Fellow consumers:
Every once in a while, someone who thinks they represent Canadian Tire, does a little Googling, and thinks they've 'discovered' some new proof or other that consumers don't really have rights to refunds and exchanges.
If you've been following this tread for a while, you know that the first link provided by the CT Rep (and the 2nd one, too - they are identical), don't tell the whole story on this issue.
Regarding the BBB site, it has already been debunked, in this post:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...efenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html#post3773
(I'm sure we'll see soon be seeing that same old link to an Industry Canada site on refunds, too).
For obvious reasons, DO NOT go by what the store rep's tell you (they clearly have an agenda, and it isn't finding the truth).
Indeed, read for yourself. No need to go by any opinions that are expressed here, including those who will benefit when consumers don't know their rights.
Reliable links to objective sites on Consumer Protection Legislation from reputable sources can be found here:
"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613"
Please contact your Consumers' Ministry regarding your specific case.
By the way, in case you are interested, a list of frequently told CT Lies can be found here:
"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html"
The following post is intended to be a useful starting point:
"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613"
"Friends Don't Let Friends Shop At Canadian Tire"
Sure, the CTers have come up with one or 2 sites that don't say this clearly "refund required', but that doesn't mean it isn't true!
But the post in the Sale of Goods thread has many, many links to experts in the field who've stated clearly that a refund is required under Ontario law.
Plus its what the Minstry told me over the phone. About pressure washers.
A CTer saying they called and were told that CT can insist on a repair is just plain crap.
So is a CTer saying that some random retailer's mis-quoted web site 'proves' that consumers aren't entitled to a refund is just plain crap.
Just like crappy tire itself.
Fellow Consumers:
Well, if you want to, you can just accepts the accounts of the self-appointed CT Rep’s regarding consumer protection laws. Then you’ll be a “good customer”, not ask for a refund or exchange, and the very nice people at the store won’t issue a Trespass Order against you. After all, that link to the Future Shop policy on DVDs is very, very compelling.
On the other hand, you know you are probably being lied to by the CT Rep's, based on their track record on this site, and all the contrary evidence stacked against them. Still, it's an option. But one that might be 'leaving some money on the table', as they say, in your province.
Or, you can just accept the accounts of your fellow consumers, who have only your best interests at heart. If it really matters, though, I don't recommend that. Still, they have amassed a respectable volume of evidnence, which the CT Rep's seem none too happy about. Don't forget to check this web site, and others, for accounts of consumers how have succeeded in getting remedies through the legislation.
But in cases where it does really matter what the SOGA and the CPA say, it's a good idea to contact your Consumer's Ministry. Based on what I've heard from them with my own ears several times, you'll get a very different answer from what the CT Reps are claiming. Maybe it's because they asked about the legality of warranties? Maybe the Ministy is lying to consumers, but not to CT Rep's? Whatever the case, it's best to hear it for yourself.
Another idea is to read through the dozen-plus web sites written by reliable sources, that all say “refund for defective items”, and draw your own conclusions. The CT Rep’s would be ticked off at you, though. They only want you to look at the 1 or 2 sites that work to their benefit, even though those sites have incomplete and out-dated information. See the "Lies" list for details.
Now, if you are really interested, you might do some research on your own, and maybe even read the Acts yourself. The CT Rep’s have said ordinary consumers like us aren’t up to the task. But I think they are wrong about that, too.
But, if it really, really matters a lot, you should probably talk to a consumer rights lawyer. They can be expensive, but it can be worth it. Actually, there are several listed in the web sites. You know – the ones that say “refund for defective items’!
You have lots of choices – believing what the deceptive and deceitful CT Rep’s wrote is only one of them.
Fellow Consumers:
Well, if you want to, you can just accepts the accounts of the self-appointed CT Rep’s regarding consumer protection laws. Then you’ll be a “good customer”, not ask for a refund or exchange, and the very nice people at the store won’t issue a Trespass Order against you. After all, that link to the Future Shop policy on DVDs is very, very compelling.
On the other hand, you know you are probably being lied to by the CT Rep's, based on their track record on this site, and all the contrary evidence stacked against them. Still, it's an option. But one that might be 'leaving some money on the table', as they say, in your province.
Or, you can just accept the accounts of your fellow consumers, who have only your best interests at heart. If it really matters, though, I don't recommend that. Still, they have amassed a respectable volume of evidnence, which the CT Rep's seem none too happy about. Don't forget to check this web site, and others, for accounts of consumers how have succeeded in getting remedies through the legislation.
But in cases where it does really matter what the SOGA and the CPA say, it's a good idea to contact your Consumer's Ministry. Based on what I've heard from them with my own ears several times, you'll get a very different answer from what the CT Reps are claiming. Maybe it's because they asked about the legality of warranties? Maybe the Ministy is lying to consumers, but not to CT Rep's? Whatever the case, it's best to hear it for yourself.
Another idea is to read through the dozen-plus web sites written by reliable sources, that all say “refund for defective items”, and draw your own conclusions. The CT Rep’s would be ticked off at you, though. They only want you to look at the 1 or 2 sites that work to their benefit, even though those sites have incomplete and out-dated information. See the "Lies" list for details.
