Sale of Goods Act

Angry CT Guy · Apr 26, 2011

Unregistered said:
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.

Here we go again with DavidLer and his multiple personalities saying nothing but the same in the face of adversity. Must be tough to be delusional and schizophrenic.

CT Challenger · May 29, 2011

When the fake ct owner/managers run out a lies, all they have left are insults.

As if this will convince consumers not to look into things for themselves.

Or change the laws in Ontario, LOL.

CT Me / Lawguy · May 29, 2011

Unregistered said:
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.

ahh nice of you to bring up redflagdeals....where Mrs. LER got very little support for her arguments. You tried really really hard to turn atleast two threads into bash CT, and interpret policies and in both only a few agreed, and lots disagreed. You were very cordial and pleasant over there I might add....asking open ended questions, and not hammering home your opinion with a hammer. Perhaps because you realize thats a site FULL of people who know a lot more about retail law then you do and then most of these clowns on here do. You can't push your bullshit in a field full of knowledgeable people....only on here where your supporters are loud mouth no brain yahoo's

CT Challenger · May 29, 2011

Unregistered said:
ahh nice of you to bring up redflagdeals

yeah rfd was brought up to say how the ct reps misrepesent whats been written there - lol

if anybodys interested feel free to check out what was really written on rfd - not at all what this poster claimed

this sounds like one of those Fake CT Rep's, who are only here to jack up the view count

don't forget to donate - make this sites owners more money - LOL

Angry CT Guy · May 29, 2011

Unregistered said:
yeah rfd was brought up to say how the ct reps misrepesent whats been written there - lol

if anybodys interested feel free to check out what was really written on rfd - not at all what this poster claimed

this sounds like one of those Fake CT Rep's, who are only here to jack up the view count

don't forget to donate - make this sites owners more money - LOL

Yeah, they should read it....would definitely put your lame ass commentary to shame. It's pretty easy to spot a FAKER ADVOCATE these days....you can't quite handle the questions that so easily discredit you....no surprise....fakers are usually called on their lies each and every day by smarter people. Probably why you don't like CTC....they probably caught you in one of your lies.

CT Challenger · May 29, 2011

Unregistered said:
Yeah, they should read it....would definitely put your lame ass commentary to shame. It's pretty easy to spot a FAKER ADVOCATE these days....you can't quite handle the questions that so easily discredit you....no surprise....fakers are usually called on their lies each and every day by smarter people. Probably why you don't like CTC....they probably caught you in one of your lies.

OK, this is sounding like classic 'fake ct rep' stuff, again.

No legitimate store owner or manager would waste their time posting such pointless garbage.

I think it's by the prankster, trying to make a parody of real owner/managers.

That or it's a rep. of the site owners, trying to drive up site traffic to get a share of the ad revenue. "Don't forget to donate! It's right there at the top of the screen! Don't miss the ads at the bottom! Right now it's WagJag - advertisers love traffic!"

To quote the infamous CT Me, "LOL hilarious".

Angry CT Guy · May 30, 2011

Unregistered said:
OK, this is sounding like classic 'fake ct rep' stuff, again.

No legitimate store owner or manager would waste their time posting such pointless garbage.

I think it's by the prankster, trying to make a parody of real owner/managers.

That or it's a rep. of the site owners, trying to drive up site traffic to get a share of the ad revenue. "Don't forget to donate! It's right there at the top of the screen! Don't miss the ads at the bottom! Right now it's WagJag - advertisers love traffic!"

To quote the infamous CT Me, "LOL hilarious".

This goober just gets stupider by the day.
http://www.2createawebsite.com/money/google-adsense.html

Get an education loser and try to make something of yourself.

CT Challenger · May 30, 2011

Hey, nobody cares how you get paid, really.

Maybe you are just 'paid' by making the genuine store owners/managers look really stupid.

Maybe you get a cut of the site revenue.

Maybe you are hoping the owner/managers will pay you to stop.

Don't know, don't care.

But, hey! Thanks for driving traffic to the site! A little ad revenue would be nice! And maybe some actual donations for the site owner, too!

Ka-CHING! Help get the word out that CT Sucks! Thank you, Come again!

Angry CT Guy · May 30, 2011

Unregistered said:
Hey, nobody cares how you get paid, really.

Maybe you are just 'paid' by making the genuine store owners/managers look really stupid.

Maybe you get a cut of the site revenue.

Maybe you are hoping the owner/managers will pay you to stop.

Don't know, don't care.

