Page 9 of 12 First ... 7891011 ... Last
Results 81 to 90 of 111

Thread: Sale of Goods Act

  1. #81

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Hey, what’s the square root of 81?

    Wait! Before you blurt out “9”, think about how the CT rep’s will react!

    Can you prove that the answer is 9?

    Do you have links to support your “opinion”? No? Then, you have no evidence. You are posting opinions as fact, so you are a liar.

    Liar, liar, liar.

    CT happens to know that the the square root of 81 is 8. You are not relevant. Sorry!

  2. #82
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0477's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    What’s that? You have links to a site where a math professor at York says the square root of 81 is 9? Well, that’s just his opinion. Actually, it’s really just your opinion. And since it’s not a “fact”, then you are liar. You loser loses lose. Besides, CT has a staff of top-notch mathematicians, and they make sure we know our square roots. They even know some cube roots! So, take if from us, it’s 8. Make no mistake, it’s 8. Absolutely 8. Trust us on this one.

  3. #83
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    What’s that? You have links to a site where a math professor at York says the square root of 81 is 9? Well, that’s just his opinion. Actually, it’s really just your opinion. And since it’s not a “fact”, then you are liar. You loser loses lose. Besides, CT has a staff of top-notch mathematicians, and they make sure we know our square roots. They even know some cube roots! So, take if from us, it’s 8. Make no mistake, it’s 8. Absolutely 8. Trust us on this one.
    Hopefully this will help the faker advocate:

    Square root - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Or

    Squares and Square Roots


    How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer has an illegal policy?
    Got that call into the Ministry?
    How about Ellen Roseman?
    A media source? A lawyer?

    Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 6 years. Don't forget to donate...box at the top and you can use paypal and interestingly enough, donate is US dollars!...nice touch

  4. #84
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0477's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    The logic used by the CT Rep is deeply flawed, as the example using square roots shows.

    Many links have been provided to sites from reputable sources on consumer law, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they are willing to settle for that).

    But the CT rep has ignored these sites by claiming there is “no evidence”, or that the statements on these sites are the “opinion” of the consumers who posted the links.

    So, there is “no evidence” about square roots, and the links to the math sites are just “the opinion” of the CT rep. That’s what you end up with, if you use the logic of the CT rep.

    Lately, the CT rep has requested a reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “illegal policy” in the same sentence, and implies that the absence of a reference shows that CT's policies are fine.

    By the same logic, CT could also lie by saying the square root of 81 is 8. Since there’s not reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “square root of 81” in the same sentence, the CT rep could claim that they’ve shown the root of 81 is 8, and there's nothing wrong with that statement. Outrageous!

    So, here’s what you get if you use “CT Logic”.

    “How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer is wrong about square roots? Got that call into the Ministry of Finance? A media source? A mathematician? Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 2000 years. Don't forget to donate...at Jump Start, which has a ‘donate’ button, and therefore is a ‘Faker Advocate Site’.”

    Well, consumers, you can come to their own conclusions about any topic you like, including mathematics, and the legality of CT’s policies.

    And, of course, there’s lots of evidence that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they prefer).

    Consumer should just check these posts:

    Sale of Goods Act

    Sale of Goods Act

    Sale of Goods Act

    Don’t forget to check out the on-going lies and misrepresentations of the CT Rep, being tracked here:

    Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

  5. #85
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The logic used by the CT Rep is deeply flawed, as the example using square roots shows.

    Many links have been provided to sites from reputable sources on consumer law, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they are willing to settle for that).

    But the CT rep has ignored these sites by claiming there is “no evidence”, or that the statements on these sites are the “opinion” of the consumers who posted the links.

    So, there is “no evidence” about square roots, and the links to the math sites are just “the opinion” of the CT rep. That’s what you end up with, if you use the logic of the CT rep.

    Lately, the CT rep has requested a reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “illegal policy” in the same sentence, and implies that the absence of a reference shows that CT's policies are fine.

    By the same logic, CT could also lie by saying the square root of 81 is 8. Since there’s not reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “square root of 81” in the same sentence, the CT rep could claim that they’ve shown the root of 81 is 8, and there's nothing wrong with that statement. Outrageous!

    So, here’s what you get if you use “CT Logic”.

    “How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer is wrong about square roots? Got that call into the Ministry of Finance? A media source? A mathematician? Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 2000 years. Don't forget to donate...at Jump Start, which has a ‘donate’ button, and therefore is a ‘Faker Advocate Site’.”

    Well, consumers, you can come to their own conclusions about any topic you like, including mathematics, and the legality of CT’s policies.

    And, of course, there’s lots of evidence that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they prefer).

    Consumer should just check these posts:

    Sale of Goods Act

    Sale of Goods Act

    Sale of Goods Act

    Don’t forget to check out the on-going lies and misrepresentations of the CT Rep, being tracked here:

    Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?
    There goes the proverbial stamping of the feet again...lol. "it's the truth because I say it is"....yet, no one to corroborate the claim, no one to publicly accuse CT or ANY other retailer of having illegal policies.
    Kind of like the reaction the general public had to the few trouble makers in Vancouver after the Stanley cup playoffs, they don't support that kind of behavior, they won't support losers.
    If people want the truth, they should call the Ministry of Consumer Affairs....only then will they know the truth, and given the number of people that shop at CT, faker advocate certainly is not the majority, but rather one of "the few"
    Don't forget to donate....they take paypal in US dollars...lol

  6. #86

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Well, consumers, if posting the truth is "stamping feet", prepare for a whole lot more of it.

    And if pointing out the lies of the self-appointed CT rep is just "stamping", well, there's going to be a bit more of that, too.

    For those of you keeping track, the sites the CT rep wants you to ignore, are all the ones where reputable sources state that a consumer is entitled to a refund (or an exchange, if they are OK with that) for a defective product.

    These are:

    1 – 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

    2 – Ellen Roseman, “Working to fix products that don’t work"

    Roseman: Working to fix products that don

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

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

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

    Milton, Burlington, Oakville Lawyers | O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario

    5 - “is that legal”, Cpt 5: General Consumer’s Rights:
    LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.5: General Consumer Rights

    6 - “is that legal”, Cpt 7: General Civil Remedies:
    LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)

    7 – Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
    Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002

    8 – Peterborough and District Labour Council
    PDLC News » The New Face of Consumer Protection Law in Ontario: Consolidate, Update and Escalate

    9 - MCS re: Cancelling:

    Cancelling a Contract - Ministry of Consumer Services

    10 - Blakes (General coverage)

    http://www.blakes.com/pdf/CPA_Oct20_2005.pdf

    11 - Macmillan – General

    http://www.mcmillan.ca/Upload/Public...ct,%202002.pdf

    12 - Stutz & Associates

    W.W. Stutz & Associates ~ Barristors, Solicitors and Notary Public

    13 - MCA – basic info, plain language:

    http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/Documents/275071.pdf

    14 – UWO
    The University of Western Ontario

    #15 - Professor Iain Ramsay:

    Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers

    #16 – Industry Canada
    Refund and Exchange - Entire Collection | Canadian Consumer Handbook

    Read those for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. They will likely not be what CT wants you to think.

    The self-appointed CT rep. also doesn't want you to check the CPA itself, which is here:

    Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

    Give that a read, too, and then see what you think. Likely not what CT wants you to believe.

    Finally, call your Ministry to hear what they have to say. Every consumer who's reported on such a call has had a MUCH different story, than what the CT Liar reports.

    Now, on to the latest CT lies:

    No consumers have written, "it's the truth because I say it is". That's just one more the self-appointed CT rep has made up, probably in hopes that you won't bother looking into things for yourself.

    Actually, that's how the CT rep's post sound, now that I think about it.

    Also, if you had any inclination to donate to "Jump Start", keep in mind that their site has a "donate" button, and the CT rep says that makes it a "Faker Advocate Site", so you might want to think twice. But, heck, if you are going to donate to either this one, or Jump Start, how about donating here???

    Regading "corroboration", if you (the consumer) feel that this is needed to justify calling CT's policies "illegal", then that's the conclusion you have reached. No problem. Just don't be tricked into thinking you can't decide what to believe for yourself.

    But I'm guessing you will apply CT's own definition of "against the law is illegal", and maybe decide that the "repair only", "exchange only" and "no warranty" policies are, well ... you can decide for yourselves.

    Happy reading!

  7. #87
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.

  8. #88

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.
    well the stores seem to think they can choose for themselves, regardless of the laws ....

  9. #89

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.
    As long as there's no law being broken, a store can set the policies they want.

    It's a trade-off. Stores can be more generous, but their costs will be higher, and they won't be able to compete on price.

    If the store have more restrictive policies, they will save on costs, but their customers won't be as happy, and will shop somewhere else.

  10. #90
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sale of Goods Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    As long as there's no law being broken, a store can set the policies they want.

    It's a trade-off. Stores can be more generous, but their costs will be higher, and they won't be able to compete on price.

    If the store have more restrictive policies, they will save on costs, but their customers won't be as happy, and will shop somewhere else.
    How come no one has accused Cdn. tire of breaking any laws?

Page 9 of 12 First ... 7891011 ... 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