This is shaping up to be a case of you're going to take a few words of ct owners regarding legalities, twist them around a bit and say hahah got you.....
Well, fellow consumers, how do you see this playing out?
Will the original "quite versed" CT Rep recant, and join his/her (ex)colleagues in circling the wagons around the "case required" camp?
Or will the QVCTR stick to their guns, and insist that on reasonable definition of "illegal"?
Then again, we may never hear from the QVCTR ever again ...
Well played!
Having spotted their colleague's faux paus, in admitting a reasonable definition of "illegal", the self-appointed CT Rep has attempted a pre-emptive "pre-denial" of things that were yet to be posted!
In some circles, this is called, "bleedingy before you are shot" - a very apt metaphor, as the theory of 'a court case is required' takes one in the heart. Ha-ha-ha! Nice try!
Fellow consumers:
The “Sale of Goods Act” thread has links to 15 reliable source of information on the Ontario Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
Most of those sources state that an Ontario consumer is entitled by law to a refund for a defective product, if they want one. The consumer might also choose to settle for an exchange for a working product, if they desire. It is not necessary to settle for only a repair.
These links can be found here:
"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613"
There is also a new link that a consumer recently posted to the Industry Canada site:
#16 – Industry Canada
http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/products-and-services/refund-and-exchange
Since this is a Canada-wide site, and each province/territory has specific rules, the Industry Canada site does get into detailes, but it does say, “While no legal obligation exists for businesses to accept returned items unless they are defective, retailers and other businesses generally agree that offering refunds or exchanges is a critical part of developing and maintaining good customer relations.”
Yes, for a product that is defective, the rules for returns are different. Note that repairs aren't even mentioned.
Consumers are encouraged to check the other 15 links, and to contact their Consumers' Ministry regarding their specific case.
Well, the self-appointed CT Reps (assuming there are more than one of them) are suddenly all the way up to DEFCON 1, with their lie machine back at full speed.
Apparently this is simply because a CT Rep finally agreed that “against a law, is illegal” – something everybody knows already, LOL.
I guess the down-side for them is, they can no longer pretend that an actual court case is needed, before a consumer can be justified say that the dreaded "Repair Only Warranty" is "illegal" (i.e., against a law - the CPA to be specific).
So in response to this minor set-back the CT Liars are once again re-posting many of their favourite lies (most previously recorded at "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html"), plus a few new lies for good measure:
- The lie that consumers who post here are “faker advocates” (even though CT’s Jumpstart site also falls under the CT Rep’s definition of “faker advocate”, due to the “donate” button. And has anyone noticed Jumpstart needs you credit card info?)
- The lie that says the posts with links to reliable consumer web sites, are really only posts with consumers’ “opinions” (even though those opinions are those of the reliable sources, such as low professors and lawyers).
- Phoney stories about calls to the Consumer’s Ministry, with fake reports that the the Ministry will side with retailers who don’t follow the law. Hah! Call for yourself, consumers!
- The lie that the SGA and CPA don’t allow a consumer to refuse a repair, and don't allow a consumer to insist on a refund or an exchange, if the consumer wants (see the thread "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613"
- The lie that other major retailer also have a “repair only” (or similar) policy, and will also have a policy to never give a refund, and to never replace a defective product (disproven on this thread).
- The lie that the SGA or CPA discuss manufacturers’ warranties (no, the law is only about the implied warranty that the retailer is responsible for).
It’s also the habit of the self-appointed CT Rep, when they run out of lies to tell, they post pointless insults - generally making fun of the mentally ill.
Truly, it doesn't take much, to set them off again, on another lying spree.
But it's hard not to notice that they've brought forth not one scrap of new evidence.
They haven't even bothered to trot out that one, lonely site with outdated information, LOL.
Yes, just the same old made up crap, still with nothing to back it up. Just a lot of self-serving opinion, and mis-interpretation.
They really do seem desperate to convince us to abandon our rights as consumers.
The only thing it [the SGA and CPA] specifies is that a seller must offer a remedy within the terms of the warranty of the defective item.
Read the act, you'll see the section about warranties
BZZZZZT!
Wrong, guess again!
Yes, the self-appointed CT Rep completely missed the mark on the very first try, LOL!
I guess they might have to actually read the damn thing to see that there's no "Warranty" section, except for 63 "Warranty for vehicles".
Are the "very versed" and "quite versed" self-proclaimed experts at CT saying that everything they sell now falls under a "vehicle" warranty? I sure hope they arent' THAT desperate!
LOL Hilarious!
Let's see if they take another shot at it, or actually admit defeat ....