But, hey! Thanks for driving traffic to the site! A little ad revenue would be nice! And maybe some actual donations for the site owner, too!

Ka-CHING! Help get the word out that CT Sucks! Thank you, Come again!

More ramblings from the mentally ill. Quite sad actually.

CT Challenger · May 30, 2011

Unregistered said:
More ramblings from the mentally ill.

people thought it was sad the fake reps couldn't think up any new lies and resorted to insults

now they are too lame to think up any new insults

lol hilarious!

DavidLeR · Jun 2, 2011

In an earlier post I mentioned Professor Iain Ramsay, now of the University of Kent, but previously law professor at York’s Osgoode Hall Law School:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-4.html#post2516"

Professor Ramsay wrote a letter to the editor to the Toronto Star regarding Retailer liable to the purchaser for a defective product:

"Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers"

In response to a Star article on extended warranties, Professor Ramsay wrote:

“Under the Ontario Sale of Goods Act, a retailer is legally liable to a purchaser for a defective product … Depending on the particular facts, a consumer may have a right to reject (return) the goods for a refund … Under section 9 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act 2002 these obligations of the retailer may not be excluded or waived when selling to a consumer. Any attempt to do so is of no legal effect.”

This is yet another example of a reputable source stating that retailers do not always get to choose what the remedy will be (i.e., “repair only”), and that the laws give consumers the right to a refund for a defective product (at least in some cases).

This will be added to the long list of reputable sources saying that consumers have the right to return defective products for a refund.

Consumers are urged to contact their consumer ministry to find out how the laws can be applied in their particular case.

-----

#15 - Professor Iain Ramsay:

"Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers"

Angry CT Guy · Jun 2, 2011

DavidLeR said:
In an earlier post I mentioned Professor Iain Ramsay, now of the University of Kent, but previously law professor at York’s Osgoode Hall Law School:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-4.html#post2516"

Professor Ramsay wrote a letter to the editor to the Toronto Star regarding Retailer liable to the purchaser for a defective product:

"Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers"

In response to a Star article on extended warranties, Professor Ramsay wrote:

“Under the Ontario Sale of Goods Act, a retailer is legally liable to a purchaser for a defective product … Depending on the particular facts, a consumer may have a right to reject (return) the goods for a refund … Under section 9 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act 2002 these obligations of the retailer may not be excluded or waived when selling to a consumer. Any attempt to do so is of no legal effect.”

This is yet another example of a reputable source stating that retailers do not always get to choose what the remedy will be (i.e., “repair only”), and that the laws give consumers the right to a refund for a defective product (at least in some cases).

This will be added to the long list of reputable sources saying that consumers have the right to return defective products for a refund.

Consumers are urged to contact their consumer ministry to find out how the laws can be applied in their particular case.

-----

#15 - Professor Iain Ramsay:

"Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers"

Depending on the particular facts, a consumer may have a right to reject (return) the goods for a refund or keep the goods and recover damages which would be equivalent to the cost of a repair.

Typical legal jumbo which can be interpreted in a number of ways...."depending on the particular facts".....which leaves open a thousand scenarios.....then there is "a consumer MAY have a right"....not an unequivocal absolute right, but MAY....in other words....in his opinion.
Then of course, there is the whole mention of REPAIR.....which kind of wrecks your theory once again.
I'm kind of surprised you posted something that destroys your theory when I was hoping that you would find something that says CTC's or ANY other retailer has an illegal policy....How's that search going? Any luck on that yet? LOL

Guest-0477 · Jun 2, 2011

DavidLeR said:
“Under the Ontario Sale of Goods Act, a retailer is legally liable to a purchaser for a defective product … Depending on the particular facts, a consumer may have a right to reject (return) the goods for a refund … Under section 9 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act 2002 these obligations of the retailer may not be excluded or waived when selling to a consumer. Any attempt to do so is of no legal effect.”

seems to me we are fine tuning our understanding of the consumer protection laws

lots of incorrect info has been spread on this site by store representatives (fake or not)

but here weve got an ontario law professor telling us consumers can get a refund - pretty persuasive

so its beyond doubt that there are cases where the customer is entitled to a refund for a defective product

regardless of the policy of crappy tire.

but it sounds like there may be some exceptions where these laws dont apply

probably as-is or clearance items when it’s clearly marked that way

also maybe for items where there are health laws and it cannot be re-sold

and maybe theres a copyright law for digital media that says it cannot be returned if it is defective

other than that nobody has come up with any situations where the laws that professor ramsay quoted would not apply

so, this is good information for consumers

but this was already settled with the first 14 online references - LOL!

might be interesting to look for more on rejecting and on iain ramsay

for us consumers the bottom line is:

- dont shop at canadian tire

- if you made a mistake and bought a defective product from ct - maybe a Simoniz pressure washer LOL! - call the ministry to find out if you can get a refund – or at least an exchange

DavidLeR · Jun 2, 2011

I'm betting some CT rep will come back and say how customers don't have the rights they actually do have ...

