Thread: Sale of Goods Act

This gets funnier, the more I read it.

Originally Posted by CT Me

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

Look who’s doubting MY intelligence. “LOL comical”.

(I won’t even get into the difference between “then” and “than”.)

Originally Posted by CT Me

You can not cut and paste individual sentences from an act and attempt to make them, the act LOL … Also check your wording on the warranties section.

She doesn’t even know what a quotation mark means. Hah!

Or, the difference between “cut” and “copy”. (Yeah, if you go to those web pages now? That text is like, GONE, baby! ‘Cause David took it :-).

OK, OK … this is the funniest part:

Originally Posted by CT Me

…we, the retailer can exercise our rights to honour warranties … and the CPA does not negate or override our right to exercise those warranties.

As if a warranty is there for the exclusive benefit of the retail, and not the customer! Hilarious!

Thank God the Consumer Protection legislation didn’t take away CT’s “right” to GIVE CUSTOMERS MONEY!

Yup, the stores really dodged a bullet on that one.


Keep ‘em comin’, CT Me -- don’t disappoint your loyal fans!

Resorting to grammar errors now? LOL

You really are running out of ammunition.
You're just a small step away from resorting to insults about my wife or my mom

Well done DavidLER, well done

As promised, here are links to the Ontario Acts, and some excerpts from them:

-----

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990

The SGA can be found here: "Ontario - Sale of Goods Act : http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s01_e.htm"

Allow me to draw your attention to this excerpt:

PART I - FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT

Implied conditions as to quality or fitness

15. 2. Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality ....

-----

Now, to the CPA: "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A"

Consumer Protection Act, 2002

PART I - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

Interpretation

1. In this Act …

“consumer” means an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes;

“supplier” means a person who is in the business of selling, leasing or trading in goods …

“consumer agreement” means an agreement between a supplier and a consumer in which the supplier agrees to supply goods or services for payment;


I found 2 two situations where a refund must be provided:

1 – Under Part II, “CONSUMER RIGHTS AND WARRANTIES”
2 - Under Part III, “Unfair Practices”.

However, Part III isn’t as clear about mandatory refunds, since it simply says, “any remedy that is available in law, including damages”.

Therefore, I have chosen to focus on this Part:

PART II - CONSUMER RIGHTS AND WARRANTIES

Quality of goods

9. (2) The implied conditions and warranties applying to the sale of goods by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act are deemed to apply with necessary modifications to goods that are … supplied under a consumer agreement.

9. (3) Any term or acknowledgement, whether part of the consumer agreement or not, that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act or any deemed condition or warranty under this Act is void.

PART IX - PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER REMEDIES

Consumer agreements not binding
93. (1) A consumer agreement is not binding on the consumer unless the agreement is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations.

Cancellation
94. (1) If a consumer has a right to cancel a consumer agreement under this Act, the consumer may cancel the agreement by giving notice in accordance with section 92.

Obligations on cancellation
96. (1) If a consumer cancels a consumer agreement, the supplier shall, in accordance with the prescribed requirements,
(a) refund to the consumer any payment made under the agreement or any related agreement; and
(b) return to the consumer in a condition substantially similar to when they were delivered all goods delivered under a trade-in arrangement or refund to the consumer an amount equal to the trade-in allowance.

Supplier to provide refund
(2) A supplier who receives a notice demanding a refund under subsection (1) shall provide the refund within the prescribed period of time.

Consumer’s recourse re: credit card charges

99. (1) 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.

Timing of request
(3) A consumer may make a request under subsection (1) if the consumer has cancelled a consumer agreement or demanded a refund in accordance with this Act, and the supplier has not refunded all of the payment within the required period.

Obligations of credit card issuer

(5) The credit card issuer,
(a) shall, within the prescribed period, acknowledge the consumer’s request; and
(b) if the request meets the requirements of subsection (4), shall, within the prescribed period,
(i) cancel or reverse the credit card charge and any associated interest or other charges, or
(ii) after having conducted an investigation, send a written notice to the consumer explaining the reasons why the credit card issuer is of the opinion that the consumer is not entitled to cancel the consumer agreement or to demand a refund under this Act.

Over in the "CBC Made CT Look Bad" thread, our beloved “CT Me” (whomever, whatever, wherever she may actually be) sets the bar rather high for personal growth:

Originally Posted by CT Me

... people … have only a one sided view and refuse to open their eyes, ears and minds to the possibility that they might not be 100% correct all the time.

I’ve decided to rise to the challenge, and attempt to see the retail landscape through her piercing blue eyes set firmly on The Truth:

The CPA ("Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A") says,

“consumer” means an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes; [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by CT Me

That is referring to a transaction such as... a builder or whoever bought a load of lumber ….

