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

Unregistered said:
Say it ain't so Dave! You mean fucktard ain't telling us the truth and got everything ass backwards. I swear's that bitch ain't good for nothin. Good thing uncle Mike's got som a der pig insemination programs...with her we'd get less pork
Click to expand...

Cream puff...the wizard's handing out brains today, better git yourself one.
 
There are two major ways Canadian Tire’s policies are worse than other retailers (both of which violate the laws of Ontario):

1) The “Repair Only” Policy, which means if it’s dead-out-of-the-box, they refuse to provide a refund, or even an exchange. (This is especially bad when the customer isn’t warned before they buy the item - “Too late!”)

2) The overall “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” statement. It means that there is no minimum period in which you can return a defective item; it could be zero.

I could keep calling this the “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” Policy, but I’m just going to call it the “No Minimum Time” Policy.

Unregistered has claimed several times that CT's policies are not unique, including these remarks:

Unregistered said:
every single return policy of major retailers ... [has] some variation of the same return policy...
Click to expand...
I challenged Unregistered to provide some proof of that claim i.e., that these retailers /have “variations” of the “Repair Only Policy” or the “No Minimum Time Policy”, for defective items.

(I suppose I could have insisted on evidence from "every single major retailer", but that seemed excessive)

-----

First, a few notes:

1 - Many stores have an ‘escape clause’ reserving the right to refuse any return. That’s not what I’m debating. (I’m talking about the basic policy, not the fine-print loop-holes.)

2 - Almost all stores have a similar list of specific, non-returnable item, such as underwear and (don’t ask me why) ammunition. I'll agree that list is "similar".

3 - Items marked “As-Is” or “final sale” are generally non-returnable.

4 - The topic is not whether a retailer is allowed to offer a repair or a manufacturer’s warranty; only whether the retailer will (like CT) refuse to provide a replacement within some time period.

5 - An “exchange or repair” policy isn't the same as CT’s “repair only” policy, because CT even won’t consider an exchange.

So, let’s not waste any bandwidth debating the above topics.

Now, I must admit, I was a bit harsh in my marking. For instance, if Unregistered didn’t provide the proof, then I didn’t bother going to search for it (most of the time). After all, Unregistered had volunteered the following:

Unregistered said:
Reference to other company's return policys are readily available on the web...
Click to expand...
So, let’s have a look at how Unregistered did on this quest for readily-available references to “Repair Only” or “No Minimum Time” policies (or their equivalent).

-----

Walmart:

Unregistered said:
"our goal is to satisfy customers by exchange, refund or repair (if possible)
Click to expand...
Nothing even close to a “Repair Only” policy has been demonstrated. Exchanges and refunds may be offered.Things like media “must be returned unopened”, but how can you ‘repair’ software?

Nothing resembling a "No Minimum Time" policy. (I even took a peak at thier site at "Customer Service / Return Policy - Walmart Canada - Save Money Live Better". Minimum is 14 days).

That's a Double Fail.

Zellers:

Unregistered said:
””
Click to expand...
Nothing provided.

Another double fail. (I said I was harsh!)

Home Hardware:

(All that re-typing makes me nervous, but let’s assume it’s accurate. They aren’t doing too well!)

For “Repair Only”, there’s nothing there. They even say, “replace”, if the product “qualifies”. So, Fail.

For “No Minimum Time” Policy, it looks like Unregistered may have actually stumbled across something. Let’s give the benefit of the doubt, and say, “Success” (pending further research).

Single Fail (but part marks for the "no minimum time")

Home Depot:

For “Repair Only” Policy, the only item with a “repair” reference is after 30 days. Fail.

For, “No Minimum Time” Policy, I was surprised to read in Unregistered’s post that Home Depot’s basic policy was simply, “we reserve the right to refuse...”. That wasn’t my experience in their stores. So, I decided to check out the web site for myself at "Return Policy | Home Depot Canada".

Here’s what I found:
“Returns with an Original Sales Receipt Within 90 Days of Purchase: Any purchase made.”
​
I could ‘cry foul’ on Unregistered misrepresenting HD’s policies, but I’ll let this one slide, and just say:

Double Fail.

Target

Not even doing business in Ontario. Another Double Fail.

Lowes

It might be unfair to allow Unregistered to slip in another store, but maybe it’s to make up for the missing Zellers text?

