of a judge all the time. thats my job, its what i am trained and paid to do. what i provided in my last post is all that is required for a clear understanding. those rules which i copied directly from a canadian tire receipt are your contract. you entered that agreement as soon as money was exchanged for the goods. the only over and above rule is in reference to the manufacturers warranty, which would either be contained in the pacakging of the product and/or available from the place of purchase by request, all of which are also legally binding.

if you choose to believe, and tell others that there is more to it, that's just fine, that is what open forums such as this are for.

 

[DavidLeR]

This is directed to anyone who may be interested in learning more about the obligations of retailers in Ontario.

I know I've written all of this here before, but a little refresher seems in order.

First of all, the manufacturer may provide an “explicit” or “express” warranty for their products. Nobody's saying they can't, or that the manufacturer doesn't have to abide by it.

However, this is not your only protection. A consumer is entitled to additional protection under Ontario legislation, which imposes additional obligations on Ontario retialers.

The two main laws are:

The Sale of Goods Act (SGA) of 1994: "Ontario - Sale of Goods Act : http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s01_e.htm"

The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 2002: "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A"
​

For instance, Section 15 of the SGA describes an additional “implied” warranty that the seller must adhere to:

Implied conditions as to quality or fitness

15. 2. Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality….
​

So, if the product you buy is defective, there is an implied warranty.

Canadian Tire attempts to circumvent this legislation, by declaring a policy that states, “If a product is defective, the manufacturers warranty willl apply.”

That makes it sound like you have no other recourse.

Luckily, the SGA addresses this very point:

15. 4. An express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.
​

So, Crappy Tire is not off the hook. They have chosen to conduct business in the province of Ontario, and they should abide by its laws.

It has been claimed that the store policy somehow forms part of a contract to which you are legally bound.

But a store’s policy is not part of any “contract”. (But wouldn’t it nice if CT was legally obligated to follow their own policies? There would be far fewer complaints).

These above conditions are echoed in the CPA:

PART II - CONSUMER RIGHTS AND WARRANTIES

Quality of goods

9. (2) The implied conditions and warranties applying to the sale of goods by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act are deemed to apply with necessary modifications to goods that are … supplied under a consumer agreement.

9. (3) Any term or acknowledgement, whether part of the consumer agreement or not, that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act or any deemed condition or warranty under this Act is void.
​

There you have it:

- CT has an obligation to meet the implied warranty of quality (i.e., free from defects).
- CT cannot ignore this law, no matter what their policy or the manufacturer’s warranty says.
​

If you wish to learn more about what these laws mean in layman’s terms, please see the links I’ve provided to various consumers’ rights advocates, lawyers and legislators have already placed on the internet, located here:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...plaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html#post2553" (post #35).

If you would like to read my walk-through of how the CPA provides for a refund for a defective item, please see this link:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-2.html#post2581" (post #43).

Please note that I am not a lawyer, and neither are any of the other people who have posted on this thread (obviously).

As I’ve written many times in the past few months, do not take my word for things. Do not take the word of people who can’t even quote from the legislation. If you really do need sound advice, you should consult a lawyer who had the appropriate training. At the very least, contact the Ministry.

 

[CT Challenger]

Dear Ellen Roseman:

I read with interest your web posting at "http://www.moneyville.ca/blog/post/902650--if-the-product-s-a-dud-insist-on-your-money-back".

Regarding the Ontario Consumer Protection Act of 2002, you state, "If you find a dud in the package when you open it, don't let them shrug off their obligation to give your money back".

This is a loose interpretation of the words contained in the act, and you are trying to twist them into a bunch of legal bullshit. You are making people think they are entitled to something.

I work in law, in Ontario. I have a ton of experience in consumer law. If a product is defective, the customer is bound by the warranty.

I don`t know where you have obtained your facts but I would strongly urge caution in telling visitors to your web site that they are entitled by law to something.

Please correct your web page at your earliest convenience.

Signed,

LawGuy, Legal Expert



So, it shouldn't be long, now. I'll let you know the minute Ms. Roseman corrects these glaring errors in her forum.



I will also be sending similarly worded letters to:

1 - Miller Thomsom regarding their bullshit, “A consumer is not bound by any consumer agreement that does not comply with the Act and regulations.”

2 - O'Connor MacLeod Hanna, LLP, regarding their bullshit, "The primary remedy available to a consumer under the Act is the consumer’s right to cancel an agreement.”

3 - The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, who posted even more bullshit, especially "If a consumer agreement is cancelled, the supplier must refund payment".

I've get this all fixed up right quick.

You're welcome!

LawGuy