Angry CT Guy · Jun 2, 2011

Unregistered said:
seems to me we are fine tuning our understanding of the consumer protection laws

lots of incorrect info has been spread on this site by store representatives (fake or not)

but here weve got an ontario law professor telling us consumers can get a refund - pretty persuasive

so its beyond doubt that there are cases where the customer is entitled to a refund for a defective product

regardless of the policy of crappy tire.

but it sounds like there may be some exceptions where these laws dont apply

probably as-is or clearance items when it’s clearly marked that way

also maybe for items where there are health laws and it cannot be re-sold

and maybe theres a copyright law for digital media that says it cannot be returned if it is defective

other than that nobody has come up with any situations where the laws that professor ramsay quoted would not apply

so, this is good information for consumers

but this was already settled with the first 14 online references - LOL!

might be interesting to look for more on rejecting and on iain ramsay

for us consumers the bottom line is:

- dont shop at canadian tire

- if you made a mistake and bought a defective product from ct - maybe a Simoniz pressure washer LOL! - call the ministry to find out if you can get a refund – or at least an exchange

Lots of maybes and might in your opinion. I particularly like how you contradict yourself several times. Boy are you dumb.
Keep on posting....it's good for a laugh.

Angry CT Guy · Jun 2, 2011

DavidLeR said:
I'm betting some CT rep will come back and say how customers don't have the rights they actually do have ...

And I bet some faker advocate will try and tell people that they have rights that they don't have.
Funny how you can't find even one example of CTC or ANY other retailer being accused of denying a customer's "rights" when it comes to their return policies. Funny how that is.

CT Challenger · Jun 2, 2011

For consumers interested in learning more about consumer law, I found the following .doc file for download from Prof. Ramsay's YorkU page:

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/QuickPlace/iainramsay/Main.nsf/$defaultview/83FBC6557DDA674A8525706B006D93E8/$File/chapter4.doc?OpenElement.

It looks like an extract of a larger book, and is 128 pages long, covering a lot of topics.

Angry CT Guy · Jun 3, 2011

Unregistered said:
For consumers interested in learning more about consumer law, I found the following .doc file for download from Prof. Ramsay's YorkU page:

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/QuickPlace/iainramsay/Main.nsf/$defaultview/83FBC6557DDA674A8525706B006D93E8/$File/chapter4.doc?OpenElement.

It looks like an extract of a larger book, and is 128 pages long, covering a lot of topics.

Nice opinion. You will find other lawyers that market a similar opinion if you look hard enough...doesn't mean they are correct. And given that 5 years have passed since Prof. Ramsay's opinion, I'm curious why no lawyer, law professor, or REAL consumer advocate has said that CTC or any other retailer has a policy in contravention of either CPA or SOGA. Don't you wonder the same thing?

CT Challenger · Jun 3, 2011

DavidLeR said:
I'm betting some CT rep will come back and say how customers don't have the rights they actually do have ...

Seems to have come to pass as predicted ...

DavidLeR · Jun 16, 2011

Links to an “Industry Canada” page with incomplete information has been used in the past as evidence that refunds (or even exchanges) are never required by any retailer.

However, an Industry Canada link has recently been provided that says returns may be required in some provinces/territories for defective products:

#16 – Industry Canada

Refund and Exchange - Entire Collection | Canadian Consumer Handbook

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.”

Note that repairs aren't even mentioned.

The links to the other 15 reputable sources can be found here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

and here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4197

A wise consumer would, of course, seek a balanced view of these issues, and should feel free to consult the competing links that CT representative have supplied:

A BBB web site quoting a law that was rescinded in 2005.
Links to various retailers’ sites quoting restrictions on returns of defective digital media, ink cartidges, etc.

Yes, consumers: be sure to weigh all relevant evidence.

Plus, there is no need to rely on any opinions posted here, or even on the written opinions by the quoted experts (i.e., law students and professors, consumer law lawyers, etc.).

If you have a specific issue, don’t hesitate to contact your Consumer’s Ministry.

Sale of Goods Act

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

Posted by an unregistered user

New member

New member

Similar threads

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency