Sale of Goods Act

This gets funnier, the more I read it.

CT Me said:

DavidLer - I thought you were smarter then that, I had given you some credit for intelligence.

Click to expand...

Look who’s doubting MY intelligence. “LOL comical”.

(I won’t even get into the difference between “then” and “than”.)

CT Me said:

You can not cut and paste individual sentences from an act and attempt to make them, the act LOL … Also check your wording on the warranties section.

Click to expand...

She doesn’t even know what a quotation mark means. Hah!

Or, the difference between “cut” and “copy”. (Yeah, if you go to those web pages now? That text is like, GONE, baby! ‘Cause David took it .

OK, OK … this is the funniest part:

CT Me said:

…we, the retailer can exercise our rights to honour warranties … and the CPA does not negate or override our right to exercise those warranties.

Click to expand...

As if a warranty is there for the exclusive benefit of the retail, and not the customer! Hilarious!

Thank God the Consumer Protection legislation didn’t take away CT’s “right” to GIVE CUSTOMERS MONEY!

Yup, the stores really dodged a bullet on that one.


Keep ‘em comin’, CT Me -- don’t disappoint your loyal fans!

Resorting to grammar errors now? LOL

You really are running out of ammunition.
You're just a small step away from resorting to insults about my wife or my mom

Well done DavidLER, well done

As promised, here are links to the Ontario Acts, and some excerpts from them:

-----

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990

The SGA can be found here: "Ontario - Sale of Goods Act : http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s01_e.htm"

Allow me to draw your attention to this excerpt:

PART I - FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT

Implied conditions as to quality or fitness

15. 2. Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality ....

-----

Now, to the CPA: "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A"

Consumer Protection Act, 2002

PART I - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

Interpretation

1. In this Act …

“consumer” means an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes;

“supplier” means a person who is in the business of selling, leasing or trading in goods …

“consumer agreement” means an agreement between a supplier and a consumer in which the supplier agrees to supply goods or services for payment;


I found 2 two situations where a refund must be provided:

1 – Under Part II, “CONSUMER RIGHTS AND WARRANTIES”
2 - Under Part III, “Unfair Practices”.

However, Part III isn’t as clear about mandatory refunds, since it simply says, “any remedy that is available in law, including damages”.

Therefore, I have chosen to focus on this Part:

PART II - CONSUMER RIGHTS AND WARRANTIES

Quality of goods

9. (2) The implied conditions and warranties applying to the sale of goods by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act are deemed to apply with necessary modifications to goods that are … supplied under a consumer agreement.

9. (3) Any term or acknowledgement, whether part of the consumer agreement or not, that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act or any deemed condition or warranty under this Act is void.

PART IX - PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER REMEDIES

Consumer agreements not binding
93. (1) A consumer agreement is not binding on the consumer unless the agreement is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations.

Cancellation
94. (1) If a consumer has a right to cancel a consumer agreement under this Act, the consumer may cancel the agreement by giving notice in accordance with section 92.

Obligations on cancellation
96. (1) If a consumer cancels a consumer agreement, the supplier shall, in accordance with the prescribed requirements,
(a) refund to the consumer any payment made under the agreement or any related agreement; and
(b) return to the consumer in a condition substantially similar to when they were delivered all goods delivered under a trade-in arrangement or refund to the consumer an amount equal to the trade-in allowance.

Supplier to provide refund
(2) A supplier who receives a notice demanding a refund under subsection (1) shall provide the refund within the prescribed period of time.

Consumer’s recourse re: credit card charges

99. (1) A consumer who has charged to a credit card account all or any part of a payment described in subsection (2) may request the credit card issuer to cancel or reverse the credit card charge and any associated interest or other charges.

Timing of request
(3) A consumer may make a request under subsection (1) if the consumer has cancelled a consumer agreement or demanded a refund in accordance with this Act, and the supplier has not refunded all of the payment within the required period.

