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

well clearly thats a retarded joke. lol thanks for the laugh.

look dude, whoever you are, whatever you do, i simply don't care. please understand that fully. you're a guy on your end of the internet, i'm a guy on my end of the internet. i don't know if the problem is that your ego is too big, that you have been misinformed by someone else which could include the consumer advocate websites youve pointed out, which for the record may not be 100% correct all the time or that you are insecure and can't acccept that you have erred i your assesssment of the law. there's nothing more to it. you've looked in all the right places, you've cross referenced different acts and laws, in fact you've done all the research that i would and have done many times in dealing with consumer law. law is very very very gray. if it wasn't, OJ Simpson would not have walked free on murder.

in reading the details, often vague, of said laws, i don't know how else i can put this except that you simply misunderstand in consumer law which contracts are valid depending on the type of transaction such as retail over the counter, order for future delivery and purchasing a service as well as when and who's warranties apply. i'm not here to make you look bad, i stumbled upon this site, did some reading and thought i'd pitch into an area that had clearly been steered off course.

you can spend the rest of your day copying and pasting links that you've posted multiple times but it will not change the fact that what is contained in those links must be assessed correctly for them to carry any weight, and you assessed them incorrectly. so before you get your knickers in a knot, understand that i am on your side. as i mentioned, i deal in consumer law, more often then not defending clients who have been wronged by a seller who has broken the law. what you are workign with here, is not canadian tire breaking any laws. sorry man, i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's reality

Oh no, now we have some CT lifer in the returns department professing to be a consumer rights guru, super star lawyer. What ever. Another case of another minimum wage retail burnout over extending and over applying their shallow expertise. Funny that all you quote is the back side of a receipt but strangely silent on consumer law and the interpretations of noted firms.

That's ok we already knew that you're nothing more than a toady-shill for CT and here to discourage people from getting they're money back.

lol do you guys just assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be working for canadian tire? really, i belong to a lot of forums and blogs in personal hobbies and areas of interest and i've never seen such one side, biased opinions in my life. you all must be perfect, i'm so impressed.

i quote the back side of a receipt for a reason. it is the LEGAL contract you enter when you purchase an item. it is your right to return, or not return an item or get warranty, based on those terms that i copied from the receipt. there's nothing complex or hidden. have a receipt, within the period specified, product unused.. refund full amount. without receipt, refund or exchange at store discretion. defective = warranty, exchange or repair based on whatever that product carries in warranty terms.

everyone seems to be looking for some legal solution, loophole or whatever to solve their displeasure. in my experience, MOST stores and managers willl work hard to find a solution for an unhappy customer, if you treat them politely, with respect and ask for their help rather then demanding x y and z. all of the acts and legislations that dler and others have posted are correct, thats where you get the information, but if you don't understand it, the information is not useful if you're trying to use as a legal matter.

believe what you will and what you won't, just remember as a customer you don't have ultimate right to anything anytime just because you want it.

law guy said:

it is your right to ... not return an item

Click to expand...

Well, thank God I have to right to NOT return something! Imagine having CT come and take back my floor mats while it's still snowy out! ("Sorry, but you have no legal right to not return those; here's you money back ...")

law guy said:

i quote the back side of a receipt for a reason. it is the LEGAL contract you enter when you purchase an item.

Click to expand...

Earlier, I pointed out just how ridiculous this notion was. For some reason, you continue to push this concept, so I decided to explore it a bit further.

Guess what I found out?

(Wait for it ....)

You're wrong!

First of all, there's the small problem of illegal contracts being void. For instance, I can't make a deal to sell you a kilo of cocaine, then sue you for breach of contract when you couldn't come up with the money. A contract to do something illegal is void. The same would be true of a contract for the sale of goods that contained terms that were contrary to the law. I'm tempted to say that a retail contract with a term stating that the retailer would not be obligated to provide a refund (or even an exchange) on a defective product is an illegal contract, and therefore void. I seem to recall that you disagreed on some aspect of this, so let's just say that, in theory, any term that turned out to be contrary to any law would make the contract void. (Maybe collecting personal information?) If I remember my law courses correctly, a judge would set aside the entire contract, as a whole, because it would be impossible to pick and choose which terms remain in force, and which are to be rejected.

