"Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange

[DavidLeR]

A Canadian Tire policy that seems to cause a large number of complaints is their “Repair Only Warranty”.

The name doesn’t sound so bad. It seems like it’s only telling you something about the manufacturer’s warranty.

After all, how could a “Repair Only Warranty” doesn't sound a whole lot worse than a ‘full replacement warranty’. And don’t many manufacturers provide ‘repair-only’ warranties?

How come people are so upset, if such warranties are fairly standard?

The problem is with CT’s special rules for refunds and exchanges for "Repair Only” products.

If you are diligent, and read the CT web site http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/Navi...sLinks/Section1/76ReturnRefunds_Exchanges.jsp and also the big sign at Customer Service, it sounds like you have 90 days to “return an item for exchange or refund”.

The web site and the big sign don’t even mention “Repair Only” at all.

If you decide the item doesn’t really fit your needs, or you just want a different model, guess how long you have to get a refund, if it’s a “Repair Only Warranty”?

90 days? Nope.

14 days? 7 days? 1 day? 1 minute?

Nope, you have zero time to change your mind. Once you’ve paid for it, you own it. End of story.

How about a product that doesn’t even work, and therefore you want to exchange it for one that does work? Can you at least “return an item for exchange” like the web site and signs say?

Nope. There are no exchanges, either. Too bad if the box you selected has a defective item inside it. It’s your problem now.

It works like a ‘No Refunds, No Exchanges' item (i.e., like a ‘final sale’ or ‘as-is’ item). It just happens to also have a warranty, and the warranty only covers repairs (i.e., not exchange).

What looks like a simple statement about the warranty hides some nasty policies about refunds and exchanges.

Why don't they come right out and make these as "No Refund, No Exchange", instead of distracting you with the warranty? I suppose because fewer people would buy them if they knew.

From what I’ve heard, the ‘No Refund, No Exchange, Repair Only Warranty’ seems to be applied mainly to gasoline-powered equipment, but some electric equipment seems to be included, too.

What can you do if you’ve fallen into the “Repair Only” trap, and you are stuck with a defective product that you dont' want?

You may choose to settle for the terms of the manufacturer's warranty, and arrange a repair. Then maybe sell it on Kijiji or at a yard sale.

However, Ontario retailers are required by law to provide a refund for a defective item, if the customer asks for one, regardless of any store policy or manufacturer’s warranty.

This applies even to products with the "Repair Only” (i.e., "No Refund, No Exchange, Repair Only”) Warranty” policy.

I strongly suggest making a call to the Ministry of Consumer Protection at 1-800-889-9768. They can quote the appropriate sections of the applicable laws, help you apply those laws to get a refund, and assist you in filing a complaint.

You can also find their web site here:

"Ministry of Consumer Services - Consumer Protection, Consumer Education, Consumer Information"

My related post on the Sale of Goods Act and on the Consumer Protection Act may be of assistance. It is located here:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/a...-ave-ne-calgary-cant-returned-3.html#post2867"

---

It is interesting to contrast CT with major retailers, who generally will provide a refund during a fixed period of time, if you change your mind or it is not working.

If they don’t provide a refund, most retailers will at least provide an exchange for an item that is not working.

This is true of basically everything they sell, except for certain items that most stores will not refund or exchange (such as cut material or custom orders).

-----

An interesting side-topic is whether Canadian Tire is the only major Canadian retailer to use a ‘No Refund/No Exchange/Repair Only Warranty’ policy on any products.

I have reviewed a number of web sites and visited some stores, and have found no other major Ontario retailers who have such a policy. In fact, I generally have to explain to them what a “Repair Only” item is, and that it is no-refund/no-exchange.

Therefore, I would say that Crappy Tire is the only major retailer to use such a policy.

Taking this a step further, I have found no other stores in Canada who have used such a policy prior to its introduction by CT. On that basis, I would say that Crappy Tire has "invented" the "Repair Only" policy, as well as being unique in using it. Please correct me if you know the actual inventor.