Unregistered said:
"You may return it for refund or exchange, within our current return policy guidelines".
Click to expand...
For “Repair Only” Policy, there is nothing there on defective items or repairs. Fail.

For “No Minimum Time” Policy, I was tempted to just write this one off as “fail”, since nothing relevant was quoted. However, I decided to do some checking. Guess what I found?

The Canadian web site ("Home - Lowes.ca | Home Improvement Warehouse | Do It Yourself | Renovations | Contractors | Lowe's Canada") doesn’t even give a policy!

Guess where Unregistered’s text came from? The U.S. site at "http://www.lowes.com/cd_Returns+and+Refunds+Policy_33243642_".

And guess what I found? Does it say:


"You may return it for refund or exchange, within our current return policy guidelines"?


No! It actually says:

"you may return it within ninety (90) days** to any Lowe's store for a refund or exchange within our current return policy guidelines.”

Gee, did Unregistered accidentally ‘forget’ to include it? Did Microsoft’s ‘copy and paste’ function magically exclude those words?

Or could Unregistered be <gasp!> misleading us? No, that can’t be! I’m sure it was an accident. After all, I’d never accuse Unregistered of being “untruthful” without better evidence.

(By the way, those double-quotes (i.e., **) refer to other items have a shorter time, but no less than 7 days.)

Epic Double Fail. (Which is ironic, since it wasn’t even on the original list!).


So, here’s the final Score:


Did Unregistered prove that other retailers also have a variation of the “Repair Only" Policy?

- 6 Fails, 0 Successes.

Overall for “Repair Only”: a Total Epic Fail.


Did Unregistered prove that other retailers also have a variation of the “No Minimum Time" Policy”?

- 5 Fails, 1 Success.

Over-all for “No Minimum Time”: Major Fail.

-----

Final Score: 11 Fails, 1 Success.

Pretty pathetic, for a fight Unregistered decided to start a fight, but couldn’t finish it.

-----

Some final reminders:

- A store can’t hide behind a policy that violates any law.

- A refund by the store is required (not just a replacement, not just a repair) for a defective item.

- The store can offer a repair or exchange, or other warranty terms, but you don’t have to settle for just that.

- Even if another store sucks as much as CT does that still means CT sucks. But, none of them suck that badly.

-----

Now, maybe I’ve been too strict.

Maybe there’s stuff on those web sites that proves Unregistered is correct, but it was just too hard to find.

(It could be, right? There certainly seems to be a lack of copy-and-paste skills and research ability).

So, I decided to do some further checking on my own. Because, I wouldn’t want it to be said that I “refuse to accept” any evidence that might really be out there.

Therefore I will make an earnest attempt to find something (anything!) that backed up Unregistered’s claims.

And I’ll include actual links to the web pages I’ll quote from (imagine that!).

Stay tuned!
 
Good for you DavidLer....I was waiting for your research (although it's nothing more than accessing each retailers home page). As I said, variations of the same policy....not exact, but close enough.
Just for the record, I bought an underwater camera, made by Fuji, from Walmart....it didn't work the first time my daughter used it, 3 days later....when I went to return it....guess what? Nothing they could do....I had to deal with the manufacturer directly...after returning the camera to Fuji....all they would offer is a refurbished camera as a replacement, if I was willing to pay $40.00.
You are incorrect on your assumption that no refund and no exchange is the norm at Canadian Tire....over 90% of the items sold have an over the counter warranty for whatever from Canadian tire themselves....pretty easy to deal with. The other 10% is made up of items that the manufacturer calls the warranty on....the end. Let's use your often used Simonize pressure washer....the manufacturer's warranty on that one is....initial defects, within the first 30 days will be exchanged for a new one.....after that, it's repair only.
You are right on some items.....once it leaves the door....you are on your own for defective items and at the mercy of the manufacturers warranty. Lawnmowers are a good example....repair only, the end.....nothing the store can or will be able to do for you.
The time frames for returns vary by retailer, but your point was that they had to "refund" for defective items....replace also seems to be a pretty common solution that most publicize on their websites.
I could go on and on, but I'll let you "complete your research" , so that you are fully informed.
While you are at it, if you can pass on to the rest of us curious readers.....just one example of a court decision striking down a retailers return policy as illegal.....just one......I'm not a computer wizard, so the link would be helpful.
 