Another hole in your theory is 'offer and acceptance'. A person cannot accept terms that they do not know exist. There is no "meeting of the minds", and thus a contract cannot be formed that includes those terms. If a customer were handed a page of terms and conditions, and asked to sign it before the sale was completed, then there would be an argument that it was part of the contract. However, if the customer is handed a receipt with a policy statement on the back, then this has occurred after the sale has been completed. A contract cannot be formed first, and then additional contract terms magically imposed a few moments later. An offer was made, it was accepted, and that's it - no more terms. You might be tempted to overlook this by saying, "Well, the terms are available at Customer Service" (or on a web site, etc.) However, this is not sufficient. The terms must be communicated to the purchaser in advance. One cannot agree to a contract without first being told what the terms are. The sale, therefore, does not include any store policy.

Another point to consider. If the retailer has the discretion to completely ignore the 'terms' (i.e., the policy), then it has no actual benefit to the other party. It is an "illusory promise". Therefore, there is no contract. One cannot say, "Give me a dollar now, and maybe I'll do something nice for you some day", and think this is a binding contract. The store policy is just one, big "Maybe".

Switching from the theoretical to the practical, this is just not how stores operate. They do not treat their policies as though they are legally binding (at least, not on the part of the store). For instance, they frequently refuse to provide refunds or exchanges on unopened items, despite their policies stating that they will. They refuse price adjusments. It would be great for the customers if the retailers were legally bound to fulfill their policies, because many more customers would be getting refunds and exchanges, etc.

Taking this a step further, if there really were a contract which obligated the store to provide a refund (say, for an unopened package), and the store refused to provide the refund, then the customer could rescind the contract, in which case the store would be required by contract law to provide a refund. Seems like a good deal for the customer who, well, just wanted a refund.

In summary, store policies are merely non-binding offers do something gratuitously, with no true obligation to actually do it, in order to induce customers to purchase from their store, rather than from a competitor. If you can't sue for a breach of the promise, then it wasn't a contractual term.

If you need some links to references, to help you work your way through what I've written, I'll gladly provide them.

I can even steer you towards some good introductory law books, if you are interested in really learning about this "law" stuff.

But, I have a strong sense that you will once more just completely ignore what I wrote, repeat pretty much everything you've already written, then resort to calling me names, saying I'm insecure, etc.


The only thing that would truly surprise me, is if you responded in a thoughful and meaningful way to anything I'd written. Or even (gasp!) quoted some references!

so let me get this right.... you're claim now is that a retail purchase does NOT involve any legally binding agreement or contract?

Unregistered said:

so let me get this right.... you're claim now is that a retail purchase does NOT involve any legally binding agreement or contract?

Click to expand...

No, not quite.

Keep in mind: I'm offering this up for discussion. I'm not an expert, and I haven't found clear-cut references for this (except for the SGA and CPA parts).

(If you follow the "Sale of Goods Act" thread, you'll see the I started with a call out for information, and my opinion solidified gradually over time, as more information was discovered. That's why I've become less reluctant to accept unsubstantiated claims that are spouted off by people who appear to be uninformed).

But, here's my take on it:

- There is a contract. You are agreeing to purchase the item at the agreed-upon price (obviously).

- The manufacturer may or may not offer an "express" warranty that must be honoured. You can ask to see this ahead of time.

- In addition, the store must honour the "implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality" from the SGA, no matter what their policy says. (Please: don't make me quote all that twice in one day!)

- A policy that you only learn about after the sale is completed can't be retroactively piggy-backed onto an already-completed contract.

- Just because the store has a "policy", that doesn't mean it automatically becomes part of your sales contract; it has to be communicated to the buyer ahead of time.

- Even if the policy statement was part of the contract, if it has illegal terms, then the entire contract would be void.

- A term that says the store doesn't have to do anything has no legal effect, so it is not part of a contract.

- Even if these terms got included in your sales contract, as soon as the store failed to live up to it's obligations, the contract would be rescindable.

- There is no reason to believe (unless someone can provide one) that store policies constitute contractual terms that the buyer (or the store) are bound to.

I'm looking forward to some useful input.