Now, if you are really interested, you might do some research on your own, and maybe even read the Acts yourself. The CT Rep’s have said ordinary consumers like us aren’t up to the task. But I think they are wrong about that, too.
But, if it really, really matters a lot, you should probably talk to a consumer rights lawyer. They can be expensive, but it can be worth it. Actually, there are several listed in the web sites. You know – the ones that say “refund for defective items’!
You have lots of choices – believing what the deceptive and deceitful CT Rep’s wrote is only one of them.
The only thing stacked against us is your OPINIONS, and a couple of lines out of two very large comprehensive Acts.
just a quick question
the canadian tire people seem to know a lot about laws and rules and stuff
isn’t something illegal if theres a law against it?
I mean isnt that what illegal means - against the law?
so if theres a law saying someone has to do something, isnt it illegal for them not to do it?
or are these some laws that nobody has to follow?
how do we know if it will be illegal to not follow a particular law?
and how do we know if its legal to NOT do what a law says we have to do?
just trying to understand how this all works.
thank you ct people!
just because a couple of raving lunatics on here say something is illegal, doesn't mean it's illegal...they will be quick to point out they aren't lawyers or experts. Let me know when you find some expert that says Canadian Tire specifically, or any other retailer, for that matter, has an illegal policy....good luck with that, and p.s......how many personalities are you going to post under today?
yeah that's exactly what i mean.
i dont want to rely on any lunatics or people who arent experts.
the ct people say they know all about rules and laws and stuff.
so i was kind of hoping for an answer - not a bunch more questions for me, lol.
anyway, i'm hoping someone from ct can tell me.
is something illegal if theres a law against it?
doesn't illegal mean against the law?
if theres a law saying someone has to do something, isnt it illegal for them not to do it?
how do we know if it will be illegal to not follow a particular law?
and how do we know if its legal to NOT do what a law says we have to do?
oh, and now im also wondering
do the laws apply to some groups, but not to others? im thinking say, the laws of a particular province. can some people in that province ignore some of the laws? is that legal?
also do we have to say, like, 'murder is illegal for guys named paul' and then 'murder is illegal for guys named robert', and so on for everybody individually?
or, can we just say, 'murder is illegal' and that goes for everybody'?
just trying to understand how this all works!
thanks in advance for your answers!
ok now we are getting somewhere.
i asked, is something illegal if theres a law against it? doesnt illegal mean against the law?
im hearing from the ct people that yes, something can be called illegal just because of the law – ‘against a law is illegal’.
i also asked, if theres a law saying someone has to do something, isnt it illegal for them not to do it? and how do we know if its legal to NOT do what a law says we have to do?
so if im understanding the ct people right, if a law says someone has to do something, then its illegal if they don’t do it. is that right?
i also asked about which laws apply to who. im interested mainly in ontario.
im hearing that there are retail laws and governing regulations in each province, so ontario has their own.
so would the ct people say that the sales of goods act and the cp act count? or would you say these don’t apply to retailers in ontario?
ok - just one more question.
i guess it would be very convincing if there had been charges or a guilty verdict or something.
but if theres a law that all ontario retailers have to follow, and a retailer isnt following the law, then isnt that enough to say its illegal? cause ‘against a law is illegal’?
i mean does it really matter whether or not ct or any other retailer had been found guilty of anything with these acts and laws and regulations?
but like i said it would be very convincing if there were cases like that.
again, just trying to understand how this works.
thanks for the answers so far.
ok now we are getting somewhere.
i asked, is something illegal if theres a law against it? doesnt illegal mean against the law?
im hearing from the ct people that yes, something can be called illegal just because of the law – ‘against a law is illegal’.
i also asked, if theres a law saying someone has to do something, isnt it illegal for them not to do it? and how do we know if its legal to NOT do what a law says we have to do?
so if im understanding the ct people right, if a law says someone has to do something, then its illegal if they don’t do it. is that right?
i also asked about which laws apply to who. im interested mainly in ontario.
im hearing that there are retail laws and governing regulations in each province, so ontario has their own.
so would the ct people say that the sales of goods act and the cp act count? or would you say these don’t apply to retailers in ontario?
ok - just one more question.
i guess it would be very convincing if there had been charges or a guilty verdict or something.
but if theres a law that all ontario retailers have to follow, and a retailer isnt following the law, then isnt that enough to say its illegal? cause ‘against a law is illegal’?
i mean does it really matter whether or not ct or any other retailer had been found guilty of anything with these acts and laws and regulations?
but like i said it would be very convincing if there were cases like that.
again, just trying to understand how this works.
thanks for the answers so far.
It would be very convincing if CT or any other retailer had been found guilty of having an illegal policy.
I supposed in some people's opinion, a court case would be "convincing".
But that's not at all necessary, according to the CT Rep, who claims to be "quite versed" in these matters.
"Against the law is illegal", they confirmed. Yes, a law is indeed needed - but a court case is not.
(After all, there are myriad reasons why such a case has not yet been referenced on this humble forum. The lack of a suitable law is just one hypothetical reason.)
Yes, such a case would merely be 'icing on the cake', so to speak. Nice to have, but not required.
So, where (or, where?) might we find some law or other, to compare against CT's policies???
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/general-canadian-tire-complaints-chat/707-sale-goods-act.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?