How in the HECK can a law that applies to (Geez, I guess I have to quote the whole thing!),

“an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes”

.... actually refer only to a “builder or whoever bought a load of lumber”

I am humbled by CT Me’s phenomenal ability with mental gymnastics and intellectual contortionism.

I might just not be up to the task of opening my ‘eyes, ears and mind’ to such a possibility.

I guess I should bow to CT Me’s undeniable mental (and probably physical) superiority, and simply open my wallet instead …

OK, maybe I didn’t try hard enough, last time.

Maybe if I screw on my thinking-cap really, really tight, and think about butterflies, unicorns and puppy-dog-tails, I’ll be able to raise my intellect way, way up (UP!) to CT Me’s stratospheric level.

Wish me luck!!!

-----

Once again from "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A"

Obligations of credit card issuer

(5) The credit card issuer,
(a) shall, within the prescribed period, acknowledge the consumer’s request; and
(b) if the request meets the requirements of subsection (4), shall, within the prescribed period,
(i) cancel or reverse the credit card charge and any associated interest or other charges, or
(ii) after having conducted an investigation, send a written notice to the consumer explaining the reasons why the credit card issuer is of the opinion that the consumer is not entitled to cancel the consumer agreement or to demand a refund under this Act.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by CT Me

Under no circumstances will a credit card company just simply reverse the charge …
WE KNOW THE RULES! YOU DON'T

The law says one thing ….

And CT Me sure seems to be saying something else ….

But she says it's important to open one's eyes, ears and mind ….

I'm sure there MUST be away to resolve this apparent contradiction.

Yeah, I sure do wish I was as smart and impartial as the awesome CT Me!

Actually, this whole surreal exchange with the notorious “CT Me” crew puts me in mind of the famous Monty Python sketch, which makes fun of some peoples’ version of debate/argument:

Me: "The SGA protects consumers”.
CT: “No, it doesn’t”.
Me: “Yeah. Here’s a link to the Act. It says it protects consumers”.
CT: “No it doesn’t. Here’s one on Consumer Protection”.
Me: “Wait, that’s just Crappy Tire’s crappy return policy”.
CT: “No it isn’t. It’s about Consumer Protection”.
Me: “You aren’t even addressing the issues”.
CT: “Yes I am. You just aren’t reading the links.
Me: “OK, here’s 50 more links about Consumer Protection”.
CT: “No, they’re not. There about a business buying lumber”.
Me: “What are you on? They are about Consumer Protection.”
CT: “No, you’re wrong. They are about Retailer Protection”.

And on and on it goes ....

Originally Posted by CT Me

Resorting to grammar errors now? LOL

You really are running out of ammunition.
You're just a small step away from resorting to insults about my wife or my mom

Well done DavidLER, well done

Don't worry about the wife or your mom. They're doing the gardener/ pool boy.

Unregistered:

Thanks for your support!

You may have noticed that I long ago stopped trying the change CT Me's mind(s).

Forgive the cross-post and edits, but I think your comments are very relevant to this thread, too.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I've done this stuff for years and have argued before the courts, way before DavidLer came along.

LOL. Are customers supposed to be scared of the customer service desk 'trumped' by societies minimum wage castoffs? Like they have the FINAL say and I should trust their interpretation of the law and their experience with returns/ store policy, all for the customers benefit?!?! That's your trump card? I'll take my chances and READ WHAT THE LAW SAYS and proceed with a claim against CT should the need ever arise. Maybe I should do just that and set foot in one of your 480 stores and see how quickly your customer service desk "shuts me down" over a return vs warranty item. Lil me against big bad CT with an army of expensive corporate lawyers, standing infront of a "mega mega" corporation. I like my odds and don't need a trump.

Originally Posted by DavidLeR

Unregistered:

Thanks for your support!

You may have noticed that I long ago stopped trying the change CT Me's mind(s).

Forgive the cross-post and edits, but I think your comments are very relevant to this thread, too.

You research has been helpful for alot of people. The stores are getting worse...

Dear CT Me:

I've provided links to the legislation, and many links to reputable sites offering credible interpretations.

This evidence makes it very clear that an Ontario retailer must provide a refund for defective goods to a consumer who asks for one.

For a long time, you have been arguing that this is untrue. However, you have not provided any references whatsoever, and only offered your "retail experience" as evidence.

Do you have any credible evidence that you can contribute to this discussion? Surely an expert in these matters would have access to something more convincing than, ""I KNOW THE RULES! YOU DON'T".

If you are unable to provide any contrary evidence, are you willing graciously admit that you may have been under-informed on this topic?