I would like to add a couple of things:

- My 4:41 post of yesterday was worded fairly strongly, in part as a 'shot' at Mr. LawGuy, but I am open to thoughful discussion.
- Except for defective items, the terms of all retail sales in Ontario are by default 'final', with no returns, exchanges are refunds.
- Stores voluntarily offer return policies to attract customers.
- Under the CPA, a store failing to honour its policy could be engaging in an Unfair Practice, and the sales contract could be rescinded by the customer.

hold on here, davidler don't take this as a shot, i am trying to engage in the discussion reasonably

up until your last post you have maintained that the law entitles a customer to a refund.

is it correct in understanding that you are now saying that the sellers policy is what stands, and their right to refund, exchange etc.. is in fact determined by the store policy and the law/acts involvement is when that store breaks the terms they set out themself?

lawguy said:

hold on here, davidler don't take this as a shot, i am trying to engage in the discussion reasonably

up until your last post you have maintained that the law entitles a customer to a refund.

is it correct in understanding that you are now saying that the sellers policy is what stands, and their right to refund, exchange etc.. is in fact determined by the store policy and the law/acts involvement is when that store breaks the terms they set out themself?

Click to expand...

Ugh...you are joking right? And you call yourself a lawyer right? Did you get your degree from one of those stamps ? Round and round this goes. From reading some of these threads I've come to the conclusion that CT retailer lacky losers are:

* frequent bullshiters and fakers. Take CT Me, CT Manager, echo and the latest douchebag above. They mostly claim to have superior knowledge and experience on a wide range of retail areas crossing over into law and business. But when challenged they have nothing more (intelligent) to say and even get basic valuations wrong from a supposedly, experienced business educated guru. Now we have a part-time retail clerk/full-time imaginary lawyer who derives the embodiment of contract law all from the back of the receipt, or maybe from a CT policy folder - yet can't quite ascertain the opinions of his peers from quoted lawfirms firms.

law guy said:

lol do you guys just assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be working for canadian tire?

Click to expand...

What you've said is complete rubbish. Your stupidity and anti-customer attitude makes you easy to spot.

law guy said:

really, i belong to a lot of forums and blogs in personal hobbies and areas of interest

Click to expand...

So what? Why are you here? You obviously know what this forum is about. Why don't you offer something useful if you're so quick on your feet with 'the law'. Do you get a kick from screwing people out of a rightful return? Or how about intimidating them to the point where they just leave and give up on the issue?

law guy said:

i quote the back side of a receipt for a reason. it is the LEGAL contract ....

Click to expand...

what ever buddy. Too bad that's not what the law says. Good thing not everyone grew up on that kool-aid.

law guy said:

everyone seems to be looking for some legal solution, loophole or whatever to solve their displeasure.

Click to expand...

CT hasn't spared any effort in this area, we all know that. More and more people are finding out what an awful place CT is to shop at, ditto for cars.

law guy said:

in my experience, MOST stores and managers willl work hard to find a solution for an unhappy customer, if you treat them politely, with respect

Click to expand...

ya ya we've all heard that bullshit before.
That used to be the case with CT and that was back in the 80's. Not now. Now they work just as hard coming up with stupid policies to screw people over.

law guy said:

all of the acts and legislations that dler and others have posted are correct, thats where you get the information, but if you don't understand it, the information is not useful if you're trying to use as a legal matter.

Click to expand...

I don't know about everyone else but I can read those links just fine and what the law says is way different than what you and CT would like it to be.

law guy said:

believe what you will and what you won't, just remember as a customer you don't have ultimate right to anything anytime just because you want it.

Click to expand...

This is what being a consumer has come down to. Get screwed over a rightful return and live with the bad product. And what's your last recourse at getting the issue resolved as we all know CT head office sure as hell won't do the right thing. Why won't CT do the right thing? Why won't they honor returns and give great service and stop giving customers a hard time?

Canadian Tire store sells questionable repairs - British Columbia - CBC News

You have to waste time and energy suing them. I can't speak for most folks out there, but I do sue. It's called small claims court forms 8A, 18B, 20A -20E. The maximum amount you can sue for in small claims is 25K.I have no problem kicking it up to Divisional if I have to. Unlike law douchebag, I won't make spectacular claims about myself but I can certainly research and apply what I've learned and yes I have won cases representing myself.

lawguy said:

up until your last post you have maintained that the law entitles a customer to a refund.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I’ll continue to post that.

Let me say it again: the Laws (acts of legislation, criminal code, etc.) are always in force.
Nothing in a Contract or Policy can negate them.

There’s a wealth of evidence that the Ontario SGA and CPA require a refund for a defective item, so this is true regardless of any Contract or Policy.

In fact, any Contract that is contrary to any law is completely void.

lawguy said:

is it correct in understanding that you are now saying that the sellers policy is what stands

Click to expand...

No, that is not really what I am saying at all.

As I wrote before, the Policy can’t “stand” if it’s against the law.

Nor do I think it “stands” as part of a Contract, for the many reasons I’ve given. But, like I said, I don’t have any reference to back me up; just my take on contract law. Maybe someone else can contribute? Beyond just, “No, it’s not”?

Are stores bound by any laws to follow their own Policies? Well, if the Policy contains weasel-words (like “Exceptions include but are not limited to the following” or “we reserve the right to refuse any returns”, then I guess the customer should have checked first, so the store maybe can’t be held to it.

However, if the Policy is clear that the refunds or exchanges are to be provided, and the customer relied on that policy when making their purchase, yet the store refuses to abide by it, then I think it would count as an Unfair Practice under the CPA, and the customer could rescind the contract and get their money back.

The CPA says, "13. A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive."

I’m not saying the Policy is a term of any contract. I’m only saying that this practice is covered by the CPA. However, that is just my interpretation, and I have no other references to back that up. Just the wording of the CPA.

There has been a lot of discussion on other threads and forums about stores Policies that require recording of personal information before providing a refund or exchange. This is a grey area, because the law doesn’t require the store to provide a change-of-mind refund or exchange at all. However, there are privacy laws that may be violated by recording (rather than just viewing) this information.

Not many Policies limit the options available to a customer. Generally the just put a limit on the ‘extra’ the store is offering, such as time limits on change-of-mind returns, rules on price-matching, and requiring a receipt.

However, Crappy Tire is the only store I’ve found that actually says the customer doesn’t have a legal right, when they really do have that right.

The Policy says, “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply”. While the warranty surely does apply, it’s not the ONLY warranty that applies. This is contrary the law in Ontario, and cannot be enforced. If a contract contained that term, the contract would be void.

lawguy said:

don't take this as a shot, i am trying to engage in the discussion reasonably

Click to expand...

No, I don’t see this as taking a shot at me.

For that, it’d have to be something like:

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.

Click to expand...

you seem to have no support. i wonder why that is?

Click to expand...

i don't know if the problem is that your ego is too big ... or that you are insecure

Click to expand...

I'm all for healthy debate, but stating your opinion and interpretation is nothing more than just that...debate. DavidLer, if you are looking for references to refute your opinion of the CPA rules or Sale of Goods Act, there are plenty which you could have posted links to just as easily, but you are one sided in your interpretation to further your beef against Canadian Tire for whatever personal reason you have. I'm not sure if you trust in the Better Business Bureau, but here is their posting on refunds and exchanges and legalities at Refunds & Exchanges - BBB News Center.
I think they are a reputable source from Ontario and they refute your argument. You also seem to like Ellen Roseman's blogs.....although she is a consumer advocate and media personality, she rarely does more than state her opinion to further her own empire (books, blogs, radio show, etc.). She has an excellent blog going called "do your homework before buying extended warranties".
Here is one of her comments "How many times will repairs be done before a product is replaced? Ideally, you want an extended warranty that has a three strikes and your out policy. This means if you have a lemon that keeps needing the same repair, you get a brand new product the 4th time you bring it in".
Wow, that kind of goes against another of her posts that you keep quoting to further your side of the debate. Why wouldn't she quote the CPA or sale of goods act and say you're entitled to a refund. By the way, Ellen Roseman has never quoted a passage from either and doesn't even provide their link on her website.
In closing (my side of the debate), every single return policy of major retailers.....Canadian Tire, Walmart, Zellers, Home Hardware, Home Depot, Target, and others have some variation of the same return policy.....do you think that these large corporations, with a multitude of lawyers in their employ, don't have their asses covered every which way and sideways?
I know that they do.
Smart businesses will try and accommodate their good customers so that there is a win-win scenario....perhaps you just weren't a good customer in the opinion of your store.

Unregistered said:

I'm not sure if you trust in the Better Business Bureau, but here is their posting on refunds and exchanges and legalities at Refunds & Exchanges - BBB News Center.
I think they are a reputable source from Ontario and they refute your argument.

Click to expand...

Um. Are you aware that I already quoted for that page?

Just three days ago??

Here's the link to my post: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...snt-honor-their-return-policy-2.html#post2761"

I know it’s a lot of work to scroll down to the bottom of the BBB site, but here's what you'll find:
(I only wish the site was clearer on whether it's the customer's choice, or the store's. Other sources say it's the customer's.)

I appreciate your efforts to form a good argument, but here's a hint: look for sites that back up your claim, not mine.

(But they are hard to find. Trust me; I've looked, and not found any that are clear.)