Obligations of credit card issuer

(5) The credit card issuer,
(a) shall, within the prescribed period, acknowledge the consumer’s request; and
(b) if the request meets the requirements of subsection (4), shall, within the prescribed period,
(i) cancel or reverse the credit card charge and any associated interest or other charges, or
(ii) after having conducted an investigation, send a written notice to the consumer explaining the reasons why the credit card issuer is of the opinion that the consumer is not entitled to cancel the consumer agreement or to demand a refund under this Act.

Over in the "CBC Made CT Look Bad" thread, our beloved “CT Me” (whomever, whatever, wherever she may actually be) sets the bar rather high for personal growth:

CT Me said:

... people … have only a one sided view and refuse to open their eyes, ears and minds to the possibility that they might not be 100% correct all the time.

Click to expand...

I’ve decided to rise to the challenge, and attempt to see the retail landscape through her piercing blue eyes set firmly on The Truth:

The CPA ("Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A") says,

“consumer” means an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes; [/QUOTE]

CT Me said:

That is referring to a transaction such as... a builder or whoever bought a load of lumber ….

Click to expand...

How in the HECK can a law that applies to (Geez, I guess I have to quote the whole thing!),

“an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes”

.... actually refer only to a “builder or whoever bought a load of lumber”

I am humbled by CT Me’s phenomenal ability with mental gymnastics and intellectual contortionism.

I might just not be up to the task of opening my ‘eyes, ears and mind’ to such a possibility.

I guess I should bow to CT Me’s undeniable mental (and probably physical) superiority, and simply open my wallet instead …

OK, maybe I didn’t try hard enough, last time.

Maybe if I screw on my thinking-cap really, really tight, and think about butterflies, unicorns and puppy-dog-tails, I’ll be able to raise my intellect way, way up (UP!) to CT Me’s stratospheric level.

Wish me luck!!!

-----

Once again from "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A"

Obligations of credit card issuer

(5) The credit card issuer,
(a) shall, within the prescribed period, acknowledge the consumer’s request; and
(b) if the request meets the requirements of subsection (4), shall, within the prescribed period,
(i) cancel or reverse the credit card charge and any associated interest or other charges, or
(ii) after having conducted an investigation, send a written notice to the consumer explaining the reasons why the credit card issuer is of the opinion that the consumer is not entitled to cancel the consumer agreement or to demand a refund under this Act.[/QUOTE]

CT Me said:

Under no circumstances will a credit card company just simply reverse the charge …
WE KNOW THE RULES! YOU DON'T

Click to expand...

The law says one thing ….

And CT Me sure seems to be saying something else ….

But she says it's important to open one's eyes, ears and mind ….

I'm sure there MUST be away to resolve this apparent contradiction.

Yeah, I sure do wish I was as smart and impartial as the awesome CT Me!

Actually, this whole surreal exchange with the notorious “CT Me” crew puts me in mind of the famous Monty Python sketch, which makes fun of some peoples’ version of debate/argument:

Me: "The SGA protects consumers”.
CT: “No, it doesn’t”.
Me: “Yeah. Here’s a link to the Act. It says it protects consumers”.
CT: “No it doesn’t. Here’s one on Consumer Protection”.
Me: “Wait, that’s just Crappy Tire’s crappy return policy”.
CT: “No it isn’t. It’s about Consumer Protection”.
Me: “You aren’t even addressing the issues”.
CT: “Yes I am. You just aren’t reading the links.
Me: “OK, here’s 50 more links about Consumer Protection”.
CT: “No, they’re not. There about a business buying lumber”.
Me: “What are you on? They are about Consumer Protection.”
CT: “No, you’re wrong. They are about Retailer Protection”.

And on and on it goes ....

CT Me said:

Resorting to grammar errors now? LOL

You really are running out of ammunition.
You're just a small step away from resorting to insults about my wife or my mom

Well done DavidLER, well done

Click to expand...

Don't worry about the wife or your mom. They're doing the gardener/ pool boy.

