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

omfg does noone regulate these fukkin policies?

ok lets get even more serious(and a little wierd here).i have just looked up the turnover of the canadian retail industry.on a MONTH to MONTH basis i have the figures for january,february and march.Retail sales, by industry (monthly) (Seasonally adjusted)
january had turnover of $38,942 MILLION,february $39,488 MILLION and march $39,519 MILLION.

the figures here are incredible.

and yet there is no body(apparently) that oversees the compliance of practice within the LAW?

gobsmacked.

im telling you guys in the UK it would have taken all of 2 minutes to have been directed to the appropriate body that would be assigned to directly oversee business practice,yet here in canada,noone seems to have a clue who actually deals with these things?like i say i have written to the MP,have registered a complaint,both with the anti-fraud bureau and the local RCMP,and hopefully we can eventually find some answers out.i set out the other day that it is my intent to expose the possible illegalities of canadian tires shocking policies,and to act on such findings,and even though nobody seems to know who the hell is responsible for these,i will peel back the layers of the onion one by one until there is nowhere left to hide.this is my intention,i believe that i have been defrauded by this company,and am perfectly happy to pursue these matters until i get some answers to WHATEVER LEVEL AND DEGREE such an undertaking requires of me.(hell im bored!)and by the way its not just canadian tire im sure,but i am unaware to date of other companies that have such shocking(and possibly unlawful) policies.what are they gonna do?hang me?FUCK YOU.

In Ontario, it is the Ministry of Consumer Services. They can be reached at 416-326-8800 or 1-800-889-9768.

There is an early report on this thread, of someone at the Ministry giving an explanation of how to apply the Consumer Protection Act to defective products. It hinged on an Unfair practice of representing the product as having benefits and features it does not have.

That allows the consumer to reject the goods, or some similar wording.

The Sale of Goods Act is similar to the BC version I've seen here, but I don't think the Ontario wording is as clear.

Try this link: Consumer Protection BC

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act

... one or more of the following constitutes a deceptive act or practice:

(a) a representation by a supplier that goods or services

(i) have ... performance characteristics, ... quantities, ... uses or benefits that they do not have,

The Competition Bureau looks as deceptive advertising, including Bait & Switch. I don't see why they wouldn't also address other retail sales issues, like failure to provide a required refund, or deceptions like claiming no laws require refunds.

yes unfortunately the competition bureau categorically states on its webpage

Your complaint might be outside the Bureau’s jurisdiction. Have a look at various issues the Bureau does not deal with
and two of the issues listed are
Refund issues
Store return and/or refund policy

and as i said earlier,consumer protection BC doesnt actually have any kind of jurisdiction in the area of retail,including sale of goods act,even though over half of all enquiries actually fall under that bracket according to the phone conversation i had today.
so who the hell is responsible?
and i appreciate your help in trying to overturn these rocks,cos somewhere there has to be something under one of them.OR IS THERE?
no way should we have to rely on a possible deceptive advertising as recourse.their very policies are in direct contravention of the sale of goods act,and indeed if the sale of goods act can be taken as LAW,on their own code of conduct webpage.this is not deceptive advertising,the refusal of canadian tire service staff to refund your money when is comes to DEFECTIVE goods is tantamount to FRAUD.and yet again who is responsible for policing this multi billion dollar PER MONTH industry?

so hang on.let me get this right.these retailers can basically say what they like.the LAW is clear.the only protection we have right now is to attempt to argue that such dishonest practices fall under a bracket in which these government appointed agencies can actually deal with i.e. that even though you have been denied your right to a refund because the heap of shit didnt work,that you have to claim FALSE ADVERTISING? i mean cmon.we are talking about a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR A MONTH FUKKIN INDUSTRY here.WHERE IS YOUR WATCHDOG?

ive been looking at the fraud laws.
Canadian Criminal Laws Dealing With Fraud in Canada
under criminal code offences it says that the laws are built on the simple notion that exploititive dishonesty should be forbidden.starting from the premise that hinesty and dishonesty are such basic notions that everybody understands them,criminal law should clearly prohibit acts commonly considered dishonest to underline this understanding.

one of the things here is about unfair NONDISCLOSURE.the fact that often we are not actually told that a) a repair only warranty exists or
b) that the repair only warranty actually is in violation of the sale of goods act with regard to faulty goods,and that our rights are diminished to our financial detriment arising from said implementation.

the article actually says this.
b) conduct by the accused creating a false impression in the victim's mind

the false impression is that we cannot ask for a refund,we HAVE to get it repaired,which is not at all what the SOGA says.
so YES I THINK WE HAVE FRAUD HERE!

something else i should point out is that there is legislation in place in a number of provinces which make any attempt to diminish or cancel the terms of the sale of goods act with regard to consumer purchases will be VOID,in other words they cant get away from the terms of SOGA.thankfully BC is one of the provinces that adheres to this legislation.