"Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange

[CTH8R]

And keep in mind, the BBB is one of the only sites (or even THE only?) we've seen that says a refund isn't required for a defect in Ontario. There were - what? - 20 or 30 OTHER sites, that all said refunds ARE required by law.

And what other province did we look at? Oh yeah! BC, just recently. And what did we find? Guess what! Refunds are required by law, there, too.

(Hey - I couldn't help but notice - The Moaner didn't find a single site that says for BC "no refund required for defective goods". Oh-oh!)

Yeah, some day, when I'm not too busy trimming my toe nails, or watching the sun set, I might just take a minute to examine the latest set of links that the devious Moaner1 posted.

I mean, they might actually contain some truth, mightn't they?

Or is it all just more mis-quotes by the Moaner?
Conveniently out-dated information for The Moaner to use against consumers?
Or just plain incorrect information (even if well-intended)?

Yeah, maybe the poor schmucks in Nova Scotia or Alberta really ARE getting the shaft, compared to BC and Ontario.

I suppose it could be true - I mean, each province has its own laws, after all.

Against the law in Ontario and BC, but not against the law in NS and AB?

Gee, I sure do hope it's against the law EVERYWHERE in Canada, for the sake of every Canadian consumer!

I'll check and see.

One of these days ...

 

[Owner 1]

Refunds, Exchanges & Returns - Ministry of Justice - Government of Saskatchewan


You sure can call 'em


More of that misleading misinformation provided by Owner 1. Oh wait this information is from ..... The Government lol

 

[CTH8R]

Yup, more misrepresentations, as predicted!

This government site is by the "Ministry of Justice", not the "Consumer's Ministry" (or similar for Saks).

Plus, it only discusses 'unwanted' goods! It says zero ("I mean, zero") about defective goods.

In fact, it only goes into details on "shoes or a sweater"!

Refunds, Exchanges & Returns

Sally bought a cashmere sweater for her mother's birthday gift, but it did not fit. When she returned it to the store for a refund they refused to give her money back.

In Saskatchewan, with few exceptions, if you purchase goods such as shoes or a sweater from a retailer, you do not have the right to return them for a refund. The sales transaction is a legal, binding agreement and cannot be broken. The item cannot be returned simply because you have changed your mind.

The store must decide if it will provide consumers with a cash refund, exchange of goods or credit slip. This is usually outlined in a store policy. Store policies vary so you should ask before you buy. Some sellers will allow refunds but may charge a restocking fee. This is a fee for putting the article back on the shelf.​

And, hey - what's, this? Allow me to highlight this little tidbit:

In Saskatchewan, with few exceptions, if you purchase goods such as shoes or a sweater from a retailer, you do not have the right to return them for a refund.​

Gee, I wonder what those "exceptions" are? Could them be maybe ..... defects???


I have to say, I lost a lot of faith in this 'useful' page when I read this little bit of advice, which would apply to every bag of plant seeds, erasers, and can of STP you buy:

It is a good idea to ask the clerk to write the store policy on the bill and have it dated and signed.​

Yeah, that's pretty realistic - CT claims that every single one of their 10 gazillion SKUs has its own, unique and one-of-a-kind return policy!


And, I have to congratulate The Moaner on yet again stooping to mis-representing what is on the sites they provide links for.


Yup, that sunset sure does look nice - I think I'll gaze a little longer, rather than dig into any of those other links that were provided ...

 

[CTH8R]

And, can I call 'em?

OOOOhhhhh, Yeah! I CAN!

 

[1wildhorse]

thanks h8r.i must admit after running round like an idiot last week trying to find out which branch of the RCMP can even INVESTIGATE a complaint of corporate fraud against the individual(and drawing a blank),that i was in all honesty knackered.my brain was hurting,so i just said that mr owner MAY be correct.i also said that i wouldnt take his word for it though.so thanks for sinking his latest attempt at hmm shall we call it misrepresentation at best,or as i would like to call it FRAUD.
Canadian Criminal Laws Dealing With Fraud in Canada

Unfair nondisclosure is where a duty to disclose arises from

b) conduct by the accused creating a false impression in the victim's mind

if you are correct then we have evidence right here of an attempted fraud by mr owner,and he even said that of course the policy makers and lawyers KNOW the law.therefore this misrepresentation is willful and deliberate.

 

[1wildhorse]

so h8r if what you are saying is correct(and i reckon it probably is) then mr owner is trotting out some outdated crap,which was the case before the CPA came into effect.interesting.....

 

[1wildhorse]

well ive emailed an opposition MP.ive been in consultation with one of his aides over the last week,and agrees with me that there may be some substance here.so he requested that i contact the MP directly outlining my concerns.fingers crossed over the next couple of weeks we may get some definitive answers!

 

[CTH8R]

I found this link, recently.

