Page 4 of 12 First ... 23456 ... Last
Results 31 to 40 of 111

Thread: Sale of Goods Act

  1. #31
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    ....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.
    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

  2. #32
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0363's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    ....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.
    God your dumb

  3. #33
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    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?

  4. #34
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    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.

  5. #35
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    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:

    “… the Sale of Goods Act says that merchandise must be fit for the intended purpose. So a bag that can’t be zipped up because the zipper is broken shouldn’t be sold unless the defect is clearly marked — and it wasn’t. I always give people the phone number for the Ontario consumer ministry, 416-326-8800, and suggest they ask for complaint mediation. The Forever 21 story seems like a perfect candidate for that.”

    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:

    “… a retailer is liable to a purchaser for a defective product.” (which could mean “exchange”, but in the article’s context means “refund” (i.e., “money back”).

    “… retailers have to sell you a product that works.If you find a dud in the package when you open it, don't let them shrug off their obligation to give your money back.” (Note that “obligation” means they must by law give you a refund, i.e., “money back”).

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

    "http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...05%20Final.pdf"

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

    “A consumer is not bound by any consumer agreement that does not comply with the Act and regulations.”

    “When a consumer cancels an agreement, the supplier must refund any payment made ... The supplier must do this within fifteen (15) days.”

    “Credit Card Charge Back … where the consumer cancels the agreement and the supplier has not provided the full refund, this remedy will be available to the consumer.”

    “The credit card issuer has thirty (30) days in which to acknowledge the consumer’s request.”

    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:

    “The primary remedy available to a consumer under the Act is the consumer’s right to cancel an agreement.”

    “When a consumer cancels an agreement in accordance with the Act, the consumer is obligated to return the goods or permit the goods to be repossessed and the supplier must provide a refund within 15 days. “

    “When a consumer does not receive a response from a supplier with respect to a refund, the consumer may be entitled to recover the refund from the credit card issuer for the card through which the payment was made.”

    “A request for cancellation of charges must be made in writing to the credit card issuer within sixty days of the date the refund was due.“

    “The credit card issuer then has thirty days to acknowledge the consumer’s request.”

    “Any person convicted of contravening the Act may be held liable to pay a maximum fine of $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

    “Every corporation convicted for contravening the Act is liable to a maximum fine of $250,000.”

    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:

    “…there is an 'implied condition of merchantability' (freedom from defects) … [SGA s.15].”

    “Any attempt by a supplier … to avoid or vary the above-noted (SGA and CPA) statutory warranties or conditions with respect to consumer transactions, is void [CPA s.9(3)]”

    “You cannot give these rights up, even if you want to.”
    LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)

    “On supplier default of most of these CPA rights the CPA grants the consumer the right to cancel the consumer agreement at the consumer's election, carried out by the delivery of a Notice of Cancellation to the supplier."

    -----

    My post on the actual legislation is coming shortly.

  6. #36
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    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=fa lse&detailPage=bills_detail_about&Intranet"

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

    "The new Act, subject to limited exceptions, applies to all consumer transactions where the consumer or the person with whom the consumer is conducting the transaction is located in Ontario."

    - Does this cover defective items? Yes:

    The implied conditions and warranties that apply to goods because of the Sale of Goods Act are made applicable to goods that are leased or traded ...

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

    ... implied warranties or conditions cannot be negated.

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

    "the supplier must refund payment".

  7. #37
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct ME View Post
    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
    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.

  8. #38
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Ct ME View Post
    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
    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.

  9. #39
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    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).

  10. #40
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

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

    However, there somehow seems to be some confusion:

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidLeR View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidLeR View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidLeR View Post
    In a future post, I’ll go through the laws themselves, quoting the relevant sections.
    Coming soon.

Page 4 of 12 First ... 23456 ... Last

Similar Threads

  1. Returned goods put back on shelf to be resold (to me)
    By Guest-0291 in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 20th, 2014, 10:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions