Thread: "Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange

Let's not lose sight of what matters:

- Canadian Tire is the only major Canadian retailer who has a "no returns" (i.e., "Repair Only") policy for defects on a large assortment of products (most things gasoline powered, major appliances, many things with motors, etc.)

- All other major retailers provide routine refunds for defective products (although some might want you to confirm the defect with the manufacturer).

- All provinces/territories have Consumer Protection legislation requiring retailers to provide refunds for defective products (i.e.., misrepresenting it as mercantable).

- There is a big difference between a "Return Policy" (offered by stores) and a "Warranty" (offered by a manufacturer).

- Manufacturers might offer a repair warranty, but that doesn't mean that retailers don't have to give refunds.

- This has all been well documented, including on this thread.

Funny, about that Home Depot Canada link!

(At least the CTer stopped comparing themselves to US stores!)

- this particular product says it is sold on-line only (something CT wasn't able to do successfully and had to abandon).

- those first few negative reviews are about the product itself, not complaints about the existence of any "No Returns" (Repair Ony) policy at the store and the overall rating based on ALL 210 reviews is 4.2 stars out of 10.

- there is no reason to think those reviewers couldn't not have taken advantage of the generous Home Depot satisfaction guarantee earlier and gotten a full refund (something CT doesn't have in their policies).

- none of those reviewers say that they are still stuck with it, couldn't get a refund, were forced to keep it, were told it is Repair Only, or that they will never shop at CT again.

- I haven't seen a single complaint about Home Depot Canada deleting negative reviews - something that CT gets called out for a lot).

- Home Depot's in-store policy has been discussed at length on this thread many times, but it's nice to have a reminder. The link is right on the page. It's The Home Depot | Customer Support | Return FAQ

(The link to CT's policy is well known: "the manufacturer's warranty applies" Ouch! That's no Policy at all!)

- the fact that some of HD's customers opted out of HD's money-back return policy, and chose instead to volunteer to have it repaired, does not mean that a "repair only", no refunds-ever policy is somehow magically legal.

(It might be interesting to compare to actual warranty that's available to HD customers who elect to use it, rather than use HD's Return Policy. I suspect HD's warranty is superior to the one CT negotiated, too!)

I just LOVE to see these head-to-head comparisons revisited - because Crappy Tire always comes out such a clear loser!

Indeed, an informed consumer is Canadian Tire's worst enemy!

And the worst enemy of the consumer is the people (person?) who posts first as CT Me, then as Law Guy and now as Moaner 1.

Oh yes here we go again. Why ? Because the horse guy asked for my response to his claims of illegal repair policy. Now you have it. Same response as last 5 times we did this little go around.

So again, the Canadian Bar posting has zero reference to a specific law, code, regulation or rule. It simply says ask for a refund or threaten to sue. No indication as to what your rights actually are.

Go ahead post your links again to Sale of Goods Act and again I will ask for the SPECIFIC section, rule or regulation that states in black and white that a retailer must refund your money if you are not satisfied, or if the item needs to be fixed. Simple task young fellow. Find me those words, or a version of the words that states MUST REFUND MONEY!

By the way, you consider my posting here an attempt to mislead consumers. Guess what, there are no consumers posting here. hahaha hilarious. The three of you regulars aren't our customers.

A mistake to address warranties on a thread titled Repair only Warranty LOL yah that makes sense hahah
How is it that you know what CT negotiates with suppliers? LOL that's just talking out of your hat.

So again, since I was asked just recently on here by the horse dude, how do I respond to the alleged illegal repair only warranty, well I respond the same as I always have.

The John Deere noted a perfect example. It shows in black and white that they will repair or replace parts under warranty on their units at their discretion. Regardless of a 30 day guarantee, there is many years after that on the warranty. If it fails, it gets repaired. Says so in black and white.
SO I ASK.....IS JOHN DEERE USING AN ILLEGAL POLICY?


Secondly, again same as last time why is it that none of the policies, codes or laws you reference, including the information from the Canadian Bar Association can list a specific code or law that says a retailer MUST REFUND YOUR MONEY for an item with a defect. None of them.
We are certainly bound to honour the warranties and policies, but they are the warranty and policy terms as set out by the seller and/or the manufacturer.....that's me! If the policy says no return, then it's no return. If the warranty states repair, then it goes for repair. If the warranty says exchange for a new one only, then exchange for a new one it is. Sorry boys and girls, that's how it goes. That's the way warranties work.
Same as your car. Buy a new one, the warranty is as set out by the manufacturer. If your Honda Accord has a policy that covers bumper to bumper for 80,000km and only power train after that for another 80,000 that's what you're stuck with. AND you might drop it off for two days, and be without a car. That's how our lawn tractors would work too.
If a Mercedes breaks down and has a 120,000km bumper to bumper, same deal. It's in the shop. Only difference is, you probably have a guaranteed car program, so you roll a loaner Benz for a few days. You can't demand your money back lol

Why are you so silly?

Originally Posted by Owner 1

Oh yes here we go again. Why ? Because the horse guy asked for my response to his claims of illegal repair policy. Now you have it. Same response as last 5 times we did this little go around.

So again, the Canadian Bar posting has zero reference to a specific law, code, regulation or rule. It simply says ask for a refund or threaten to sue. No indication as to what your rights actually are.

Go ahead post your links again to Sale of Goods Act and again I will ask for the SPECIFIC section, rule or regulation that states in black and white that a retailer must refund your money if you are not satisfied, or if the item needs to be fixed. Simple task young fellow. Find me those words, or a version of the words that states MUST REFUND MONEY!

By the way, you consider my posting here an attempt to mislead consumers. Guess what, there are no consumers posting here. hahaha hilarious. The three of you regulars aren't our customers.

At first, I was tempted to just point out that this is yet another “Troll” post, seeking only to disrupt this thread, and possibly deceive consumers.

But upon reflection, I actually found this to be one of the single best posts that the CTer has made in a long time.

Not even when he/she posted as CT Me, or later as Lawguy, or more recently as Owner 1, has a single post so clearly demonstrated the main theme of the CT’er, and engaged in by the many Crappy People in the stores and with the corporation, which is simply this one:


Misrepresentation.


Call it “deception” or “a fraud” or “a lie”, but it's all covered by "misrepresentation".


For example, here are some misrepresentations, just from this post:

The CTer misrepresents the statements that consumers have posted here. For example, the CTer claiming that “the horse guy” asked for the CTer’s response to a claim of illegality, when actually 1wildhorse asked for a response to their understanding of the relevant Acts.

The CTer misrepresents what authorities say, such as the Canadian Bar Association web sites. For example, stating that the site has “zero reference to a specific law”, when actually the relevant laws are linked.

The CTer misrepresents the situation in question. For example, they discuss cases of a customer who is “not satisfied” or when a product “needs to be fixed”, when in fact it is about defective products which might not be fixable, or might not be designed with sufficient durability or functions.

The CTer misrepresents the history of prior posts on this and other threads. For instance, they ask, “Find me those words, or a version of the words”, which implies that no such wording has been provided in the past, when actually a walk-through of the relevant passages have already been provided.

The CTer misrepresents the Acts themselves, by claiming that they do not require refunds, when it has been shown many times that they do.

The CTer misrepresents the activities of this site. For example, they say that “consumers” are equivalent to “our (i.e., Canadian Tires’) customers”, when a consumer is anyone who buys any goods for their personal use. Another example is the claim that only the regular posters could be deceived by the CTer, when if fact there are hundreds of Views on these threads every single day.

Even more insidious, the CTer misrepresents their very own actions, by claming that they would address the question of illegality, when all they did was make false claims about the CBA, false claims about prior posts, and false claims about the consumers who post here.



And it isn’t limited to their devious behaviour on this web site. There are similar misrepresentations that can be found in their stores every day:

Misrepresenting their policy for the return of goods, including defective items as, “Simple Returns: Keep Your Receipt”, when in fact many products are non-returnable, or only returnable if unopened.

Misrepresenting items as being on sale in reasonable quantities, when consumers instead find that many stores routinely have ‘run out’ of the sale-priced products early in the first day.

Misrepresenting their Service Center personnel as “Mechanics” when many are simply poorly trained (or even un-trained) ‘technicians’.

Misrepresenting the condition of a customer’s vehicle, for example stating that the vehicle requires repairs, when the vehicle is fine or only needs minor repairs.

That covers a large number of situations that aren't relevant to this thread, but give a clear picture of the misrepresentations that the Crappy People like to engage in.

But the most relevant misrepresentation to this particular thread, is the one described in the Consumer Protection Act. Because, by simply offering defective items for sale, Canadian Tire is misrepresenting them as being of “merchantable quality”, when they are actually defective. (The law does not require the seller to know ahead of time that the item is defective – they just have to offer it for sale.)

Also, when they sell an item that does not work, or works poorly, Canadian Tires is mirepresenting the “functions and performances”, when those items do not work as described.

A related misrepresentation is of the implied durability. Although the Act does not describe a precise period of durability for every product that is sold in Canada, surely they should work at least once, and for at least 5 minutes (if that is reasonable).

Yet Canadian Tire will misrepresent the defective products they sell as being of reasonable durability, when these defective products work for less than 5 minutes – if at all.

It is these misrepresentations that gives the customer the option of a refund, if they want one.

Indeed, misrepresentations seem to run very deep at this particular retailer. But nobody I’ve heard from yet has embodied this ingrained spirit of misrepresentation, as has the CTer, posting first as CT Me (a “dealer”), as Law Guy (self-proclaimed legal expert, but really just a dealer/owner), and now as Owner 1.

Call it “misrepresentation” or “a fraud” or simply “a lie”.

But it might save time in the future to resume the use of this still-popular thread:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...lies-here.html

Originally Posted by Owner 1

the Canadian Bar posting has zero reference to a specific law, code, regulation or rule. It simply says ask for a refund or threaten to sue. No indication as to what your rights actually are.

Hmmm.

Who should I believe?

The people who have years of legal training, and are paid for their ability to understanding the laws?

Or the people who stand to gain financially if, they can trick me into thinking the law doesn't exist?

Hmmmm ....

Sorry I missed your response to this.....
The warranty described below is provided by John Deere Canada ULC, 295 Hunter Road, P.O. Box 1000, Grimsby, Ontario, L3M 4H5 (“John Deere”) to the original purchaser of new Turf & Utility Equipment (“Equipment”) purchased from John Deere or authorized John Deere dealers. Under this warranty, John Deere will, repair or replace, at its option, any part covered under this warranty which is found to be defective in material or workmanship during the applicable warranty term. Warranty service must be performed by a dealer or sales service centre authorized by John Deere to sell and/or service the Equipment (the “authorized dealer”). The authorized dealer will use only new or remanufactured parts or components furnished or approved by John Deere. Warranty service will be performed without charge to the purchaser for parts and/or labour.

John Deere is using an illegal repair only warranty?

xxxx

I also missed your response to the specific code, law, section, subsection etc.... that specifically states a retailer must refund your money if you are unsatisfied or if an item fails. I don't mean the link to the entire sale of goods act or anything like that....I mean the exact section that says if you're not happy I must return your money.

xxxx

Oh it would be so nice if your claims related to the Sale of Goods Act were actually made if you had a clear understanding of the provisions within it. If you really understood what it meant to have goods that were fit for sale, fit for their intended purposes, cancelling contracts, implied warranties.... if only you understood what it all meant.

If Canadian Tire was as bad all day every day at every location as you would like to have people believe, we'd be broke. Many many years ago we would have failed. You would have dozens, maybe hundreds, heck maybe thousands of people on here with you giving input, offering up stories.

Oh if you weren't so ridiculous. If you had any clue, any understanding of business or any idea what the statistics you use are really showing, you'd hide in a shell like a turtle and be embarassed by how poorly you have represented yourselves here.

YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE! YOU ARE FIGHTING A BATTLE WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY! YOU NEED A NEW HOBBY!

Originally Posted by Owner 1

I also missed your response to the specific code, law, section, subsection etc.... that specifically states a retailer must refund your money if you are unsatisfied or if an item fails. I don't mean the link to the entire sale of goods act or anything like that....I mean the exact section that says if you're not happy I must return your money.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that consumer were somehow obligated to provide answers to your inane trolling posts.

Also, you are misrepresenting your own recent posts. Nowhere in those posts do you request that anyone here provide references that "specifically stat a retailer must refund your money". Try to be a little more honest, if only when it comes to your own statements.

And, you are (once again) mis-representing what others have posted here.

Nobody that I recall has claimed that it is if a consumer is merely "unsatisfied" or "not happy", that refunds are required.

But, for the record, I'm sure you are well aware of the statements that have already been posted all over this site, most notably the Ontario laws with sections on Unfair Practices and misrepresentations. As I'm sure you know, you can find explanation on this thread: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...goods-act.html I like Post #10, myself.

Now, if you are willing to have an honest discussion on this, and not try to mispresent what othe have written, what you yourself have written, or what is written in the laws, I'm sure people will be willing to engage in that.

But if you just want to be a disruptive, misrepesenting troll, then I doubt if they will be interested.

Certainly I'm not interested in arguing with a lying troll.

Sorry!