Unregistered:

Thanks for your support!

You may have noticed that I long ago stopped trying the change CT Me's mind(s).

Forgive the cross-post and edits, but I think your comments are very relevant to this thread, too.

Unregistered said:

I've done this stuff for years and have argued before the courts, way before DavidLer came along.

LOL. Are customers supposed to be scared of the customer service desk 'trumped' by societies minimum wage castoffs? Like they have the FINAL say and I should trust their interpretation of the law and their experience with returns/ store policy, all for the customers benefit?!?! That's your trump card? I'll take my chances and READ WHAT THE LAW SAYS and proceed with a claim against CT should the need ever arise. Maybe I should do just that and set foot in one of your 480 stores and see how quickly your customer service desk "shuts me down" over a return vs warranty item. Lil me against big bad CT with an army of expensive corporate lawyers, standing infront of a "mega mega" corporation. I like my odds and don't need a trump.

Click to expand...

DavidLeR said:

Unregistered:

Thanks for your support!

You may have noticed that I long ago stopped trying the change CT Me's mind(s).

Forgive the cross-post and edits, but I think your comments are very relevant to this thread, too.

Click to expand...

You research has been helpful for alot of people. The stores are getting worse...

Dear CT Me:

I've provided links to the legislation, and many links to reputable sites offering credible interpretations.

This evidence makes it very clear that an Ontario retailer must provide a refund for defective goods to a consumer who asks for one.

For a long time, you have been arguing that this is untrue. However, you have not provided any references whatsoever, and only offered your "retail experience" as evidence.

Do you have any credible evidence that you can contribute to this discussion? Surely an expert in these matters would have access to something more convincing than, ""I KNOW THE RULES! YOU DON'T".

If you are unable to provide any contrary evidence, are you willing graciously admit that you may have been under-informed on this topic?

(Ok, I'm trying to wrap this up with a bow on it, before I take a Holiday break.)

DavidLeR said:

Dear CT Me … are you willing [to] graciously admit that you may have been under-informed on this topic?

Click to expand...

(Hint: It's OK, CT Me. 'Cause everybody already knows.)

What a treacherous time it's been for the Canadian Tire consumer. Forced to navigate a treacherous narrow, windy road in the dark, with nothing but shear cliff's on either side. Not even the hint of the slightest guard rail to protect the lone consumer. Worthless simoniz washers, yard works and other Canadian Tire junk litter the narrow passage. On some quiet nights, you can hear those horrible screams before the crash of another lost soul.

It's been a nasty time with consumers shopping at CT, so nasty that there should be a top 10 list of reasons not to shop there. Or maybe it should be titled CT's greatest hits to the consumer.

10. Forced to show ID for returns and exchanges. You are only supposed to show your id to police.
09. Not honouring returns or exchanges.
08. The only national mechanic retailer in the news for trying to rip off a senior citizen, a grandfather, a man who proudly served his country. But to a Canadian Tire owner, he's some shifty "old guy" lying on tv.

07. Also in the news, CT employees kill a consumer who couldn't get out of there fast enough. CT later says he was "suspected" of shoplifting.

---feel free to add.

Another reference by Ellen Roseman at The Toronto Star:
See "Roseman: Working to fix products that don".

I’ve seen quite a bit of misinformation on this forum regarding the Ontario Consumer Protection Act of 2002.

Basicallyt the misinformation is coming from posters who are opposed to Ontario customers getting refunds for defective items.

This might be due to simple ignorance or misunderstandings, but I can’t help but suspect that the Canadian Tire representatives are deliberately attempting to gain financially by tricking customers into leaving their money with Crappy Tire, instead of giving those customers the refund to which they are entitled, regardless of CT's policy.

In fact, the CT Reps seem to automatically disputing any pro-consumer facts that are posted here, without any supporting evidence, let alone logic or reason.

Regardless of their motives or IQ’s, I think its time to address some of these misstatements in a systematic way, so that consumers have a useful reference when researching this topic.