Lowe's Protection Plans - Lowes.ca | Home Improvement Warehouse | Do It Yourself | Renovations | Contractors | Lowe's Canada

read here, you might be interested. repair on power equipment or WITH AN EXTRA WARRANTY THAT YOU MUST PAY FOR replacement of defective. pay extra for the option to get a new one instead of wait for a repair



uh oh, davidler isn't going to like that at all

just out of curiousity, if CT and/or other major retailers with so many stores was truly breaking the law, don't you think some dirty lawyer who makes a career on frivolous lawsuits and witch hunting for companies doing wrong (see personal injury lawyers as an example) would have targetted ct and made a big to-do about it
 
sorry, forgot to throw in my name and some more. here's a lowes contract regarding their policy on repairs and warranties

LOWES
http://www.lowes.ca/pdf/Lowes_Protection_Plans_Terms.pdf (repair, clearly stated)

WALMART
http://z.walmart.ca/content/Microsites/TC.pdf
repair or replace with new or refurbished AT OUR OPTION (clearly stated)

HOME DEPOT
BEAST - 54 Inch 22 HP 653 cc Subaru V-Twin Engine with Electric Start Commercial Zero Turn Mower - 54ZB - Home Depot Canada

this one is a product specific, have to go right to the description. at the very bottom, 2 year nationwide parts AND SERVICE. service = repair
 
i was originally in the mood just for a brief teaser, now in the interest of power equipment i thought i'd bring out the backhoe to bury davidler

http://www.deere.com/en_US/homeowners/media/pdfs/WarrantyCanada.pdf

john deere canada specific warranty states repair or replace at their discretion for residential equipment such as a riding mower. hey same warranty option as canadian tire. illegal bastards, everyone of them haha


what is learned? most retailers and companies do not post product specific or full detailed warranty policies under the general returns section. you have to click a few links and follow a few paths to get the specifics of power equipment repair policies.
conclusion: research must be in depth, not shallow assuming first link has all details. davdler and supporters, epic fail to the power of 2, for claiming unregistered suffered from an epic fail and for being wrong.

there is no credible way to refute this evidence. it clearly states these retailers repair not replace at their discretion. i expect one of two arguments back. either that all of these are illegal practices or you will go digging for some sort of difference between these policies and ct's policies and argue that they differ and ct is illegal, everyone else including your beloved walmart and home depot are within the law.

i rest my case.
davidler do you wish to cross examine? ahhhahhahahaha
 



I'm not kidding, that is absolutely the best fucking post I've seen on this dramarama yet. I fricken giggled all morning, especially the "cross examine" part. Love it.
 
Unregistered said:
Walmart ... Home Hardware.....Home Depot....Lowes.......
Click to expand...


Wow, if 'lawguy' was unhappy with the depth of the links I provided, imagine how upset he must be with his colleague, Unregistered, who posted no links at all, and incomplete quotes!

Hopefully Unregistered will take his/her two public spankings in stride, and not be so clumsy in the future.
 

I may not be as "technologically savvy" as you are DavidLer, but at least I'm honest and truthful....still waiting for that 1 example of a successful lawsuit against a retailer for their "illegal" return policy.....just need one....lots of big retailers out there....just need one.
You might want to just admit defeat on this one, and turn to something more productive, like lobbying for better disclosure, or educating the masses on how to better take responsibility for their purchase decisions. (here's a hint....if you're not quite sure you want it....don't buy it)
 
Aren't 'lawguy' and Unregistered just too hilarious?

Each time they lose an argument, they just pretend the argument was on a different topic, and then claim they won. An interesting strategy, but I suspect they are fooling only themselves.

And as of today, they've decided to start congratulating one-another. "Lol comical", as our old friend CT Me used to write.

Just to recap of the recent discussons:

I wrote:
DavidLeR said:
OK, so where's your list of sites from other retailers that have “some variation" of CT’s “the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” or "repair only" policies? Still waiting.
Click to expand...
In response, Unregistered wrote:
Unregistered said:
Here you go sport ... they are all online
Click to expand...
This was followed by some dubious re-typing from various web pages. As I thoroughly showed in my post, this was the outcome:

DavidLeR said:
Final Score: 11 Fails, 1 Success.
Pretty pathetic, for a fight Unregistered decided to start a fight, but couldn’t finish it.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, the exchange was about the refund/exchange/repair policies of retailers.