Another side note is legalities. If a law requires someone to perform a specific act (such as providing a refund), it is illegal for them to refuse to do so. Any policy that requires, or even allows, a person to behave in an illegal manner can be deemed an illegal policy.

-----

I hope that this post is of assistance to consumers who are seeking to obtain a refund (or even just an exchange) for a defective item, or want to learn more of the pitfalls of shopping at Crappy Tire.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

dear broken record

why don't you answer the very specific questions before you? instead you babble on about what is right and what is wrong and who did what first (without proof of who started repair warranties first)

i am also still waiting on the document or specific section in any act law or legislation that says customer may choose the remedy.

incidentally I did a little homework yesterday. i called a local canadian tire, said that i'd purchased a....wait for it....simoniz electric pressure washer and needed the warranty details faxed to my office. they did so right away. here's the very first line in the document further proof that your claim of zero help, zero return as soon as you pay is what i like to call......wrong.

Warranted against defects in workmanship and materials as follows when accompanied by proof of purchase.
- 30-day over-the-counter replacement warranty
- 2-year repair warranty
- 90-day warranty on included accessories

now, nowhere in the law, legislation, act etc... does it say this is illegal. the cpa, sga etc... would only apply if canadian tire refused to honour these terms.

i might also point out that in post 110 of our favourite evolve treadmill thread, you posted the following statement.

“Regardless of a store's policy, if the goods you have purchased were misrepresented or are defective, you have every reason to expect the store to provide a suitable substitute or refund, or make proper repairs. The laws in Ontario require a store to make good in such cases.”

and i quote.....or make proper repairs. make proper repairs. make proper repairs. wait a second, is the BBB suggesting retailers do something illegal?

make proper repairs. make proper repairs. make proper repairs

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

one more thing
your claim is that the "repair policy seems to create a lot of complaints".

please tell me, now that you've added statistical analysis to your degree in law.... how many complaints does canadian tire get regarding this policy? facts and figures please, anecdotal evidence need not apply

 

[HandyMan]

didn't this refund thing get all settled already over in the treadmill section?

you an that law fella keep ignoring the first 7 or 8 site that all say refund and get your money back and so on. seems legit to me.

instead your harpin on the one that you like better.

don't see how that makes the others 6 or 7 go away.

if i'm going to buy something i want it to work right off the bat, and keep workin to boot.

not have to ship it off to be fixed first. maybe i got a driveway fulla snow or a lawn thats overgrown in the summer.

especily if its a long drive into town.

the davidler fella sure does seem to have his nads in a knot over this.

but the repair only deal?

I can smells it all the way across the field.

 

[CT Challenger]

one more thing
your claim is that the "repair policy seems to create a lot of complaints".

please tell me, now that you've added statistical analysis to your degree in law.... how many complaints does canadian tire get regarding this policy? facts and figures please, anecdotal evidence need not apply

Plenty of complaints right on this site. Lots on complaintsboard.com too. Also smartcanucks.ca and redflagdeals.com.

Don't need a statistical analysis to know CT sucks.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Plenty of complaints right on this site. Lots on complaintsboard.com too. Also smartcanucks.ca and redflagdeals.com.

Don't need a statistical analysis to know CT sucks.

yep, lots of sites with complaints about Walmart, Home Depot, Costco, Sears, Zellers, and almost every retailer in Canada and the U.S. too...including the sites you listed. What does it prove? That 100% customer satisfaction is unattainable in the retail sector....did you not know this? It matters not what any store's policies are, there are those that won't like them.....the answer is simple, don't shop there. But as I said....find me one retailer out there that has ZERO customer complaints. If you're not a fan of capitalism, feel free to move to Libya.....you know, with their excellent return policies and all.....hahaha.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

If you decide the item doesn’t really fit your needs, or you just want a different model, guess how long you have to get a refund, if it’s a “Repair Only Warranty”?