It talks about an Ontario consumer who wants to sue a manufacturer "solely" (i.e. without also,suing the retailer) for a defective product, under the SOGA and CPA.

This is instead of the consumer just suing the retailer directy, as has been discussed here at length.

This is Interesting because there was some discussion from 1wildhorse about his lawsuit, when the retailer (Crappy Tire) tried to drag in the manufacturer. The posting says, "This can make a lawsuit more cumbersome and expensive with several parties at the table rather than just two". Sounds like a tactic!

Statutory Claims Against Manufacturers - Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration - Canada


Here's an interesting part: "Another option for the consumer is to sue the retailer for supplying defective goods".

Imagine that! An informed source saying that an Ontario consumer can sue a retailer for a defective product under the CPA and SOGA! And nothing was in there about 'repairs'!

 

[1wildhorse]

interesting that ct tried to pass the buck off to champion,who may have well had a legal argument that because they werent the direct seller,that SGA and CPA didnt apply to the purchase.thank god the judge threw out their attempt.still ongoing.gotta just be patient sometimes

 

[Nuke]

You are absolutely right. It just happened to me. I bought a bike pump and when I went to use it at the store the inferior valve fell off. I went back (5 minutes) to the counter to refund it and was sent to the sporting section where the staff who just sold me it told me that they don't do refunds and that it may be under warranty. After a tense standoff I did get another one of the inferior products to take home, but no refund. The reason I got the pump was my MEC pump of about 10 years valve had worn out. But when I told my story, a friend said MEC had a open return replacement policy and that is what I did. I brought the well worn pump into the store and was replaced with a brand new one. With a SMILE! FREE!

 

[1wildhorse]

welcome to the site nuke.spread the word lol.

 

[CTH8R]

Nuke: glad to hear you got a replacement from MEC - a store that somehow has a policy so good, that the Crappy People can't even come close to it.

Just a thought: you now have a brand new CT pump, and hopefully you stil have a receipt listing that product on it. According to the Crappy Policy, if it is unopened and unused (kinda redundant), then you have 90 days to get a refund, and you get it from any CT store you choose.

We've had some CT'ers on here saying if you do that, you will be convicted of fraud and go to jail guaranteed every time. But I think they just don't like giving refunds!

 

[1wildhorse]

he he that would be funny.make sure you do it at mr owners store to give him something to moan about....

 

[CTH8R]

The more I think about this, the more I like it: every Exchange can become a Refund, if you just keep the receipt and remember to never, ever open the box.

Now, if we can just figure out how to turn a "Repair Only" into an "Exchange Only", without having to file a lawsuit ...

 

[1wildhorse]

sounds like ur brain is gonna explode.....the dichotomy lol

 

[1wildhorse]

man these guys are like snakes....no matter which whack a mole you hit they will come up with yet another excuse as to why they are not responsible for the goods they sell.first they tried to pass the buck.then they tell me they accept no part of negligence if its found that they took the side of the manufacturor.and i quote the defendant relies and pleads on the provisions of the negligence act,RSBC,1996,c333,as amended.ooh this gets interesting.basically the negligence act says that a proportionate blame be attached to each party that has done wrong.if canadian tire accepts what the manu says as reasons why warranty is in theory breached,then they can argue that no fault can be attached to them.mr owner your entire company is reprehensible.if you seriously think that acting in this way is in your long term good,then you are the delusional one sir.your actions as a company are disgusting,and i will attempt to remove the brick from your so called wall.FUCK YOU.

 

[CTH8R]

I'm sure Mr. Moaner One will be very pleased that his beloved company's devious behaviour has frustrated you to the point of vulgarity.

Some righteous anger and their despicable conduct can be energizing, I recommend that you not descent into petty name-calling and cheap insults. We need to maintain 'the moral high-ground', and not sink to the ethical depths to which those like The Moaner have sunk.

Remain focused on the long-term goals: broader knowledge among consumers of the actual policies of this deceptive company, and of the rights we have as consumers.

 

[1wildhorse]

actually im quite pleased that his company has chosen to reply to the courts the way they have.their very reply is deceptive,and is an attempt to diminish their responsibilities under SOGA.im quite interested in hearing what the judge will say when i point this out to him.....

 

[CTH8R]

I wonder if judges are allowed to punish defendants who offer multiple, conflicting defences? Or are they supposed to address each defence on its own merits:

1 - We never sold you a generator.
2 - When we sold you the generator, it was working fine.
3 - When you used it, you broke it.
4 - When you brought it back, it was actuall working fine.
5 - Etc.

 

[1wildhorse]

we will find out i guess.im not going to show all my cards on the forum just yet,because the judge set aside the original default order and allowed st to defend themselves,and i dont want all my aces in public view obviously.but its certainly one of the ways that im thinking.....