I will be drawing on and summarizing the many reputable sources available via the internet to set the record straight. I will quote from these sources, and will also provide references to the Act itself, to those sections which I believe are relevant.

Note that a consumer would be well advised to at least contact the Ministry of Consumer Protection at 1-877-665-0662. It is also advisable to consult a lawyer for specific legal matters.

DavidLeR said:

I’ve seen quite a bit of misinformation on this forum regarding the Ontario Consumer Protection Act of 2002.

Basicallyt the misinformation is coming from posters who are opposed to Ontario customers getting refunds for defective items.

This might be due to simple ignorance or misunderstandings, but I can’t help but suspect that the Canadian Tire representatives are deliberately attempting to gain financially by tricking customers into leaving their money with Crappy Tire, instead of giving those customers the refund to which they are entitled, regardless of CT's policy.

In fact, the CT Reps seem to automatically disputing any pro-consumer facts that are posted here, without any supporting evidence, let alone logic or reason.

Regardless of their motives or IQ’s, I think its time to address some of these misstatements in a systematic way, so that consumers have a useful reference when researching this topic.

I will be drawing on and summarizing the many reputable sources available via the internet to set the record straight. I will quote from these sources, and will also provide references to the Act itself, to those sections which I believe are relevant.

Note that a consumer would be well advised to at least contact the Ministry of Consumer Protection at 1-877-665-0662. It is also advisable to consult a lawyer for specific legal matters.

Click to expand...

At least you are admitting that it is what you think and not a fact. With all your research, I just want one example that says Canadian Tire has an illegal return policy. An expert in those two items in the same sentence can be either by a real published advocate, a precedent via court case or W5 for that matter. Just one, not your interpretations, not one line or someone's "opinion", just some real proof.

Unregistered said:

At least you are admitting that it is what you think and not a fact.

Click to expand...

typical ct lie and misrepresentation

davidler didnt say or admit any such thing

only that the references to the act would be his beliefs

the opinions of the experts will be just that - the opinions of the experts

typical ct liar

off to a good start i see

Unregistered said:

With all your research, I just want one example that says Canadian Tire has an illegal return policy.

Click to expand...

the repair only policy is illegal for reasons already given

try to pay attention

nice try though

typical of a ct liar

Unregistered said:

typical ct lie and misrepresentation

davidler didnt say or admit any such thing

only that the references to the act would be his beliefs

the opinions of the experts will be just that - the opinions of the experts

typical ct liar

off to a good start i see



the repair only policy is illegal for reasons already given

try to pay attention

nice try though

typical of a ct liar

Click to expand...

I haven't seen one "expert" say CT's policy is illegal....do you have any proof that mentions CT's illegal policy by these experts?
I thought not.
Better go judge another bikini contest
Just because a faker advocate believes it, doesn't make it true.

Below is a list of links with information about obtaining a refund for a defective product in Ontario.

I'll be referring to these sites by number.

---

1 – Ellen Roseman, “If the product's a dud, insist on your money back"

"If the product's a dud, insist on your money back - moneyville.ca Blogs"

2 – Ellen Roseman, “Working to fix products that don’t work"

"Roseman: Working to fix products that don't"

3 – Miller Tomson, “ARE YOU READY FOR THE ONTARIO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002?”

"http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...05%20Final.pdf"

4 – O’Connor MacLeod Hanna, “Ontario’s New Consumer Protection Law”

"Milton, Burlington, Oakville Lawyers | O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario"

5 - “is that legal”, Cpt 5: General Consumer’s Rights:

"LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.5: General Consumer Rights"

6 - “is that legal”, Cpt 7: General Civil Remedies:

"LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)"

7 – Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002"

8 – Ptbo & and District Labour Council

"PDLC News » The New Face of Consumer Protection Law in Ontario: Consolidate, Update and Escalate"

9 - MCS re: Cancelling:

"Cancelling a Contract - Ministry of Consumer Services"

10 - Blakes (General coverage)

"http://www.blakes.com/pdf/CPA_Oct20_2005.pdf"

11 - Macmillan – General

"http://www.mcmillan.ca/Upload/Publi...onference - Consumer Protection Act, 2002.pdf"

12 - Stutz & Associates

"W.W. Stutz & Associates ~ Barristors, Solicitors and Notary Public"

13 - MCA – basic info:

"http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/Documents/275071.pdf"

14 – UWO

"The University of Western Ontario"

----

Note that I didn't include any outdated web sites that describe the rescinded Business Practices Act.

