Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

just found an interesting item for you.... in regards to your "illegal to ask for ID claim"

Return Policy | Home Depot Canada

Scroll to the bottom of the return policy

The Home Depot reserves the right to request valid identification prior to accepting merchandise for a return.

The Home Depot reserves the right to limit or refuse to accept the return of certain merchandise at any time and for any reason.

Well now that doesn't sound legal according to what you believe.

How do you explain those? Could it be that in fact asking for ID is legal? could it be that a retailer DOES have the right to refuse a return at their discretion?
 

I think that's the point, there isn't any evidence to support your opinion. Surely after 6 years, someone credible would have put CTC's name or ANY other retailer in the same sentence as illegal policy.....but nope, we have your opinion to rely on...and you wonder why you're called a liar.
 
Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence starting at this post: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

Consumers can decide for themselves whether they can conclude that CT has an illegal policy, based on CT's own definition of "illegal" ("against a law, is illegal"), and based on all the evidence already provided from over a dozen reputable source that CT's policy is indeed against the CPA: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

Why do CT Defenders post so many lies about consumer law here?

One can't help but wonder if their monumental efforts are really just to help save the environment, or to protect consumers from 'embarrassment' when a store refuses a required refund.
 

Consumers who want more than opinions should call the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for the truth.....maybe that's why faker advocate can't find even ONE credible source that CT or ANY other retailer has an "illegal" policy. Not even ONE! Hilarious.
 
The CT Liar has been posting quite a bit lately, so naturally that means quite a few lies.

Lately there haven't been so many lies about what consumers have posted here, although there have been some accusations around fraud.

That ties into the CT Liar's absurd claim that any "deception" counts as a "fraud" - easily disproven even using the CT-supplied definition.

The bulk of the CT lies have been about the laws in Ontario, which they seem to like to lie about more than most topics:

CT Lie #8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.

CT Lie #9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.

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.

What does the self-appointed CT rep have to back up their claims? Nothing except some guess-work, wishful thinking, and that one BBB site that quotes a law that is now rescinded.
 

Any deception is fraud. DavidLer can claim it to be ok, but just shows the actual lacking of moral character from a faker advocate. Whether he posts under DavidLer, CTH8er, CTchallenger or anonymous, his character has now been called into question even more than when he lies.
 
Unregistered said:
Any deception is fraud.
Click to expand...

It's always so much easier when the self-appointed CT Rep posts their lies right on this thread - very convenient.

First of all, it's obvious that every "deception" is not also a "fraud". Otherwise, every one of the numerous lies the self-appointed CT Rep posts, would each be an instance of fraud.

Also, based on the self-appointed CT rep's own definition of "fraud", it's more than just mere "deception": Fraud Meaning and Definition

It needs to be "for the purpose of obtaining some valuable thing or promise from another" or "with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage".

So, no, by the definition CT provided, it is a lie (or "fraud", in CT-Speak) to say that "Any deception is fraud."

Plus, the self-appointed CT Rep is distorting the difference between the term 'fraud' in common usage, with the criminal offense.

But the real deception (i.e., "fraud" in CT-Speak) is the implication that the information to be found at the links provided here, are somehow inaccurate.

The CT people sure are trying hard to convince consumers not to persue their rights. Luckily, they aren't fooling anyone - not even themselves.

Be sure to check out the growing list of CT Lies ("frauds", to CT) that are posted regularly here. Then, decide how much "moral character" CT really has.
 

DavidLer can claim all he wants that he didn't say that it was ok to be 100% honest. Here is his quote on RedFlags:

But, I do get the idea: trading off a minor principle (i.e., being 100% honest with a conniving retailer) in order to preserve a higher principle (retailers being accountable for the products they sell).

Yep, it's ok to lie, commit fraud, whatever to get what you want. Fraud is Fraud....there is no grey line.

Tsk, tsk faker advocate.
 
Apparently the self-appointed CT Rep didn't bother to read their own definition of "fraud". I guess if they did so, they wouldn't be falsely accusing consumers.

Besides, nobody said "it's ok to lie, commit fraud, whatever to get what you want". These are just more lies made up by the self-appointed CT Rep, in a feeble attempt to find some mud to sling at a consumer.

(Which amounts to a "fraud" on the CT Rep's part, according to their own definition.)

It looks like any consumer who posts the truth about the laws and CTs policies can become a target of a smear campaign. Too bad it won't work.

Interesting that consumers are debating being less than 100% honest – wouldn’t it be nice if the self-appointed CT Rep would try for even 1% honest - that would be a refreshing break.

Really, this is just another lame attempt to discredit a consumer who has consistently posted verifiable information, or to cast reflected doubt on the information that can be found at the links they provided.

It just goes to show the extremes the CT liars are willing to go to, in order to hide the truth about the laws on Ontario, and about CT's policies.

CT should examine closely their own glaring sins of daily lies, both on this site and in stores, before making false accusations about consumers.

And consumers should look closely at the laws that CT doesn't want them to know about.

The CT Rep's desperation seems to grow by the day.
 
Maybe faker advocate (no matter how many names he posts under) would like an even better definition so that he can clearly understand:

fraud legal definition of fraud. fraud synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I've had several people convicted of both fraud and false pretences. If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%

You're credibility was already zero, but now we see the low moral character clearly as well.
 
Unregistered said:
fraud legal definition of fraud. fraud synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

Interesting:

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

What evidence do you have that anyone posting here meets all five separate elements? Just wondering.

It'd be especially interesting to hear your justification of your claim of "injury".

Unregistered said:
I've had several people convicted of both fraud and false pretences. If I catch you even once trying to deceive, the police do come and the conviction rate is 100%
Click to expand...

Wow! If you ask someone, "Do I look fat in those pants?", and they say "No", the police come? You must live in a very low-crime area!

Ok. Can you find even ONE credible source that DavidLeR (or any other consumer in Canada) has ben convicted of fraud for returning a genuinely defective item, which they had recently purchased, but using the receipt from a the purchase of a new, working one?

It's be best if the convicton were for an incident with the CT store you claim to represent, but any in the chain will do. Thanks!

But if you don't find it? Your credibility will fall below zero, and consumers will have even more evidence of your low moral character (not that any more is needed, LOL!)

After all, using your original (pre-back-peddaling) definition of "deception = fraud", you will have committing a couple of frauds in your post.

Be sure and let us know how your search goes!
 

Oh, and it has to be at the same store, naturally. Don't want you slipping in any convictions that don't match the example you've chosen ...

Also, don't forget to post your evidence that someone posting here did something that meets all five separate elements (including "injury").

Thanks!
 


I'm not sure if these are actually lies, or if they were just misunderstood..
#1 - You CAN get a refund for a defective item if it is within the 90 day return policy. If not then that is when it's up to the warranty, if the cashier is refusing to give you a refund when it was within 90 days, get them to call a manager!

#2 - I work at Customer service and that is not true. There are some items that are called "flood related" that we don't do returns on. That is things like sump pumps, rubber boots, etc. All other products are refundable, but only if it's within 90 days.. The people having these problems are trying to get a refund after 90 days.

#3 - Again, Canadian Tire does give refunds for defective items. 90 day return policy..

#4 - Canadian tire does not revert to the manufacturers warranty immediately.

#5 - The repairs are inconvenient.. but if you don't like the warranty the manufacturer has, then why not just return the item before the 90 days is up?

#6 - It's true, I've worked customer service in Walmart and Zellers and hear the exact same complaints from both stores. Majority of them are a misunderstanding of return policy and warranty..

#7 - Never heard that before. You have 90 days to return most items, so if you try to return it after 90 days and you can't, I guess Canadian Tire is to blame. But 90 days is plenty of time, better than most stores I've worked in.

#8 - AGAIN, just bring it into the store within 90 days, aghh!

#9 - Once again it is not that difficult to get a refund on a defective product. I do it all the time.

#10 - He should have gotten his money back, or exchanged it if it was the warranty period.. Why buy another one?
 
It is important to realize the difference between the official policies of Canadian Tire, and whatever practices may be in place at a particular store.

Your description is nothing like the actual, written policies, which can be found at the web site (Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire), and by calling the main Customer Service number at 1-866-746-7287.

You really do seem seriously misguided about the policies of Canadian Tire, and it doesn't look like you've read what other people who claim to represent CT have posted here.

Also, I'm curious about your experience at Walmart and Zellers, because you that these stores get "the exact same complaints" as CT. So, tell me. What do customers at Walmart and Zellers have to say about the "Repair only" and "Exchange only" policies at those stores? I'm guessing not much, since they don't have it. Maybe your store is better than the average CT, but you should check out the complaints about other stores, and especially about the "Repair only" policy.

Frankly, you just seem to be repeating all of the frequently-told lies, that so many CT people who have written before you.

Luckily, there is plenty of proof that the items on the list are, indeed, lies. You just have to check into it.

Maybe your store is really awesome, and consistently goes above and beyond the basic policies of Canadian Tire. But you really should do at least some basic research (if only of what other CT people have admitted to) before posting so much misinformation here.
 

I don't know why you people sit there and study up on Canadian Tire's policy's. Returns without original packaging will be accepted at Canadian Tire's discretion. Did you see that part? My store isn't the only Canadian Tire that will allow it.

The problem that MIGHT come up is if you bring it in without the original packaging, and there is a repair only warranty. This is because without original packaging we have to put it to defective, which means the manufacturer's warranty is going to apply. What's the issue with keeping the packaging anyway. Heck it doesn't even have to be IN the packaging.. We can put it back in for you if you really don't want to..

You can keep believing those are lies, why don't you actually go into customer service within the 90 days and see you are wrong. People always try to return/exchange things that they bought over a year ago. Then they get mad that we can't do it and come post shit on here.
 

Maybe some stores are more lenient, but the official policies of Canadian Tire are the worst return policies out there.

People like you make it sound as though there won't be a problem, but many customers report having problems when a store sticks to the strict policy as stated on the web site. So, you are basically lying to them when you say they can get a refund for an open box at any store in the chain, because they can't.

It's important for consumers to know what the real policies are, and not rely on the "discretion" of whomever happens to be working at the returns desk.

When customers rely on statements like the ones you made, they can be stuck with products that don't work, or that they don't want. When they complain they are often told, "you should have checked the policy before you bought".

Nobody's disputing that there might be a problem returning items without the original packaging. The point is that there might be a problem if the item isn't still sealed inside the packaging, or if it's been used.

A customer gave a report of what they were told by the customer service line.

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-40.html#post3803

Nobody is complaining that they are refused refunds after a year. Only that they are refused refunds within the return period, just because the package was damaged, or the package was opened, or the item is defective. They are unhappy because they thought they could return it. They thought they could return it because people like you say they can.

People like you who are lying to them.
 
Heard a great line from a comedian today. "If the customer is always right, then why isn't everything free?"
Reality is always funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
"Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange
42 43 44
Replies
877
Views
288K
bishious
B
D
Returning Unwanted Goods - CT Has the Worst Policies
13 14 15
Replies
292
Views
53K
CTH8R
C
C
Does Crappy Tire Lose Money Giving Refunds?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
23K
CT Challenger
C
D
Sale of Goods Act
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
38K
CT Challenger
C

Similar threads

F
Happy New Year everyone
Replies
0
Views
2K
fred1
F
C
Does anybody know why some other forums wanna remove my post?
Replies
2
Views
4K
ChickenOnTable
C
A
How to post a new thread Tutorial
Replies
2
Views
122K
Guest-0388
G
A
test test test
Replies
0
Views
2K
Admin
A
C
Why do CT haters ignore so many facts?
Replies
2
Views
5K
CT Me / Lawguy
C
Menu
Log in
Register