But rather than sticking to that topic, they have since been posting various manufacturers’ warranties and extended warranties, and kidding themselves that this is somehow relevant to the stated policies of retailers! Priceless!

Obviously, neither of them will ever admit to being wrong. So what? I'm only out to provide evidence to people who are willing to give judge it for themselves, and make up their own minds.

Further observations on their pathetic attempts to deceive people will be posted shortly ...
 
Dear Open-Minded Thread Readers:

I'd like to share an observation with this forum:

From what I've seen of 'CT Me', 'lawguy' and Unregistered, they only seem to have 4 tricks with which to sway people:

1 - Unsubstantiated claims.
2 - Misrepresented facts.
3 - False accusations.
4 - Changing the subject.

Why won't they try a 5th option: relevant references to reputable sources?

Maybe because there aren't any?

(OK, there was that one thing about Home Hardware. Score 1 point ... out of 12. And even 'lawguy' wrote, "research must be in depth, not shallow assuming first link has all details").

If one simply ignores those 4 little tricks, I believe all the noise fades away, and it's clear that it's all just a lot of hot air. Nothing of any substance is being presented.

Tactic #4 (Changing The Subject) seems to be especially popular, lately. Just tonight I saw this:

Unregistered said:
here's a hint....if you're not quite sure you want it....don't buy it)
Click to expand...

The focus of the entire debate (indeed the thread itself) has been on defective items, so why even bring up 'change-of-mind' returns? Is this just to create yet another diversion? Or maybe it's just to offend customers?

In any case, it diverts attention away from the fact that Unregistered utterly failed to prove in post #50 that "every single return policy of major retailers ... [has] some variation of the same return policy".

This diversion came on the heels of multiple posts on manufacturers' warranties, and extended warranties. This also has nothing to do with the topic at hand: store policies on defective items.

There are many other examples, such as asking me about lawsuits, when I've never even entered the discussion (expect to point to the successful resolution reported by the original creator of this thread).

Keep in mind, the entire 'what are the store policies?' debate is, itself, a tangent from the 'what are the consumer protection laws?' discussion. And the vast majority of the credible evidence supports this statement: if an item is defective, according to the Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Protection Act, a retailer in Ontario must provide a refund.

Unsubstantiated claims. Misrepresented facts. False accusations. Changing the subject.

You be the judge of these anti-customer posters' credibility.

-----

In other news, I actually set foot in a Crappy Tire store, today! Don't worry; I didn't buy anything! I was only there to gather information .... in aisle 11 - Pressure Washers!

My report is in the works ...
 
Just answer the question....name one law suit against a major realtor.....any single one....including Canadian Tire where their return policy is deemed "illegal". There is no change of topic...I've asked you repeatedly the same question. You've been repeatedly given FACTS that refute your claim....you can save a little face with anyone that reads this forum with just ONE example from ANY lawyer that can show the return policies of ANY retailer is "illegal".
Truth is...you can't do it.....all this bullshit you've been spouting is YOUR opinion!......period.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are at least half educated....there is an old line that you can't teach brains.......start using yours....the dots will eventually connect.
 
Unregistered said:
Just answer the question.
Click to expand...

Wow! Where did THAT come from??

Unregistered said:
....name one law suit against a major realtor.....any single one....including Canadian Tire where their return policy is deemed "illegal".
Click to expand...

Unregistered said:
I've asked you repeatedly the same question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, were you asking me, before? It sounded like you had a discussion going with someone else on this side-topic. I wasn't really following.

I could see you getting all upset if I'd claimed there were such a case, and was now refusing to back that up. I know how annoying it is when people do that ("zing!"). But, that's not the case here at all.

Besides, what makes you think it’s up to me to answer your question? Why should I do more of your research for you?

Here’s an idea: why don’t YOU name a lawsuit where the policy was deemed “LEGAL”?

Unregistered said:
There is no change of topic...
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a change of topic.

You have been attempting to change it from, "What do the laws in Ontario say about retailers being required to provide a refund for a defective item?", and make it into, "Are there any lawsuits ..." (etc.)

So, "Trick #4 - Changing the subject".

But, hey, I'll play along.

What is your purpose in trying to pull off this topic change? Do you think if I’m unable to answer your question, then nobody has to pay attention to Ellen Roseman, the other consumer’s rights activists, the lawyers whose sites I’ve quoted, and the wording of the laws themselves? That would be so nice for you and the stores.