90 days? Nope.

14 days? 7 days? 1 day? 1 minute?

Nope, you have zero time to change your mind. Once you’ve paid for it, you own it. End of story.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. DavidLer, in all your pontificating, you fail to mention that there is legal protection for both buyers and SELLERS. I think that you don't believe that sellers should be protected, Am I incorrect in my assessment?
You seem to intimate that a customer should be able to change their minds if something "doesn't meet their needs" or if they decide that "they just want another model". How would this protect the seller from someone that thought they could try a product out or borrow it for the weekend or finish a one time job and realize they don't need the product any more? I guess they could just claim it to be defective, and under your rationale, would be entitled to a refund. But guess what, stores caught on and policies were put in place to prevent this type of fraud. I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but people lie. I believe that a lot of people on this site lie or only tell part of the truth.
If you buy something and you decide you don't want it, then you should sell it on your own.
"change your mind"......Please grow up.

 

[HandyMan]

sounds like a pretty rotten deal for the customer.

ct knows these units are crap but agrees to stock em in the store anyhow.

knowin theyll get a lotta complaints they make a deal so's they can say no refunds no exchanges.

but they dont bother putting nothing like that on their web site.

customers in the store lookin at the mowers an washers an whatnot. dont see no signs exceptin maybe Repair Only Warranty. maybe no signs atall. theys thinking the 90 day rule still applies. no reason to think otherwise.

i suppose at the checkout maybe theres somethin onna back a the receipt but nobody says nothin.

then course the darn thing likely dont work worth a darn when they getter home cause they's such junk to begin with as ct obviously knew when the put it onna shelf.

so the poor customer takes her back, maybe drivin in a long ways back in from outta town.

thats when they get the news that their brand spankin new machine in junk and ct aint gonna stand behind it attal cause of the side deal they done may with them that made it.

then people like this lawguy and unregistered fella make it sound like the customers at fault and just tryin to cheat ct whos oh so innocent. sound like a lotta horse droppins to these old ears.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Handyguy, that's not what's being said at all....doesn't appear you are comprehending the conversation and not making a whole lot of sense either.

 

[Guest-0427]

You seem to intimate that a customer should be able to change their minds if something "doesn't meet their needs" or if they decide that "they just want another model".

nobody has said there is a law that mandates this. if ct doesn't like their own policy then they are free to change it.

How would this protect the seller from someone that thought they could try a product out or borrow it for the weekend or finish a one time job and realize they don't need the product any more? I guess they could just claim it to be defective, and under your rationale, would be entitled to a refund.

nobody has said that customers should be allowed to defaud stores. that's still no excuse for the store to try defrauding innocent customers.

But guess what, stores caught on and policies were put in place to prevent this type of fraud. I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but people lie. I believe that a lot of people on this site lie or only tell part of the truth.

we only have to read the bs written by CT ME, LawGuy and Unregistered to see that people who try to defend ct lie here all the time.

If you buy something and you decide you don't want it, then you should sell it on your own.
"change your mind"......Please grow up.

see above. if ct doesn't like their own policies, then they should change them. period. the stores and you need to grow up and stop whining about customers.

speaking of customers, you ct defenders sure don't seem to like them much, even though you depend on them for your very survival. no wonder you implement policies designed to cheat them.

 

[DavidLeR]

I don't pretend to be an expert in the retail sector (or in law or statistics, either, by the way). In fact I've never worked in retail at all. I have, however, been a consumer for many years, and know how a good store operates, and what makes a good return policy, from the customer's point of view.

The retailer's perspective is not as familiar to me as it is to the self-appointed CT Representatives who post so vociferously on this site (apparently, a few summers on the Returns Desk makes one a legal expert). So, I've recently been trying to see things from the store's point of view.

Based on things I've read (here and elsewhere), it appears that retailers make arrangements with manufacturers regarding things such as refunds, exchanges and warranties. As you know, I am especially interested in refunds for defective goods.

