Sale of Goods Act

the ct dingbat doth protest too much

Regarding credit card companies, the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (see Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A) mentions this specifically.

In Section 99 ("Consumer’s recourse re: credit card charges") it states,

"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"

According to subsection 2, this applies to (among other things) "a payment in respect of a consumer agreement that has been cancelled under this Act or in respect of any related agreement"

Now, brace yourselves for a lengthy "no-it's-not" posting containing more lies, misrepresentations and unrelated topics from people whose banks accounts will shrink if you exercise your rights in this regard.

"Caveat Emptor" applies to information, as well as products, supplied by Crappy Tire and their deceitful and devious supporters.

Now you're calling me a liar? up until now DavidLer you have done well in attempts to prove your points while remaining diplomatic and not stooping to the level of insults that a bunch of these ass hats have as their only weapon in debate.

So tell me, what is your response to your claim that repair only warranties are CT invented, having now seen that Home Depot, Rona, Home Hardward and Lowe's all have the same policies?

In a recent posting, a self-confessed owner of a Crappy Tire store claimed that Home Depot, Rona, “Home Hardward” (huh?) and Lowe's “all have the same policies” regarding the return of defective products.

Shall we investigate? Shall we see if this admitted-store-owner is a liar? Assuming you are not already convince, let us proceed.

To be clear: the issue was NOT whether other stores set time limits on when they want you to return defective products. No, indeed!

The question is: do other stores share Crappy Tire’s despicable “repair only” policy, which means the poor consumer has zero time to return a defective product, and must instead deal with a warranty claim?

(This is the notorious policy that attempts to side-step the consumer protection laws of Ontario, BC, and so on. Or, in the words of one owner, “too-bad-so-sad”.)

Note: do not be distracted by side discussions about change-of-mind returns, returns after the policy time has expired, return in other provinces, etc. Remember: this is the discussion of the “too-bad-so-sad”, zero time policy in those specific provinces.

Here are some actual links to web sites (rather than a lazy and suspicious copy-and-paste from a web site):

---

Home Depot "Return Policy | Home Depot Canada"

“Returns with an Original Sales Receipt Within 90 Days of Purchase …Any purchase made by credit card will be refunded to the original credit card (and so on, for various forms of payment).

No mention of a "repair only" policy, or a “too-bad-so-sad” policy on defective items. It doesn’t work? Bring it back.

---

Rona: "Rona.ca - Cancellation and Return Conditions"

"You may return merchandise within 30 days following purchase by dropping it off at a RONA store.”

Also, "if the merchandise was damaged or defective at the time of delivery, or if the merchandise is not what you ordered, RONA inc. will reimburse you both merchandise and shipping costs."

There is no mention of a flat-out refusal to take back defective items or a “repair only" policy.

---

Lowe's Canada: "Returns and Refunds Policy brought to you by Lowes.com"

"If you receive an item you are dissatisfied with, you may return it within ninety (90) days to any Lowe's store for a refund or exchange within our current return policy guidelines."

No mention of a "repair only" policy, or anything like it. It’s defective? Bring it back!

Home Hardware (with an “e”)

Frankly, I thought of checking, but I’ll leave that to anyone who might still be deluded into thinking that CT owners can be trusted in these matters.

---

- Did Crappy Time “invent” the devious and illegal (i.e., contrary to Consumer Protection laws) "repair only" policy? Maybe I'm giving them too much credit for creativity, but I don’t see anybody else trying to pull this off. Certainly the "invented" it in the sense that it's not allowed in certain jurisdictions. So, based on all available evidence, I’d have to say “Yes”.

- Should you shop at Crappy Tire, and pray to God that the item you just picked isn’t one of the defective ones? Absolutely not!

- Should you automatically cave in to the whims of the greedy store owners, who want you to “shouldered the burden of bad products”, because that's “the cost of [the customer's] education”? ( See posting #9). No!

- Are some store-owners prone to telling lies, deceiving readers on this site, and generally slinging a lot of B.S.? Just do a little reading, and you'll agree to another “Yes”.

- Do they squeal like stuck pigs when someone calls them on it? You be the judge.

....silence and then a giant sucking sound. It's CT on it's knees in it's best cheer leader outfit, bobbing up and down infront of Harper and McGuinty for a bailout, ahead of a long line of creditors and long term debt holders.

Oh DavidLEr you're so smart. I was sure that just making up my own return policies and warranty policies for other retailers would have fooled you and that nobody would have double checked.

