I did a little checking into those "savings".Originally Posted by Unregistered
""Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange"
Not such good deals after all ...
I did a little checking into those "savings".
""Repair Only Warranty" - No Refund, No Exchange"
Not such good deals after all ...
Time to add another often-told lie by Canadian Tire:
CT Lie #21 – Any customer who asks for a legally required refund or exchange for a genuinely defective item is lazy, demanding, dishonest, wants everything their own way, wants something for nothing and is a "bad" customer.
A customer who has purchased a genuinely defective product has already been inconvenienced, because they had to discover the defect, were unable to use the product, and then had to return to the store.
The customer is well within their rights to request any remedy that is allowed under law, whether or not it is included in the store policy.
The defective item may not be the fault of the store, but it is the responsibility of the store to comply with the relevant laws, and provide whatever remedy is legally required.
Rather than treating these innocent customers rudely or with suspicion, good customer service dictates that the store should respond apologetically, politely and promptly.
Certainly, a customer should not be forced to file a complaint or a lawsuit in order to obtain a legally required remedy.
Whoever said that? I guess after you were humiliated on here yesterday for your lies, and given proof yet again about your wrong opinions you just resort to making shit up.
Liar
You lose, loser, you lose.
That's a fat load of bulllllllll shit.
You're claim is exaggerated to a ridiculous extent. You make it seem as if every customer is treated poorly when they try to return something. I know this isn't true, and you know this isn't true. You have taken one example that may have occured and turned it into "this is how you are all the time" comments. Liar
The only thing accurate about your post is that it is the responsibility of the store to comply with the relevant law. jackpot, you're right. I noticed you stop calling the policy illegal hahaha back track much? If the rules on said item are repair of lets say.....a pressure washer, it goes to an authorized repair center for ummm repair! That's within the law. That's where it goes.
That's where it goes, when in reality it would go straight up your ass if you took that attitude with me.
I suppose the REAL faker advocate is exposed...when challenged with facts, violence is his only recourse. Well, once again, you lose, loser, you lose. Most people aren't like you.
Fellow Consumers:
I’m a bit behind on catching the lies that the self-appointed CT Representatives have been posting.
Lately, they have been posting mostly insults, so I have time to do a little catching up.
One lie that keep popping up, but hasn’t been added to the official list yet, is the statement that all the proof that has been quoted from reputable sources are the “opinions” and “interpretations” of the consumers who post here. This can be disproven by simply reading all the 14 or so links to reputable sources. The list is here:
"Sale of Goods Act"
(Note that the CT Liars are being hypocrites, rather than liars, when they provide their own opinions and interpretations. For evidence, they only have a few links to out-dated or incomplete information).
Here are some recent lies:
May 25, 12:37 PM:
Nobody said the Ministry site is wrong. However, that particular page does not provide complete information, so a little more research is needed. "Incomplete" does not equal "Wrong". So, other sources were provided, for additional information.
It is not the opinion of consumers posting here; it is the opinion of reputable sources quoted here:
"Sale of Goods Act"
Posters here have been saying that the information is out-dated. It was probably correct prior to the updated CPA.
The BBB site was covered in CT Lie #11 – There’s a BBB site that references the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund.
See "Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?"
There’s also a new lie in that sentence. The Ottawa site simply re-quotes the (incomplete) Ministry site, and not the London BBB site. This lie makes it sound as if the out-of-date information on the London BBB site is more reliable than it really is.
May 25, 3:31 PM:
Included in this fraudulant report on what Ministries will tell you are the following lies:
This should probably be made into an Official CT Lie. The legislation does not mention the ‘express’ manufacturer’s warranty at all.
The post is basically a re-telling of these CT Lies:
CT Lie #8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.
CT Lie #9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.
The explanation can be found here:
"Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?"
That’s for Ontario. Contact your Ministry for details in your province.
May 26, 8:11 AM:
This is just a re-telling of CT Lies #8 and #9 (see above).
There were many other lies, but those are the high-lights.
Sorry - some of the links didn't work.
For the list of 14 or so reputable sources (so that you don't have to rely on any "opinions" or "interpretations" of people posting here, see:
"Sale of Goods Act"
Funny that for all your links, you don't have one that says CTC's policy, or any other retailer for that matter, has a policy in contravention of either CPA or SOGA. Why is that?
And all of the links, and information provided to show you this point are all outdated and incomplete? Is that in your opinion?
Yet, you even list some of the same links.
Are you trying hard with the "bullshit baffles brains" approach, because you know you are wrong?
I see you have stopped calling various store policies as illegal....if they are not illegal, what exactly is your point?
Well, we may finally have an answer to this thread’s question: “Why do the CT Defender Post Many Lies Here?”
The theory is that there are 1 or 2 pranksters who post the most outrageous crap they can devise, in order to get consumers riled up, just to watch them try to disprove the crap.
I did a little digging, and found a post that backs up the "prankster" theory. In response to this consumer post:
The self-appointed CT Rep responded:
So, there you have it. The CT Rep’s aren’t at all trying to be accurate; they are only “jerking around” consumers on this site with their outrageous posts.
Some consumers think this might actually be a 'Fake Owner/Manager', who is really a consumer, trying to make the genuine store owners look like jerks, by over-stating their prejudices and posting ridiculous opinions. Sort of the "Archie Bunker" of store-owning bigots.
Actually, that makes some sense, because it's hard to believe that the type of person we see posting all the "600 sucks" and "union" nonsense would be able to run a business. Still, there's not much direct evidence either way.
Taking this a step further, some consumers think these crazy posts are written by the owner of this web site, trying to stir up controversy, and drive up traffic to their web site. If so, it would seem to be working, based on the stat's. People seem to be tuning in to follow the debates, and that would drive ad revenue for the owners. Still, there's no direct evidence that anyone posting here is really the site owner(s).
So, does it make sense to continue pointing out the lies of the pranksters, 'fake owner/managers' and/or site owners?
Only if it will likely help consumers, by clarifying the truth, and keeping them from being mis-informed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks