Sale of Goods Act

You would think that if faker advocate could take his head out of the sand and see that NO ONE has named CT or ANY other retailer as having an illegal policy, but we continue to hear his "opinion" (lie) that it is.
The Ministry doesn't say it is
Ellen Roseman has never said it
No lawyer or media source has ever accused CT or ANY other retailer of having an illegal policy
But here we are to believe a faker advocate's opinion as truth.
Riiiigggghttt!
Tsk, tsk faker advocate. You lose, you surely lose.

Just in case you think faker advocate is spewing more than his personal opinion, and trying to pass it off as truth, here is a nice term of service for this site:

3. Disclaimer

The materials on CanadianTireSucks.net's web site are provided "as is". CanadianTireSucks.net makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, CanadianTireSucks.net does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.

And after you peruse that, don't forget to visit this link at the top:

Canadian Tire Sucks Forum - Donate

Remember, they take US dollars and with the Canadian dollar worth more, you're getting extra value for faker advocates lies and rantings and ravings.
Notice that DavidLer now posts as unregistered after admitting to being a fraud proponent.

There are so many lies and misrepresentations by the self-appointed CT Rep, that it's easy to lose track.

To help consumers stay focused, there ae some important things for consumers to remember:

In Ontario (and other jurisdictions), consumers can get a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if you prefer):

- Even if nobody has posted a reference here to "illegal policies" for that retailer (because this doesn't change the laws).

- Even if the retailer isn't listed on a Ministry's "Customer Beware List" (because this doesn't change the laws).

- The CT Rep has even admitted that "against the law is illegal".

- Don't forget the long list of references that say a refund is required for defective items: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-10.html#post4599


Also remember:

- Consumers who post links to other web sites are not posting their own opinions.

- Consumers do not need to rely on what's posted here; they can check the links themselves, or call their Consumer's Ministry.

- The CT Reps post so many lies about policies, laws, stores and consumers, there a thread just for their main lies: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

- According to the CT Rep, a "Faker Advocate Site" is one with a "donate button", so they defined CT's own Jump Start as a "Faker Advocate Site, too".

More feet stamping and lies from faker advocate.
Just his opinion, no proof.

Unregistered said:

More feet stamping and lies from faker advocate.
Just his opinion, no proof.

Click to expand...

Apart from the usual vauge (and unsubstantiated) claims of "lies", this is really just:

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

Numerous, credible sources state that Ontario laws entitles consumers to a refund, or even just an exchange, if they prefer, for defective items.

Link to the opinions stated by others on other sites can be founds at this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-10.html#post4599

You'd think the self-appointed CT rep would at least try to come up with some new lies.

Also remember:

- According to the CT Rep, a "Faker Advocate Site" is one with a "donate button", so they defined CT's own Jump Start as a "Faker Advocate Site, too".

- For a list of common CT lies, see: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

Unregistered said:

Apart from the usual vauge (and unsubstantiated) claims of "lies", this is really just:

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

Numerous, credible sources state that Ontario laws entitles consumers to a refund, or even just an exchange, if they prefer, for defective items.

Link to the opinions stated by others on other sites can be founds at this post:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-10.html#post4599

You'd think the self-appointed CT rep would at least try to come up with some new lies.

Also remember:

- According to the CT Rep, a "Faker Advocate Site" is one with a "donate button", so they defined CT's own Jump Start as a "Faker Advocate Site, too".

- For a list of common CT lies, see: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

Click to expand...

Got even ONE example that CT or ANY other retailer has been found to have an illegal policy? Nope!
How's that call to the Ministry of Consumer Services going?
Will I be reading about these illegal policies in the paper soon?
Can I jump onto the class action suit?

All Nope!

LOL.....faker advocates are so easy to disprove.

Important Things for Consumers to Remember About Ontario Laws:

- Links to numerous reputable sources on other sites can be found at this post: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-10.html#post4599

- The laws still apply, even if nobody has posted a source describing the retailer's policy as "illegal".

- Even the CT Rep admitted that "against the law is illegal".

- Consumers can decide for themselves whether a retailer's policy is "illegal".


Important Things for Consumers to Remember About CT Representatives:

- The CT Rep posts many lies about the laws, their own policies, and the policies of other store.

- The CT Rep posts many lies about what consumers write here, but that doesn't change the laws.

- For a list of common CT lies, see: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html[/QUOTE]

- According to the CT Rep, a "Faker Advocate Site" is one with a "donate button", so they defined CT's own Jump Start as a "Faker Advocate Site, too".

Unregistered said:

Good for the parents in taking Crappys to court and winning! The judgment is a pittance, but the family wasn't after real damages either, just out of pocket expenses for the ambulance, time off work for their hospitalized son, and getting CASH refunds for the defective bikes. It just goes to show Crappys that not everyone is out to get them as they're so paranoid about recording info from everyones ID.

CT_Manager was right on the money about bikes from Crappys!

Click to expand...

Huh! Another lawsuit involving injuries from defective bicycles. You'd think the Crappy People would have learned to just stop selling defective crap!

In cases like this, the Sale of Goods Act can help, because consumer can make a claim against the retailer for the defective items they sell, and not just the manufacturer.

However, the Crappy People were able to dodge a bullet in the Resch case, because the judge ruled that the step-dad had purchased the bicycle, so only the step-dad was the 'buyer', and not the boy who was crippled by the defective bicycle that Canadian Tire sold to him.

At least the family was able to get punitive damages from CT.

An interesting article on the Ontario 'Sale of Goods' Act.

In this case, the manufacturer sold it directly to a consumer.

It was found that the seller "had breached the implied condition of merchantability in s. 15(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, making it 100% liable" for the damages.

Sale of Goods Act defendants have some explaining to do: defect inferred, even in the face of spoliation - Lexology

Unregistered said:

An interesting article on the Ontario 'Sale of Goods' Act.

In this case, the manufacturer sold it directly to a consumer.

It was found that the seller "had breached the implied condition of merchantability in s. 15(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, making it 100% liable" for the damages.

Sale of Goods Act defendants have some explaining to do: defect inferred, even in the face of spoliation - Lexology

Click to expand...

Good link! We already know what those dum dums are going to say.

I got somethings to get for the house and fix up the swingset for the grand kids. I won't be going to canadian tire for that and neither will they. That's what calling me a "fraud" bought you.

This is my favourite "CT Me / Lawguy" quote on Ellen Roseman (who says repeatedly that you can get a refund for a defective item):

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/c...-worst-place-shop-scary-place-4.html#post3001

'ellen roseman told the biggest lie of them all in that article that "she uncovered the ecofee disaster" in ontario.'

Of course, Ellen wrote no such thing.