Oh yes here we go again. Why ? Because the horse guy asked for my response to his claims of illegal repair policy. Now you have it. Same response as last 5 times we did this little go around.
So again, the Canadian Bar posting has zero reference to a specific law, code, regulation or rule. It simply says ask for a refund or threaten to sue. No indication as to what your rights actually are.
Go ahead post your links again to Sale of Goods Act and again I will ask for the SPECIFIC section, rule or regulation that states in black and white that a retailer must refund your money if you are not satisfied, or if the item needs to be fixed. Simple task young fellow. Find me those words, or a version of the words that states MUST REFUND MONEY!
By the way, you consider my posting here an attempt to mislead consumers. Guess what, there are no consumers posting here. hahaha hilarious. The three of you regulars aren't our customers.
At first, I was tempted to just point out that this is yet another “Troll” post, seeking only to disrupt this thread, and possibly deceive consumers.
But upon reflection, I actually found this to be one of the single best posts that the CTer has made in a long time.
Not even when he/she posted as CT Me, or later as Lawguy, or more recently as Owner 1, has a single post so clearly demonstrated the main theme of the CT’er, and engaged in by the many Crappy People in the stores and with the corporation, which is simply this one:
Misrepresentation.
Call it “deception” or “a fraud” or “a lie”, but it's all covered by "misrepresentation".
For example, here are some misrepresentations, just from this post:
The CTer misrepresents the statements that consumers have posted here. For example, the CTer claiming that “the horse guy” asked for the CTer’s response to a claim of illegality, when actually 1wildhorse asked for a response to their understanding of the relevant Acts.
The CTer misrepresents what authorities say, such as the Canadian Bar Association web sites. For example, stating that the site has “zero reference to a specific law”, when actually the relevant laws are linked.
The CTer misrepresents the situation in question. For example, they discuss cases of a customer who is “not satisfied” or when a product “needs to be fixed”, when in fact it is about defective products which might not be fixable, or might not be designed with sufficient durability or functions.
The CTer misrepresents the history of prior posts on this and other threads. For instance, they ask, “Find me those words, or a version of the words”, which implies that no such wording has been provided in the past, when actually a walk-through of the relevant passages have already been provided.
The CTer misrepresents the Acts themselves, by claiming that they do not require refunds, when it has been shown many times that they do.
The CTer misrepresents the activities of this site. For example, they say that “consumers” are equivalent to “our (i.e., Canadian Tires’) customers”, when a consumer is anyone who buys any goods for their personal use. Another example is the claim that only the regular posters could be deceived by the CTer, when if fact there are hundreds of Views on these threads every single day.
Even more insidious, the CTer misrepresents their very own actions, by claming that they would address the question of illegality, when all they did was make false claims about the CBA, false claims about prior posts, and false claims about the consumers who post here.
And it isn’t limited to their devious behaviour on this web site. There are similar misrepresentations that can be found in their stores every day:
Misrepresenting their policy for the return of goods, including defective items as, “Simple Returns: Keep Your Receipt”, when in fact many products are non-returnable, or only returnable if unopened.
Misrepresenting items as being on sale in reasonable quantities, when consumers instead find that many stores routinely have ‘run out’ of the sale-priced products early in the first day.
Misrepresenting their Service Center personnel as “Mechanics” when many are simply poorly trained (or even un-trained) ‘technicians’.
Misrepresenting the condition of a customer’s vehicle, for example stating that the vehicle requires repairs, when the vehicle is fine or only needs minor repairs.
That covers a large number of situations that aren't relevant to this thread, but give a clear picture of the misrepresentations that the Crappy People like to engage in.
But the most relevant misrepresentation to this particular thread, is the one described in the Consumer Protection Act. Because, by simply offering defective items for sale, Canadian Tire is misrepresenting them as being of “merchantable quality”, when they are actually defective. (The law does not require the seller to know ahead of time that the item is defective – they just have to offer it for sale.)
Also, when they sell an item that does not work, or works poorly, Canadian Tires is mirepresenting the “functions and performances”, when those items do not work as described.
A related misrepresentation is of the implied durability. Although the Act does not describe a precise period of durability for every product that is sold in Canada, surely they should work at least once, and for at least 5 minutes (if that is reasonable).
Yet Canadian Tire will misrepresent the defective products they sell as being of reasonable durability, when these defective products work for less than 5 minutes – if at all.
It is these misrepresentations that gives the customer the option of a refund, if they want one.
Indeed, misrepresentations seem to run very deep at this particular retailer. But nobody I’ve heard from yet has embodied this ingrained spirit of misrepresentation, as has the CTer, posting first as CT Me (a “dealer”), as Law Guy (self-proclaimed legal expert, but really just a dealer/owner), and now as Owner 1.
Call it “misrepresentation” or “a fraud” or simply “a lie”.
But it might save time in the future to resume the use of this still-popular thread:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html