Apparently, CT has entered into agreements with some manufacturers such that the manufacturer is not obligated to provide a refund to the store if an item turns out to be defective.

With this in mind, I can see how a store would be reluctant to provide a refund to a customer who was unlucky enough to pick a package containing a defective item. If the store provided a refund to the customer, the manufacturer would refuse to provide a matching refund to the store, leaving the store 'holding the bag' for the defective item.

This raises the question of why the store would be so foolish as to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. Is it because the goods can be purchased at a lower price under these terms? If so it is plainly greed on the part of the store. Does the store simply hope to side-step the expense of processing a refund? It seems a small price to pay to retain customers.

Regardless of any reasons CT may have had in making such a fool-hardy arrangement with a manufacturer, there should be some ways for the stores to avoid being stuck with defective items, so that they are less reluctant to provide reasonable refunds to customers who deserve one.

For instance, the store could simply refuse to stock the items that fall under these ridiculous refund arrangements, since they know they will be faced with angry consumers demanding a refund.

Another idea might be to renegotiate the arrangement with the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer provides refunds to the store (or at least exchanges) for out-of-the-box defects.

Any similar measures would protect the store from having to 'eat' the cost of a manufacturing defect.

In any case, the only option that should not be pursued, is to demand that the innocent customer bear the full cost and inconvenience of trying to obtain a refund (or even an exchange or repair), simply because of the absurd arrangement that CT voluntarily entered into with a manufacturer.

Why should the customer have to pay for CT's dumb mistakes?

Luckily, consumers (at least in Ontario, and presumably other provinces), have finally been supported by Consumer Protection legislation that defines the sale of a defective item as a misrepresentation on the part of the retailer, and allows the customer to cancel the 'consumer agreement' (i.e., purchase transaction) and obtain a refund from the retailer.

Now, it is up to CT to figure out how to get their money back from the manufacturer.

Whatever, as long as they leave the innocent customer out of it.

 

[Angry CT Guy]

Finally? The consumer protection act has been around for many years, with the latest version updated in 2002. This is quite the about face from DavidLer.....apparently CT and other retailers are no longer doing something illegal....now they are just stupid. The "arrangements" entered into with manufacturers is at the beset of the manufacturer. After a prolonged period during the late 90's and last decade, manufacturers tested return items for actual defects in manufacturing....the result was that most defective items were not defective at all.....this is from such brand names as pioneer, Sony, moffat, moen, Briggs and Stratton, Tecumseh, MTD, Minn Kota, JVC, Poulan, Husquvarna, and so on and so on. People come to expect higher quality for well known brand names, and as such these companies have stringent testing, and quality control processes. They don't have a lot of defects....they do have a number of people that didn't quite follow the proper instructions, returning items as defective.....they changed their process with vendors to keep unnecessary costs down....smart businesses do that.

You are correct, some retailers (Walmart) won't deal with companies that dictate terms.....it's well documented what the Walmart effect does to a manufacturer. But there are customers that want a brand name item, they trust the quality, plus there is recourse for a defective item....it's just not right on the spot like many other items.

Just to drive home the fact that DavidLer is misinformed, or under informed.....the customer NEVER bears the cost of obtaining a refund or repair or exchange. If an item is defective, the store pays those costs.

I like the flip flop, but your credibility sure has taken a beating.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

DavidLER - glad to see you are seeing things from all sides. there are several things to keep in mind in relation to your post. the store does not have the option to sell or not sell the items and the store does not enter into an agreement with the manufacturer. the corporation does this on behalf of all stores. the store has to stock the items that are advertised.

with a gas powered warranty repair item nobody gets left holding the bag. it gets repaired, customer gets it back. they are inconvenienced for a few days, especially if its prime season. same deal if its home depot item or wherever. the repair is the warranty.
no different then an automobile repair... it goes in, see you in a day or two, its repaired, you found another way to work or school or what have you.

