What’s that? You have links to a site where a math professor at York says the square root of 81 is 9? Well, that’s just his opinion. Actually, it’s really just your opinion. And since it’s not a “fact”, then you are liar. You loser loses lose. Besides, CT has a staff of top-notch mathematicians, and they make sure we know our square roots. They even know some cube roots! So, take if from us, it’s 8. Make no mistake, it’s 8. Absolutely 8. Trust us on this one.
The logic used by the CT Rep is deeply flawed, as the example using square roots shows.
Many links have been provided to sites from reputable sources on consumer law, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they are willing to settle for that).
But the CT rep has ignored these sites by claiming there is “no evidence”, or that the statements on these sites are the “opinion” of the consumers who posted the links.
So, there is “no evidence” about square roots, and the links to the math sites are just “the opinion” of the CT rep. That’s what you end up with, if you use the logic of the CT rep.
Lately, the CT rep has requested a reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “illegal policy” in the same sentence, and implies that the absence of a reference shows that CT's policies are fine.
By the same logic, CT could also lie by saying the square root of 81 is 8. Since there’s not reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “square root of 81” in the same sentence, the CT rep could claim that they’ve shown the root of 81 is 8, and there's nothing wrong with that statement. Outrageous!
So, here’s what you get if you use “CT Logic”.
“How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer is wrong about square roots? Got that call into the Ministry of Finance? A media source? A mathematician? Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 2000 years. Don't forget to donate...at Jump Start, which has a ‘donate’ button, and therefore is a ‘Faker Advocate Site’.”
Well, consumers, you can come to their own conclusions about any topic you like, including mathematics, and the legality of CT’s policies.
And, of course, there’s lots of evidence that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they prefer).
Consumer should just check these posts:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4197
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4381
Don’t forget to check out the on-going lies and misrepresentations of the CT Rep, being tracked here:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html
Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.
Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.
As long as there's no law being broken, a store can set the policies they want.
It's a trade-off. Stores can be more generous, but their costs will be higher, and they won't be able to compete on price.
If the store have more restrictive policies, they will save on costs, but their customers won't be as happy, and will shop somewhere else.
How come no one has accused Cdn. tire of breaking any laws?
the ellen roseman site has a story about a man who bought a defective grocery cart from canadian tire - he got back $45
yup - lots of reports of stores not following the sale of goods act and the consumer protection act
ellen wrote about ‘as seen on tv’ and that 'Angela was entitled to a refund'
she also wrote about best by and future shop
and forever 21
she wrote ‘Under the law, manufacturers and retailers have a duty to supply products fit for the intended purpose’ and ‘If you’re stranded, go to small claims court and cite the Sale of Goods Act as an argument to get your money back.’
sale of goods act is a 'law'
so is the consumer protection act
but i’m guessing the ct people are going to keep arguing - saying none of this is true
they wouldn't want more consumers pushing for refunds – costs them too much money
better to make the customer sue - then settle out of court - then claim there are no court rulings
nice plan - discourages customers from asking for refunds
this store really does suck
Seems the Crappy People are the only ones who have a problem with this.
Lots of reports in the media, from lawyers and even a professor agreeing that consumers should get a refund.
Its the law. Against the law is illegal. Case closed.
And spare us rhetoric on these dumb questions. We can read the laws for ourselves.
I guess the Crappy People just don't want to be out a lot of money.
You lose credibility when you only tell your "version" of the truth and quote only snippets and not the whole story.
Not to hard to discredit a faker advocate
Your right to a refund, credit or exchange | Ellen Roseman
If you read the rest of the story, the customer was given a refund from the corporation and not the store. It was "a measure of good will" and the corporation completely backed the store in adhering to the exchange policy.
No where does Ellen Roseman say CT did anything illegal.
Yep, thanks for proving the point of your faker advocateness and lack of relevance. Nothing more than some pissed at life person spouting lies and opinions as truth. Good job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?