The BBB article is very clear....it is the store's option as to how they remedy a defective item purchased by a customer. They are very clear that returns of any type are at the sole discretion of the retailer and that they are not bound by ANY law to the contrary. They offer return options as a customer satisfaction strategy, but are not legally bound to do so. How about at least being truthful. Draw whatever conclusions you want from YOUR interpretation, but a store is not obligated to provide a cash refund as their only remedy....period.

Unregistered said:

every single return policy of major retailers.....Canadian Tire, Walmart, Zellers, Home Hardware, Home Depot, Target, and others have some variation of the same return policy

Click to expand...

An interesting claim. Every single one, huh? Your research must have taken a lot of time. Care to provide a list?

This is something else I’ve earnestly looked for, but never found: a variation of “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” on the site of a major retailer, including the ones you mentioned. I’ve been through this already with CT Me, back in November.

Do you have any links to any sites with a variation such as, “Defective items cannot be returned”?

Or, are you just “stating your opinion and interpretaton”, so no evidence is needed? (I.e., you can say whatever crap you like, and nobody is supposed to challenge you.)

Regarding Ellen Roseman, she’s been getting refunds for customers on a daily basis for years, and knows far more about this topic than either of us. To suggest that she would give flawed advice to consumers in order to sell more books is ludicrous. She’s on the board of CLEO, for God’s sake.

Unregistered said:

perhaps you just weren't a good customer in the opinion of your store.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I’ve actually never had a problem with a return at Canadian Tire, so maybe I’ve been “good” after all?

But I’m sure that the elderly couple I saw getting screwed over on a defective pressure washer were good customers, too.

Perhaps I’m a good customer that they’ve now lost forever due to their illegal policy.

However, if by “good” customer you mean someone who’s willing to cave in to whatever illegal and exploitive policies a large corporation decides we should be limited to, then I guess being a “bad” customer isn’t such a bad thing to be.

Unregistered said:

you are one sided in your interpretation to further your beef against Canadian Tire

Click to expand...

I’ve got a beef with CT because of they are taking advantage of vulnerable people.

Plus, it doesn’t matter what my motives are, if my assertions are correct. If they suck, they suck. Period.

Unregistered:

I’ve given this some more thought. I think I now have a better idea of what you are saying.

As I wrote before, the BBB site says, “expect the store to provide a suitable substitute or refund”.

Again, it does not say, “at the sole discretion of the customer”, but neither does it say, “at the sole discretion of the retailer” (or similar wording).

I can see why you might have doubts about adding “discretion of the customer”. However, I think it’s reasonable to infer this, based on the wording of all the other sites I’ve referenced, and the wording of the Acts themselves.

This is not simply my interpretation, as you claimed.

It’s the interpretation of consumer advocates (whom you clearly despise), lawyers working in this field, other experts on these topics, and the people at the Ministry of Consumer Services with whom I have spoken.

As for your version, I have not seen any credible justification for it whatsoever. Not by you, other people posting here or on other sites, or in any web pages.

But let's imagine for a moment that you are right, and the retailer has the option: exchange, or refund.

What does the CT site say?

Does it say, “If a product is defective, a suitable substitute or refund will be provided, at Canadian Tire’s sole discretion”?

Strangely, no. Not at all.

Just, "the manufacturer’s warranty will apply.”

How very odd, that the corporation you claim is so well informed, so law-abiding, and so customer-focused, would fail to do something even you stated is "very clear" from the BBB web site, as required by "The laws in Ontario", i.e., provide an exchange, at the very least.

Instead, CT simply washes its corporate hands of any obligation whatsever, for every item in the entire store.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to forward your discovery to the team of CT corporate lawyers, and advise them of how they should update their policies and web sites? I'm sure they'd listen to you.

(Plus, I still know I'm right on the 'refund' thing.)

DavidLeR said:

Unregistered:

Instead, CT simply washes its corporate hands of any obligation whatsever, for every item in the entire store.

Click to expand...

exaggerate much? ct assumes no obligation for any item they sell? lol hundreds of stores, billions of dollars, no responsibility. tall tale sir, very tall tale

just a thought about all of the legalities, policies etc...specifically the absence of the wording "at the discretion of..."
it is the absence of those specifics that bury a court case quickly. with the wording "manufacturers warranty will apply" that implies that the customer will not get to make the decision. in fact i have never seen any policy of any kind of sales or service that allows the customer to do whatever they want.

Hey, "lawguy".

How have you been? Got tired of typing that name already?