Unregistered said:
You've been repeatedly given FACTS that refute your claim....
Click to expand...
Am I missing something, here?

I’ve scanned through your writings. The only verifiable “fact” I could find from you on this subject is your link to the London BBB’s site.

I'm going to have to call this one "Trick #2 - Misrepresented facts", based on the term "repeatedly".

Anyway, I’m not going to discard the avalanche of evidence I’ve already found, just because of an ambiguous interpretation at one site. That’s just not reasonable.

Unregistered said:
you can save a little face with anyone that reads this forum with just ONE example from ANY lawyer that can show the return policies of ANY retailer is "illegal".
Click to expand...

Based on the general feedback I’ve seen, I don’t need to ‘save face’ on this forum.

Could this be an example of "Trick #1 - Unsubstantiated claims"? I'll let it slide.


Unregistered said:
Truth is...you can't do it.....
Click to expand...

I really haven't looked into it. For all I know, I can, but just haven't, yet.

Now, then. How would you ever substantiate the above claim? I guess you'd have to do an exhaustive search of all the cases, to show that there are no examples. And you obviously have not done so.

No escaping this one. A clear "Trick #1 - Unsubstantiated claims".

Unregistered said:
all this bullshit you've been spouting is YOUR opinion!......period.
Click to expand...

No, I've made it clear that these are the opinions of the reputable sources I’ve been quoting.

Another example of "Trick #2 - Misrepresented facts."

Are you hoping to trick people into thinking these are only one anonymous person’s opinion, and so they can be safely disregarded?

Unregistered said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are at least half educated....there is an old line that you can't teach brains.......
Click to expand...
Are you suddenly deciding to ‘play nice’?

Unregistered said:
start using yours....the dots will eventually connect.
Click to expand...
Oops. I guess not.

----

Final score:

Trick #1 - Unsubstantiated claims: 1 instance.
Trick #2 - Misrepresented facts: 2 instances.
Trick #4 - Changing the subject: 1 instance

Actual content:

- An appeal for me to do more of your research for you.
- A random insult. Maybe that should be Trick #5?
 
Allow me to post a retraction:

Unregistered said:
DavidLer, ....still waiting for that 1 example of a successful lawsuit against a retailer for their "illegal" return policy
Click to expand...

DavidLeR said:
There are many other examples, such as asking me about lawsuits, when I've never even entered the discussion
Click to expand...

DavidLeR said:
I'm sorry, were you asking me, before?
Click to expand...

It looks like I lost track, there, of who was falsely accusing me of what.

To be fair, I should ding myself with, "Misrepresented facts: 1 instances." Maybe just a half of one?

In my defence, I still don't know why Unregistered is directing so much hostility at me on this side-topic.

Perhaps I just represent all those 'consumers' they seem to dislike so much?
 
DavidLer
you have cleverly accused others of changing the subject, posting irrelevant information etc.... that's fine. i will gladly connect my posting of yesterday to today for you.
let's first examine you post #46 of this thread. One of several in which you claimed canadiantire invented repair only for items. in several other posts you used the term "illegal" to describe the repair option at store discretion.

is it true david you made those claims?


good, now we are back on track.
yesterday at 10:27 & 10:46 i posted links (as requested) to canadian retailer operators at lowe's, walmart, home depot and johndeere (who is both a retailer and a manufacturer) specifically citing their repair warranties. in some cases they even go as far as making the customer PAY for the option to bypass repair and have it replaced. nice warranty, pay more lol. all of the above state that parts and labour are covered for x years. that's a repair warranty. some of them state things like may take up to 14 days to repair and return the item. some will repair or give you a REFURBISHED (not new) item.

there is zero interpretation to be made in any of those. they are written plain as day, black and white, nothing left to guess about. retailers repair power equipment, not refund the money.

now, haven proven without interpretation that it is not canadiantire only who has these repair policies for power equipment i ask you the following questions.

1) did the three postings specifically address your claim that ct and only ct making illegal repair policies?