Well, the self-appointed CT Reps (assuming there are more than one of them) are suddenly all the way up to DEFCON 1, with their lie machine back at full speed.
Apparently this is simply because a CT Rep finally agreed that “against a law, is illegal” – something everybody knows already, LOL.
I guess the down-side for them is, they can no longer pretend that an actual court case is needed, before a consumer can be justified say that the dreaded "Repair Only Warranty" is "illegal" (i.e., against a law - the CPA to be specific).
So in response to this minor set-back the CT Liars are once again re-posting many of their favourite lies (most previously recorded at "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html"), plus a few new lies for good measure:
- The lie that consumers who post here are “faker advocates” (even though CT’s Jumpstart site also falls under the CT Rep’s definition of “faker advocate”, due to the “donate” button. And has anyone noticed Jumpstart needs you credit card info?)
- The lie that says the posts with links to reliable consumer web sites, are really only posts with consumers’ “opinions” (even though those opinions are those of the reliable sources, such as low professors and lawyers).
- Phoney stories about calls to the Consumer’s Ministry, with fake reports that the the Ministry will side with retailers who don’t follow the law. Hah! Call for yourself, consumers!
- The lie that the SGA and CPA don’t allow a consumer to refuse a repair, and don't allow a consumer to insist on a refund or an exchange, if the consumer wants (see the thread "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613"
- The lie that other major retailer also have a “repair only” (or similar) policy, and will also have a policy to never give a refund, and to never replace a defective product (disproven on this thread).
- The lie that the SGA or CPA discuss manufacturers’ warranties (no, the law is only about the implied warranty that the retailer is responsible for).
It’s also the habit of the self-appointed CT Rep, when they run out of lies to tell, they post pointless insults - generally making fun of the mentally ill.
Truly, it doesn't take much, to set them off again, on another lying spree.
But it's hard not to notice that they've brought forth not one scrap of new evidence.
They haven't even bothered to trot out that one, lonely site with outdated information, LOL.
Yes, just the same old made up crap, still with nothing to back it up. Just a lot of self-serving opinion, and mis-interpretation.
They really do seem desperate to convince us to abandon our rights as consumers.
Well, at least there are a few things that the self-appointed CT Rep and consumers all agree on:
- Consumers should contact their Consumer's Ministry regarding the laws in their province/territory.
- A policy that is against the law is an illegal policy, because “against a law, is illegal”.
- An example of a court case against CT (or any other retailer) is not needed, because “the absence of a court case does not render something as legal”.
- The Ontario Consumer Protection Act is relevant (at least in some ways) to the conduct of Canadian Tire dealers in Ontario.
- The "Jump Start" site and the "Canadian Tire Sucks" site both have "donate" button, and both ask for credit card information. (However, the self-appointed CT Rep takes this a step further, and declares both sites to be "Faker Advocate" sites - which seems a bit extreme to some consumers).
But don't let the love-fest start too soon, because a few minor sticking points remain:
- The self-appointed CT Rep insists that the BBB site with out-dated information, far out-weighs the 16 or so web sites containing expert opinions, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for defective goods.
- The self-appointed CT Rep insists that any consumer who quotes the opinions of those 16 experts, are actually only stating the consumer's own, personal "opinion" and "interpretation".
- The self-appointed CT Rep insists that a manufacturer's "warranty" and a retailer's "return policy" are exactly the same thing.
- The self-appointed CT Rep insists that every time they phone a Consumer Ministry, the Ministry tells the Rep the exact opposite of what they tell all the consumers who phone.
- The self-appointed CT Rep thinks that consumers aren't up to the task of "deciphering" the tricky CPA. The CT Rep, though, seems to think that other CT Rep's are "very versed" and "quite versed" in this tasks - despite being publicly spanked several time for obvious blunders.
- The self-appointed CT Rep wants consumers to think that attempts to assert their rights as consumers, will result in "continued anger and frustration" (but never, ever financial loss for CT).
Well, I guess that consumers and the self-appointed CT Rep will just have to 'agree to disagree'.
And consumers will just have to continue persuing their rights without the consent of the self-appointed CT Rep.
Yes, the love-fest will have to be re-scheduled.
BZZZZZT!
Wrong, guess again!
Yes, the self-appointed CT Rep completely missed the mark on the very first try, LOL!
I guess they might have to actually read the damn thing to see that there's no "Warranty" section, except for 63 "Warranty for vehicles".
Are the "very versed" and "quite versed" self-proclaimed experts at CT saying that everything they sell now falls under a "vehicle" warranty? I sure hope they arent' THAT desperate!
LOL Hilarious!
Let's see if they take another shot at it, or actually admit defeat ....