Come on be real. Do a little digging, you might find that policies for product specific (eg. warranty for power equipment) might not be posted on their front page with their returns policy. No i will not hold your hand through the process and post the links.



and to mrs. unregistered - bankruptcy and bailout? LOL madame you have a wild imagination. In my business experience, increasing profits usually are not an indicator that a company is heading for bankruptcy. I suppose if we were to start closing stores (which has never happened), lose all of the assets connected to having one of Canada's largest real estate holdings companies and private trucking fleets... not to mention our real businesses of general retail, clothing, petroleum and credit cards... perhaps we'd be in trouble.
Where do you fools come up with such sillyness? So you're a disgruntled customer, we get that. The transition from pissed off customer to world economist or retail analyst who ranks our business strategy and success.... that's a pretty big quantum leap. You must be proud

I will admit it: I was wrong.

I heaped much derision upon CT's "repair only" policy, calling it "despicable", and an attempt to "side-step" consumer protection laws.

Now that I've done some more research, I must confess my mistake.

It's actually Crappy Tire's ENTIRE POLICY on defective items that is despicable, and is contrary to the CPA of 2002 (among other legislation).

DavidLeR apologized for the error.

The Crappy site "Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire" has this to say: "If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply".

Yes: if it is defective, they claim they don't have to take it back. Or, in the words of confessed-store-owner CT Me, "too bad so sad".

As I posted earlier, some provinces have Consumer Protection legislation that makes it illegal to misrepresent an item on a store shelf as performing in a certain way. If the item doesn't work, the SELLER is responsible for an exchange or refund, and NOT soley the manufacturer.

Some legistation includes the option to get satisfaction through a your credit card company. See my earlier posting.

So, what the heck IS this bizzare "Repair Only" policy, if there's already an over-arching policy for any defective item on any shelf in the store (i.e, the customer gets screwed)?

I believe this is just another name for a "No Return" item. Nothing special.

Typical "No returns" items are: gift cards, underwear (thank God!), clearance and "as-is" items, ammunition, and customized items. These are usually well-marked.

So, why did CT invent the term "Repair Only"? Why would they want to confuse customers (and store owners, too, apparently)?

Why not just call it a "No Return" item? They do it for ammo and underwear!

I have no idea.

-----

As customers, CT's hair-splitting rules for defective vs. change-of-mind returns seem to be completely backwards. If the darn thing doesn't even work, I can't get a refund/exchange; but, if I just randomly change my mind, I can a refund? It seems illogical.

But if we look at it from CT's point of view, it's perfectly rational.

If an unwanted item is resellable, they only have to pay an employee to process the refund and put it back on the shelf. Cheap and easy (but it is clearly untrue when CT Me wrote, "Refunds for unused items … don't cost money". Can somebody explain to him/her the difference between an "asset" and an "expense"?).

Now consider CT's view of a defective product - that's a whole other can of worms.

The process that stores have to follow to return a defective item to a supplier is probably onerous. As some employees have told us, they need permission from the supplier/manufacturer to return some defective items. I assume the store has to contact someone, get a credit for the item, arrange a pick-up, and so forth. I've heard that, for some items, the store will simply throw the item into the dumpster, rather than try to get the money back for the supplier. Ouch!

Even CT Me wrote (in posting #9), "For too long retailers have shouldered the burden of bad products".

(Strangely, CT Me then wrote in posting #20, "Refunds for defective products do not cost the business money". Which is the truth, and which is the lie? I suspect that CT Me got ticked off and carelessly blurted out the truth in his/her anti-customer diatribe in #9. But maybe that was the lie, and posting #20 was the truth? It gets hard to tell after a while.)

-----

You might now be asking yourself, "Is the Repair-Only policy still despicable?"

Yes!

One problem is, it's often not clear that this is a "no-returns" type of item. You might not find out until AFTER you paid, when it's printed on the receipt. By then it's too late.

To make things even worse, CT has begun stocking many products that are prone to have defects, right out of the box. Like those crapola Simoniz pressure washers.

So ….

Are you still considering buying that sale-priced pressure washer from Crappy Tire?

Bend over - you're about to get "Simonized".

When the website says manufacturers warranty applies, that does not mean you must deal with the manufacturer. It means they set the terms of the warranty. There are tens of thousands of products that are straight defective exchange warranty. You bring in a receipt, and the product ( a toaster, a blender, a skate, a battery charger, a hammer, a paint brush...whatever) we give you another one. Yes that product will end up in the dumpster 9 times out of 10, but we get the money back for it from the vendor. The vendor has no interest in bringing back each item, paying the freight, paying someone to inspect it etc.... we submit the documentation, they credit us back. There's always an assumed failure rate in products, and its likely built into the cost of selling to a retailer. Those warranties are by far the most common and are anywhere from 1 year to 3 year depending on the product. If the customer does not want a replacement on any of the items with that warranty, they can ask for a refund, and MOST stores will grant them the refund.

Change of mind return as you call it. This is an unused item, in its original packaging with a receipt. Within 90 days, will be refunded. Period. That policy is posted everywhere, and clearly on the back of every receipt. The only exceptions to this rule are motorized goods (pressure washers, generators, atv/dirtbike and some anomalies like tents which customers like to rent.
As previously requested.... my failure rates are low on Simoniz. 83 units sold in a rolling 52 week period. 3 repairs (2 wands, 1 hose) and one pump failure. All repaired under warranty. Let me guess... you'll claim i'm lying. typical

You are also attempting interpreting legal terms, which I can assume you are not qualified to do. Although you have disputed the facts, the rules are simple. In every Province, the consumer is protected by legislations, each is called something different in each province. The protection simply says that the seller and or manufacturer must honour the warranty terms of each product. There is absolutely no legislation by any department in any province that states what the warranty terms are, and what the remedy must be. It is 100% up to the seller/manufacturer.
Your claim as I understand it is that the Government does regulate it. So I ask you this.... your claim is that for all 15,000 sku's i have here, a Government team of people has decided what I can and can't do with the warranty? Ditto for every sku at Walmart, Home Depot etc... hmmm that's simply WRONG.

Under no circumstances will a credit card company just simply reverse the charge if you are unsatisfied. They may go to bat for you in negotiating with the store directly or head office/customer complaints but they will not just say sure... we'll credit you back.

Finally, the difference between asset and expense, thanks for the business lesson. Scenario: I sell a $50 dollar extension cord. I collect the money (plus in the cash column) , I remove the asset value (inventory of the cord) the difference between what its worth to me and what I sold it for at retail is called profit. Only fixed costs (expenses) involved such as heat, hydro, etc....) Scenario 2 - customer changes his mind, returns the unused cord. the opposite happens. Cord back into inventory, + value of cord on my asset list. Money goes back to customer, (- $ in the cash column). None of this has anything to do with expenses with the exception of the labour costs involved to handle, restock etc... which are variable costs but fixed in the sense that the employees are already scheduled.


PS - i've decided to lead you to water on repairs for products. Check out this website... rona.ca
Rona.ca - Cancellation and Return Conditions
Rona's authorized repair depot for power products.... Mecanair. Promise, we didn't invent it. Posted right on the front page, in fact just above the stuff you copied and posted for us to see. Conveniently overlooked i suspect.

DavidLeR, originally you seemed to be playing on a different level then the rest of the foul mouthed clowns on here. Now you're slowly joining their ranks, in constantly digging up information that suits your opinions. Unfortunately it's usually incomplete information. You do not understand how we operate (as noted in your assumptions of returns and costs) and you do not know the legislations of provinces and how they are involved in warranty processes. You have snippets of information that you dig up by googling. We have spent years and invested tens of thousands if not millions in retail marketing, research, policies, procedures, warranties etc.... WE KNOW THE RULES! YOU DON'T

Damn. Who'd a thunk that a cockaroach can survive for weeks without a head.

See, I told you ct me was a total dumb fuck.

Unregistered said:

Damn. Who'd a thunk that a cockaroach can survive for weeks without a head.

See, I told you ct me was a total dumb fuck.

Click to expand...

When I leave today at 4:00... i'll still be earning money for another 5 hours while i'm at home. If I choose not to come in tomorrow, there's still money going into the bank. Doesn't sound too dumb to me.

So you may continue to slave away Monday to Friday on an hourly wage or salary, earn exactly the same week in week out and grab a 2% cost of living raise, slowly building towards retirement.

Unregistered said:

....silence and then a giant sucking sound. It's CT on it's knees in it's best cheer leader outfit, bobbing up and down infront of Harper and McGuinty for a bailout, ahead of a long line of creditors and long term debt holders.

Click to expand...

Quarterly results posted just today
Canadian Tire boosts dividend amid strong profits - thestar.com

Boosted profit by $18million over 2009 in the quarter just finished.

Bankruptcy here we come

Unregistered said:

....silence and then a giant sucking sound. It's CT on it's knees in it's best cheer leader outfit, bobbing up and down infront of Harper and McGuinty for a bailout, ahead of a long line of creditors and long term debt holders.

Click to expand...

God your dumb

I did some more research on how to force sellers of defective products into giving innocent customers a refund.

In particular, I’ve been looking into the IMPLIED warranties that are provided through provincial legislation – something that greedy store-owners don’t seem to want customers to know about. ("It doesn't exist! Now go away!")

Note: It's important to be clear on the difference between the MANUFACTURER’S warranty, and the IMPLIED warranty. There’s been a lot of noise on this thread regarding manufacturers' warranties, but that’s not at all what this thread is about.

(Is this confusion due to CT store owners being too dense to understand this subtle difference? Or is it a self-serving tactic to divert attention away from the real issue? Either way, "Canadian Tire Sucks").

Here's an interesting site:

"Unsafe Products and Warranties - Canadian-Lawyers.ca".

Although this site is mostly about hazardous products, it contains useful information about the IMPLIED warranties:

“Many products come with warranties from the manufacturer, guaranteeing some aspect of the product. As well, several provinces in Canada have legislation stating that every sales contract includes an implied warranty. For example, in Saskatchewan, the Consumer Protection Act deems retailers to give minimum warranties whenever they sell a product. The implied warranty guarantees the product is of acceptable quality, reasonably durable, and fit for the use intended. The consumer affairs office in the Canadian province where the sales contract was made can advise as to whether implied warranties apply in that province.

In Canada, bringing a legal action backed up by legislation and a warranty, implied or otherwise, increases the chance of the courts awarding financial compensation to those who have suffered loss or injury due to an unsafe or defective product.”

Important things to note:

- It’s an IMPLIED warranty (i.e., NOT the warranty the manufacture stuck in the box, and NOT some side-deal the manufacturer worked out with the Crappy Tire store).

- It’s the RETAILER (i.e., Crappy Tire) who must give the implied warranty (NOT the manufacturer).

- You may have to take this to small claims to force your local Crappy Tire store owner to give you the refund to which you are legally entitled.

- The above site is about suits for loss or injury, but presumably it applies to a simple refund, too.

---

Also, if it is true that "Refunds for defective products do not cost the business money", then for Peter's sake, why are the store owners so reluctant to grant this zero-cost option, if it will turn an angry customer back into a loyal customer?

Are they just a bunch of sadists, who would rather inflict unnecessary suffering on the very people upon whom they depend for their financial survival?

Or is it more reasonable to assume that the alleged store-owner was lying about the cost, and this is a way to save the store some of the lusted-for profits that seem to rule their existence?

I just found a new (December 6th) "Moneyville" artilce by Ellen Roseman on the Sale of Goods Act.

Highlights:

- "a retailer is liable to a purchaser for a defective product"
- "similar in every province"

The article is here:

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

This article makes reference to the following York University site (which focuses on extended warrranties):

Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers

Obviously, this is something the retailers aren't happy with, but it's been on the books for 8 years now in Ontario, and is something they need to negotiate with their suppliers, rather than trying to shift the financial burden onto the shoulders of individual customers who were unlucky enough to pick the box that contained a defective item.

My research into the Ontario Sale of Goods Act (SGA of 1994) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA of 2002) have progressed, and I’ve been adding links to this forum over time.

I thought it would be worthwhile to consolidate everything into a single post.

I’ve decided to just focus on Ontario, which seems to have the most information.

There are many benefits to consumers in these laws, but I want to focus on the fact that they must, by law, give you a refund for a defective item.

Note that I will not be discussing other issues, such as:
- returns of non-defective items.
- manufacturer-supplied “express”, written warranties.
- various stores’ return policies.
- agreements made between stores and manufacturers.
- unopened packages.
- laws in other provinces.

There are two types of information sources:

- Online article explaining the laws.
- The laws themselves.

Since the laws are in technical language, and there are two Acts to consider, I’ll start with reputable online articles that summarize the laws. These are a good starting point.

In a later post, I’ll go through the laws themselves, quoting the relevant sections.

-----

Online Articles:

1 – Ellen Roseman, “Your right to a refund, credit or exchange”

"Your right to a refund, credit or exchange | Ellen Roseman"

- She’s an experienced consumer advocate.
- Her response to May 7th Comment:


2 – 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"

- Article provides a good overview of the laws, specifically for refunds.
- Useful quotes:


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

"http://www.millerthomson.com/assets...Consumer Protection Act - June 2005 Final.pdf"

- Written for businesses in Ontario.
- Not previously posted by me.
- Useful quotes:


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

"O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario"

- I only found this one recently.
- Written for businesses in Ontario.
- Useful quotes:


5 - “is that legal”, the Free Online Legal Guides to Ontario and Canadian Law

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

- A good overview of the laws, with quotes and references to the two Acts.
- Useful quotes:

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


-----

My post on the actual legislation is coming shortly.

Oh, wait. I found another really awesome web site.

This is by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=1048&isCurrent=false&detailPage=bills_detail_about&Intranet"

- Do retailers like CT have to abide by this law? Yes:


- Does this cover defective items? Yes:


- Does the manufacturer's warranty have precedence over the CPA? No:


- Does the retailer have to provide a refund? Yes:

Ct ME said:

Quarterly results posted just today
Canadian Tire boosts dividend amid strong profits - thestar.com

Boosted profit by $18million over 2009 in the quarter just finished.

Bankruptcy here we come

Click to expand...

Is that all? My ex-wives spend more than that on a weekend. The results are weak and terribly puny. Notable that the bigger ( mega mega to CT toadies) corporation have profits far higher than your pathetic chain.

Ct ME said:

Quarterly results posted just today
Canadian Tire boosts dividend amid strong profits - thestar.com

Boosted profit by $18million over 2009 in the quarter just finished.

Bankruptcy here we come

Click to expand...

Is that all? My ex-wives spend more than that on a weekend. The results are weak and terribly puny. Notable that the bigger ( mega mega to CT toadies) corporations have profits far higher than your pathetic chain.

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

You can not cut and paste individual sentences from an act and attempt to make them, the act LOL For an example, your point of "Cancelling a contract" and "must provide refund" - this is not the same as a retail transaction. That is referring to a transaction such as... a builder or whoever bought a load of lumber, and cancelled in writing, PRIOR to the arrival of the goods. He is entitled to a full refund. if you buy something from a store, the contract is complete once the goods have left the store, paid in full. You can't "cancel" that contract, it's complete. You are now into warranty and returns policies. Also check your wording on the warranties section. You have I assume accidentally misunderstood the term "negate the warranty" which you can't do. CORRECT. Nothing in the CPA negates a warranty or overrides it. That means, we, the retailer can exercise our rights to honour warranties (which much to your pain includes repair options) , and the CPA does not negate or override our right to exercise those warranties.


Anonymous - 100+ million profit in the quarter is weak performance? LOL good one
Yes our profits are smaller then larger Corporations... that's kind of how it works. If retailer X has three times more stores, they are likely to have more profit (assuming they are performing well).

I know posting #35 was a little long, but I thought this was pretty straight-forward.

However, there somehow seems to be some confusion:

DavidLeR said:

Note that I will not be discussing other issues, such as:
- returns of non-defective items.
- manufacturer-supplied “express”, written warranties.
- various stores’ return policies.
- agreements made between stores and manufacturers.

Click to expand...

I noticed some 'noise' already on the above topics. I don't want to censor anyone, but these topics really have nothing to do with the information I posted. If the policies that CT chose or negotiated (with a manufacturer) happened to have worked for a customer, then good for the customer - they got what they wanted.

But I'm talking about the broader laws which CT is obligated to ("must") follow in Ontario, which go beyond what CT may be willing to offer (and seemingly refuses to even acknowledge).

And, I guess I should add to the list "goods that have not yet been delivered", which is not what I'm talking about, either.
Or, goods purchased directly from a supplier.
Or, contracts formed between two businesses.

No, let's just keep it simple: An ordinary person who buys, oh, how about a pressure-washer. From Crappy Tire, for example.

DavidLeR said:

Since the laws are in technical language, and there are two Acts to consider, I’ll start with reputable online articles that summarize the laws. These are a good starting point.

Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear here, too, but let me elaborate:

- Nothing in Post #35 is directly from the Acts - only from me or the site I listed.
- All quoted text in the "Online Articles" section is copied right from the site I mentioned.
- Nothing quoted in the "Online Articles" secton is my interpretation. It is directly from the site.
- If you don't like some of the text I've quoted, take it up with the site.
- If I'm mis-quoted any of the sites, let me know so I can fix my quotes.
- I encourage any interested people to view these sites for themselves, to get a better understanding.

If you don't trust what these sources say, don't hesitate to check the Acts themselves for the meanings of "consumer", "transaction", "supplier", etc.

DavidLeR said:

In a future post, I’ll go through the laws themselves, quoting the relevant sections.

Click to expand...

Coming soon.