2) do you believe the policies are still illegal and if so then are you claiming each of these retailers to be engaging in illegal practices?
or
3) are you willing to be influenced into understanding that there are no laws being broken with repair only policies?

i find it rather entertaining that your most recent posts only address unregistered and completely avoid or ignore the information i have posted.
 

i best address this as well

1 - claims have been substantiated in my most recent posting. my claim is that the repair only policy is not unique to the tire. i have proven that
2 - facts are the facts. the links provided are links to the canadian arms of retailers with their canadian policies and contracts stated. that's factual, no interpretation.
3 - false accusations - not sure which ones
4- changing the subject - i posted your words that it was a ct invention to repair items under warranty and your words that the policy is illegal. no paraphrasing, no interpretation, no guessing, no word twisting. copy and paste what you typed. i then directly addressed those claims. that was not a changed subject, it was your claim, my direct rebuttal


be sure to tip your waitress, i'll be here all week
 
Dear ‘lawguy’:

You seem to think I “requested” something from you. I’m pretty sure I’d remember. Oh, well.

Your contributions to the discussion on retailers' refund/exchange/repair policies hasn’t consisted to any links about, well, retailers' refund/exchange/repair policies. That’s why I believe you are just trying to change the topic.

Maybe you are just really, really confused? For instance, your links to Lowes and Walmart are just extended warranties.

Now, this might seem like a strange idea, but hear me out. Are you trying to look exclusively at a store’s extend warranty, and then somehow infer the retailer’s policies on refunds/exchanges/repairs from that? Wouldn’t it just be easier to find the actual policy? That’s the only thing that would be really convincing.

Oh, and regarding that Walmart extended warranty? You wrote, “repair or replace with new or refurbished AT OUR OPTION (clearly stated)”. But if you actually read it, there are two types of extended warranties: the “Extended Service Repair Plan” and the “Product Replacement Plan”. The customer can decide to purchase one or the other. There are also other things you misunderstood in there, too; you can’t just do a search for “option”.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to put that down as “Trick #2 - Misrepresented facts”, big time.

It was fascinating to read the product page about the Home Depot lawn mower, which can be ordered online from their web store. Oh, but did you happen to stumble upon anything about their policies while you were there? Just trying to keep things on-topic.

I found the link to the manufacturer’s web site on John Deere also very interesting. But you aren’t suggesting they are a “major retailer” are you? If so, can you quote some data to back that up? How many Canadians shop at their local John Deere store on a weekly basis, that kind of thing.

Oh, and you ‘forgot’ to post a link to the John Deere retails store’s refund/exchange/repair policy. I’m sure you’ll find it soon.

Near the end of this fascinating (but irrelevant) list of links, you wrote:
lawguy said:
there is no credible way to refute this evidence. it clearly states these retailers repair not replace at their discretion.
Click to expand...

Um, maybe I’m a little slow on this snowy Sunday afternoon, but can you please be more specific about how these extended warranty, product pages and manufacturer’s warranty pages have any relevance to the retailer’s policies on refunds, exchanges and repairs? Thanks!

lawguy said:
i rest my case
Click to expand...

Sorry – what case was that, again?
 
i can not possibly spell things out clearer.

your claim is canadian tire invented a repair policy for certain items under warranty and that it is illegal.

read each of those links i provided. it clearly states the warranty will cover parts and labour (ie. - they repair it) for x years for things such as chainsaws, leafblowers, mowers, pressurewashers etc....

it further states on some of them that extended warranties are available for purchase that will provide a replacement product instead of a repair. you must pay for this option and even still it may be a refurb not a new replacement.

there's no easier way to put it man. other companies repair items under warranty for customers. same as canadian tire does. it's not illegal. your claim that ct invented the policy and that it's illegal is wrong.
i can find probably a dozen posts of yours where you've made that statement. so i'm stating back, with the proof that every major retailer repairs power equipment under warranty.

i am not inferring john deere is a major retailer, they are however a retailer of said products, and they repair warranty items. so unless major retailers and small retailers have different laws, which they don't, you're still wrong.

there is no topic change. there is no misunderstanding. there is no dancing around the subject. there is proof and facts as you always request. it is direct proof that other companies in the same business selling the same products as ct have the same procedure.
 