DavidLeR said:

Below is a list of links with information about obtaining a refund for a defective product in Ontario.

I'll be referring to these sites by number.

---

1 – Ellen Roseman, “If the product's a dud, insist on your money back"

"If the product's a dud, insist on your money back - moneyville.ca Blogs"

2 – Ellen Roseman, “Working to fix products that don’t work"

"Roseman: Working to fix products that don't"

3 – Miller Tomson, “ARE YOU READY FOR THE ONTARIO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002?”

"http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...05%20Final.pdf"

4 – O’Connor MacLeod Hanna, “Ontario’s New Consumer Protection Law”

"Milton, Burlington, Oakville Lawyers | O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario"

5 - “is that legal”, Cpt 5: General Consumer’s Rights:

"LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.5: General Consumer Rights"

6 - “is that legal”, Cpt 7: General Civil Remedies:

"LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)"

7 – Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002"

8 – Ptbo & and District Labour Council

"PDLC News » The New Face of Consumer Protection Law in Ontario: Consolidate, Update and Escalate"

9 - MCS re: Cancelling:

"Cancelling a Contract - Ministry of Consumer Services"

10 - Blakes (General coverage)

"http://www.blakes.com/pdf/CPA_Oct20_2005.pdf"

11 - Macmillan – General

"http://www.mcmillan.ca/Upload/Publi...onference - Consumer Protection Act, 2002.pdf"

12 - Stutz & Associates

"W.W. Stutz & Associates ~ Barristors, Solicitors and Notary Public"

13 - MCA – basic info:

"http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/Documents/275071.pdf"

14 – UWO

"The University of Western Ontario"

----

Note that I didn't include any outdated web sites that describe the rescinded Business Practices Act.

Click to expand...

Hopefully this time around, you will not just pick out one line and say "see this is the interpretation everyone should believe". You will likely be contested with many questions regarding the interpretation, just like you were on redflags.com and on here.
I like your attempt at advocacy, but I'm not a big fan of you ignoring counter points and questions that challenge your interpretations. Makes me think there is a hidden agenda.

Unregistered said:

Hopefully this time around, you will not just pick out one line and say "see this is the interpretation everyone should believe". You will likely be contested with many questions regarding the interpretation, just like you were on redflags.com and on here.
I like your attempt at advocacy, but I'm not a big fan of you ignoring counter points and questions that challenge your interpretations. Makes me think there is a hidden agenda.

Click to expand...

Man, the ct owner/liars can't even wait for something to be posted before they start telling their lies, and making up things that never happened.

Then they wonder why nobody trusts them. Big shock when the liars aren't believed. Who saw that coming?

They are even misrepresenting the posts over at redflag deals, where they can't post their anonymous lies. Nice try though. Do not pass go.

Already they are pretending that the interpretations of the experts are actually the opinions of just one person. Nice try at a pre-emptive strick.

Nothing of merit has been ignored - just the obvious lies of the ct store owners who want to defend their attemtps to cheat customers, and to fool customers into thinking they aren't entitled to a refund.

It shouldn't even be necessary to walk the owner/liars throught the laws - they will just try to continue making up their own versions of the laws anyway.

It's a good thing customers have the brains to see through ct's scams, and not continue to be the victims of these self-serving liars.

Great business model. Too bad all the other major retailers have honest, reasonable policies around refunds. CT is the only one trying to pull this scam.