 

[Guest-0276]

facts and figures please, anecdotal evidence need not apply

Funny that's all you've given plus your weak opinions. Are you that stupid of a woman?

Specific cases with 'CPA', both you and unregistered requested as you were so sure none existed were, given only to be dismissed because you were proven to be wrong. You don't bring proof to the table. All you've done is run your mouth and give anecdotal evidence, and stupid opinions yourself. No back up, no common sense, You're just low paygrade clerk with a scanner and a mop.

 

[Guest-0276]

The "arrangements" entered into with manufacturers is at the beset of the manufacturer. After a prolonged period during the late 90's and last decade, manufacturers tested return items for actual defects in manufacturing....the result was that most defective items were not defective at all......

Really? Where's your proof ? More bullshit from you? Since you're so big on asking others for statistics from qualified sources, prove it! What's the number of tested 'defective items' that would warrant such an onerous burden on consumers? you can't even get the list because it doesn't exist. Or get the contract you're harping on. This is just another underhanded money grab for CT.

(Walmart) won't deal with companies that dictate terms.....it's well documented what the Walmart effect does to a manufacturer. But there are customers that want a brand name item, they trust the quality, plus there is recourse for a defective item....it's just not right on the spot like many other items.

Wow, on the spot recourse for a defective item...what isn't there to get. Maybe that's one of the reasons why they pulled in over $400 Billion

Walmartstores.com: Investor Relations - Investors

....the customer NEVER bears the cost of obtaining a refund or repair or exchange.

Where have I heard this lie before? So people are happily keeping their busted siminoz washers, paying outrageous restocking fee's and why you have a database for tracking 'excess' returns and denying those people. So the customer never ever ever bears the cost of a refund eh....Big fucking lie.

I like the flip flop, but your credibility sure has taken a beating.

You, the CT store owner or what ever you are lawguy have no credibility. Your facts are so easy to disprove.

 

[DavidLeR]

Luckily, consumers (at least in Ontario, and presumably other provinces), have finally been supported by Consumer Protection legislation that defines the sale of a defective item as a misrepresentation on the part of the retailer, and allows the customer to cancel the 'consumer agreement' (i.e., purchase transaction) and obtain a refund from the retailer.

Just to avoid any confusion: it is the latest version of the CPA (which only came into force in 2005) that makes it illegal for Canadian Tire to refuse a refund for a defective item.

And, it is only my interpretation that it is also dumb for CT to adopt an illegal, anti-customer policy. I'm sure they did the math, and decided it was more profitable to cheat their customers than to deal with them honestly, as the CT Rep's posting here continue to prove.

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

wrong again LER

it makes it illegal for a company not to "make good" (your terms as quoted from a previous post) on the terms of the purchase (repair, warranty or replace) .

no law stipulates how the seller should make good.

 

[DavidLeR]

A little more research on the BBB site.

It only mentions the BPA, which is now obsolete:

CanLII - Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18

Superceded by the CPA, enacted in 2002, in force in 2005.

Maybe back in the '90's no refund was required.

I'm glad the CPA was updated!

 

[Smart Consumer]

Does anyone else find it suspicious that both lawguy and unregistered claim to have as much knowledge of the inner workings of a Canadian Tire franchise as confessed store rep's CT_MANAGER and CT ME?

Yet they both claim over and over that they are merely trying to "help" and to "inform".

Plus the fact that they all tell the same lies, over and over again.

Including lies about what others have written, as if that will make those with pro-consumer tips less credible.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

[CT Me / Lawguy]

actually i know sweet fuck all about the inner workings of a canadian tire store. i know plenty about the inner workings of the legal system specifically as it relates to consumer law and the rights of consumers and sellers.

i haven't read everything from ct-me postings but he seems to understand the business and the financial aspects quite well and he claims to be an owner, i tend to believe him. ct-manager sounds like well, a ct manager. haven't seen him involved in any of the financial stuff related to the business, but seems to know quite a bit about the stuff on the floor

just my two cents