Poor DavidLer....kind of getting shot down on your "theory" on a regular basis now. I particularly like it when you play deflect and restate in your posts. Unless you believe that everyone that reads this post is too lazy to read various retailers return policies, or the sign that most of them post in their stores, or on their receipt, or in their owners manual, why do you think you have so little support. Funny how my WeedEater weedwacker had a big STOP sign inside the box...."Do Not Return to Retailer....Call 1-800." Isn't that kind of illegal of them? I bought it at Pro Hardware.....You think they slipped it in there to piss me off as a consumer....those cheating bastards!
Again...the reason you have so little support in your "theory" or opinion, as I like to call it, is that it just doesn't hold water.
this is all getting kind of lame.....you calling it black when it is white, and then others showing you that it really is white....and then you going, nah...it's black.
 
there was some diesel left in my backhoe so i decided to bury some more

let's move away from the usual suspects, canadiantire, depot etc...
here's a copy of warranty policy for playstation 3 from sony.

PlayStation®3 | Warranties | Support - PlayStation.com
Sony Computer Entertainment America ("SCEA") warrants to the original purchaser that the PS3™ hardware shall be free from material defects in material and workmanship for a period of one (1) year from the original date of purchase (the "Warranty Period"). If the product is determined to be materially defective during the Warranty Period, your sole remedy and SCEA's sole and exclusive liability shall be limited to the repair or replacement of this product with a new or refurbished product at SCEA's option. (the first paragraph copied to save you time)

before you jump in i am aware this is the us website...scroll to the bottom it says this warranty applies in canada and the u.s.

*********************
Apple
Apple - One Year Limited Warranty - Worldwide - Apple Store (Canada)
Apple’s warranty obligations are limited to the terms set forth below: Apple, as defined below, warrants this Apple-branded hardware product against defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of retail purchase by the original end-user purchaser (“Warranty Period”). If a hardware defect arises and a valid claim is received within the Warranty Period, at its option, Apple will either (1) repair the hardware defect at no charge, using new or refurbished replacement parts, or (2) exchange the product with a product that is new or which has been manufactured from new or serviceable used parts and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product, or (3) refund the purchase price of the product
(first paragraph copied again)
note several things - at its option Apple will (not consumer choice, seller choice) repair, replace or refund. repair may include refurb parts.

*************************
Milwaukee Electric Tool - Power Tool Warranty
MILWAUKEE POWER TOOLS
Every MILWAUKEE power tool (including cordless product – tool, battery pack(s) - see separate & distinct CORDLESS BATTERY PACK LIMITED WARRANTY statements & battery charger and Work Lights*) is warranted to the original purchaser only to be free from defects in material and workmanship. Subject to certain exceptions, MILWAUKEE will repair or replace any part on an electric power tool which, after examination, is determined by MILWAUKEE to be defective in material or workmanship for a period of five (5) years* after the date of purchase unless otherwise noted.
(applicable to canada and united states as noted at bottom of warranty page)

******************
LEATHERMAN (makers of knives and multi tools - high quality)
Leatherman Warranty: North America
If you are in Canada or the United States and you'd like to send your Leatherman product in for warranty repair, please download and complete the Warranty Return Form below. The form must be completed, signed and included with your product in order for us to process your warranty request.
(repair?) must be illegal

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

there you have it folks... me being a forceful prick on a sunday afternoon. ramming information down the throat of mr. davidler only for the purpose of my own self satisfaction i must admit lol

from electronics to powertools to knives, all warranties involving REPAIR, all at the discretion of the seller not the consumer.

now i ask again, are you 100% sure that repair warranties are illegal in canada?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Never shop Canadian tire Regent Ave Winnipeg
Replies
1
Views
5K
CT Challenger
C
J
Is Canadian Tire Putting Consumers at Risk and What You Can Do About It
Replies
0
Views
3K
jellie
J
J
Is Canadian Tire Putting Consumers at Risk and What You Can Do About It! Store #144 at 60 Elizabeth Avenue
Replies
1
Views
6K
CT Challenger
C
S
consumer relations and suggestions
Replies
2
Views
4K
CT Challenger
C
G
I SUED CANADIAN TIRE AND I HAD MY MONEY BACK - 3516 8th ave NE Calgary
Replies
2
Views
8K
KimKnott
K

Similar threads

G
I SUED CANADIAN TIRE AND I HAD MY MONEY BACK - 3516 8th ave NE Calgary
Replies
2
Views
8K
KimKnott
K
S
And I didn't expect such surprise from them...
Replies
1
Views
2K
CTH8R
C
G
Tempo 620 - Warranty Line does not answer
Replies
0
Views
6K
Guest-0249
G
Menu
Log in
Register