How's your research into contract law going? Find out anything about "offer and acceptance", yet?

Unregistered said:

ct assumes no obligation for any item they sell? lol hundreds of stores, billions of dollars, no responsibility. tall tale sir, very tall tale

Click to expand...

Sorry. That should have been, "for every defective item in the entire store".

But I'm also sure you know I'm not talking about what a store might decide to do as an incentive to customers. No, I'm talking about what a store is required to do by law, but refuses to do.

Heck, even Unregistered managed to find proof that CT is required by law to give at least an exchange on EVERY item in the store (no more "Repair Only" warranties, right?).

And all the credible sources on the subject agree that a full refund is required, if the customer requests one. (No, not the sky, the moon and the stars. Just the refund, thank you!)

Unregistered said:

it is the absence of those specifics that bury a court case quickly.

Click to expand...

Um, I think you are confusing the BBB web page with the actual laws. Pretty sure there's a big difference. "Law Guy".

Unregistered said:

with the wording "manufacturers warranty will apply" that implies that the customer will not get to make the decision.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does indeed imply that. And it is, indeed, against the law.

Unregistered said:

in fact i have never seen any policy of any kind of sales or service that allows the customer to do whatever they want.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me either. And who would even type such an absurb sentence? Oh, yeah: YOU did, back on the 25th! Remember, 'lawguy'?

Unregistered said:

as a customer you don't have ultimate right to anything anytime just because you want it.

Click to expand...

But your high-school debating trick isn't going to work this week, either.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion....it is a free country after all; however be at least truthful or accurate at least. Wrong or right, a retailer is not legally obligated to provide a refund at any time....they don't even legally have to post their return policy. They do have to remedy a defective item, but how they do that is up to them.....reference the BBB article. Some people are a glass half empty, glass half full type.....I assume you to be the latter. I don't believe that the elderly couple was being "screwed" over....maybe they didn't like the remedy to their defective product, but in the words of Ellen Roseman....they could have avoided a problem by asking what the warranty entailed, prior to purchase.
Reference to other company's return policys are readily available on the web...they all state that repair, refund or exchange are available, but make no mistake.....that is at the discretion of the retailer. Some people can't read instructions, follow instructions or really just have buyer's remorse....the manufacturer knows this and protects themselves accordingly.
DavidLer, you are set in your opinion and I have no desire to try and change it (there are those who will argue black is white, etc.).....but can you give us even one example where someone has successfully won a decision in court using your interpretation of CPA or Sale of Goods acts?

Unregistered said:

Again, you are entitled to your opinion....it is a free country after all; however be at least truthful or accurate at least. Wrong or right, a retailer is not legally obligated to provide a refund at any time....they don't even legally have to post their return policy.

Click to expand...

See maybe that's another reason why lawyers get a bad reputation...because every dip shit claims to be one.

Unregistered said:

DavidLer, you are set in your opinion and I have no desire to try and change it (there are those who will argue black is white, etc.).....but can you give us even one example where someone has successfully won a decision in court using your interpretation of CPA or Sale of Goods acts?

Click to expand...

Didn't we kill this fuckin cockaroach last year ?

What for? For those of you following, he's already proven again and again how lame and damaging your interpretations are - with proof. What have you brought to the table? Useless, toothless BBB and the back of the receipt and your retail clerk opinion that what the law says is NOT what the law says, but instead what you and CT says is - THE LAW. Summed up small enough for the first flush?

So looking back, what have other iterations of CT douchebags brought to the table? Nothing! All you do is flap gum, get bitched slapped and run your mouth again. What are you looking for now? More egg on your face?

So by interpretation of the CPA, you mean judges following the strict definition of it and not being loosey goosey like you and CT would have us believe and tremble in fear of your supposed 'correct legal assessment on the back of a piece of paper used for screwing customers'. OK. I'm not a lawyer and have 10 seconds so here's two examples.

Plaintiffs
KATARZYNA ALICJA MATONI and
KAREN E. THOMPSON
- and -
Defendants
C.B.S. INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA INC., c.o.b. as CANADIAN BUSINESS COLLEGE; CANADIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL INC., c.o.b. as CANADIAN BUSINESS COLLEGE; MAZHER JAFFERY and ROSELYN CALAPINI

JOHANNES H. TEN THYE
v.
1268273 ONTARIO LIMITED carrying on business as AUTOPARK MITSUBISHI

Theres thousands more. What do you bring to the table dip shit?