Thread: Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

just found an interesting item for you.... in regards to your "illegal to ask for ID claim"

Return Policy | Home Depot Canada

Scroll to the bottom of the return policy

The Home Depot reserves the right to request valid identification prior to accepting merchandise for a return.

The Home Depot reserves the right to limit or refuse to accept the return of certain merchandise at any time and for any reason.

Well now that doesn't sound legal according to what you believe.

How do you explain those? Could it be that in fact asking for ID is legal? could it be that a retailer DOES have the right to refuse a return at their discretion?

interesting post about identification issues.

see reponse in Collecting ID and Personal Information

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence on this thread: Sale of Goods Act

Non-consumers are also welcome to review the evidence .... but it appears they already have their minds made up, regardless of what the evidence shows.

I think that's the point, there isn't any evidence to support your opinion. Surely after 6 years, someone credible would have put CTC's name or ANY other retailer in the same sentence as illegal policy.....but nope, we have your opinion to rely on...and you wonder why you're called a liar.

Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence starting at this post: Sale of Goods Act

Consumers can decide for themselves whether they can conclude that CT has an illegal policy, based on CT's own definition of "illegal" ("against a law, is illegal"), and based on all the evidence already provided from over a dozen reputable source that CT's policy is indeed against the CPA: Sale of Goods Act

Why do CT Defenders post so many lies about consumer law here?

One can't help but wonder if their monumental efforts are really just to help save the environment, or to protect consumers from 'embarrassment' when a store refuses a required refund.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence starting at this post: Sale of Goods Act

Consumers can decide for themselves whether they can conclude that CT has an illegal policy, based on CT's own definition of "illegal" ("against a law, is illegal"), and based on all the evidence already provided from over a dozen reputable source that CT's policy is indeed against the CPA: Sale of Goods Act

Why do CT Defenders post so many lies about consumer law here?

One can't help but wonder if their monumental efforts are really just to help save the environment, or to protect consumers from 'embarrassment' when a store refuses a required refund.

Consumers who want more than opinions should call the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for the truth.....maybe that's why faker advocate can't find even ONE credible source that CT or ANY other retailer has an "illegal" policy. Not even ONE! Hilarious.

The CT Liar has been posting quite a bit lately, so naturally that means quite a few lies.

Lately there haven't been so many lies about what consumers have posted here, although there have been some accusations around fraud.

That ties into the CT Liar's absurd claim that any "deception" counts as a "fraud" - easily disproven even using the CT-supplied definition.

The bulk of the CT lies have been about the laws in Ontario, which they seem to like to lie about more than most topics:

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.

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

What does the self-appointed CT rep have to back up their claims? Nothing except some guess-work, wishful thinking, and that one BBB site that quotes a law that is now rescinded.

Originally Posted by CT Challenger

The CT Liar has been posting quite a bit lately, so naturally that means quite a few lies.

Lately there haven't been so many lies about what consumers have posted here, although there have been some accusations around fraud.

That ties into the CT Liar's absurd claim that any "deception" counts as a "fraud" - easily disproven even using the CT-supplied definition.

The bulk of the CT lies have been about the laws in Ontario, which they seem to like to lie about more than most topics:

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.

CT Lie #22 – There are only a few people who have the opinion and interpretation that Ontario consumers are entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item. None of those people are reliable.

What does the self-appointed CT rep have to back up their claims? Nothing except some guess-work, wishful thinking, and that one BBB site that quotes a law that is now rescinded.

Any deception is fraud. DavidLer can claim it to be ok, but just shows the actual lacking of moral character from a faker advocate. Whether he posts under DavidLer, CTH8er, CTchallenger or anonymous, his character has now been called into question even more than when he lies.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any deception is fraud.

It's always so much easier when the self-appointed CT Rep posts their lies right on this thread - very convenient.

First of all, it's obvious that every "deception" is not also a "fraud". Otherwise, every one of the numerous lies the self-appointed CT Rep posts, would each be an instance of fraud.

Also, based on the self-appointed CT rep's own definition of "fraud", it's more than just mere "deception": Fraud Meaning and Definition

It needs to be "for the purpose of obtaining some valuable thing or promise from another" or "with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage".

So, no, by the definition CT provided, it is a lie (or "fraud", in CT-Speak) to say that "Any deception is fraud."

Plus, the self-appointed CT Rep is distorting the difference between the term 'fraud' in common usage, with the criminal offense.

But the real deception (i.e., "fraud" in CT-Speak) is the implication that the information to be found at the links provided here, are somehow inaccurate.

The CT people sure are trying hard to convince consumers not to persue their rights. Luckily, they aren't fooling anyone - not even themselves.

Be sure to check out the growing list of CT Lies ("frauds", to CT) that are posted regularly here. Then, decide how much "moral character" CT really has.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's always so much easier when the self-appointed CT Rep posts their lies right on this thread - very convenient.

First of all, it's obvious that every "deception" is not also a "fraud". Otherwise, every one of the numerous lies the self-appointed CT Rep posts, would each be an instance of fraud.

Also, based on the self-appointed CT rep's own definition of "fraud", it's more than just mere "deception": Fraud Meaning and Definition

It needs to be "for the purpose of obtaining some valuable thing or promise from another" or "with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage".

So, no, by the definition CT provided, it is a lie (or "fraud", in CT-Speak) to say that "Any deception is fraud."

Plus, the self-appointed CT Rep is distorting the difference between the term 'fraud' in common usage, with the criminal offense.

But the real deception (i.e., "fraud" in CT-Speak) is the implication that the information to be found at the links provided here, are somehow inaccurate.

The CT people sure are trying hard to convince consumers not to persue their rights. Luckily, they aren't fooling anyone - not even themselves.

Be sure to check out the growing list of CT Lies ("frauds", to CT) that are posted regularly here. Then, decide how much "moral character" CT really has.

DavidLer can claim all he wants that he didn't say that it was ok to be 100% honest. Here is his quote on RedFlags:

But, I do get the idea: trading off a minor principle (i.e., being 100% honest with a conniving retailer) in order to preserve a higher principle (retailers being accountable for the products they sell).

Yep, it's ok to lie, commit fraud, whatever to get what you want. Fraud is Fraud....there is no grey line.

Tsk, tsk faker advocate.

Apparently the self-appointed CT Rep didn't bother to read their own definition of "fraud". I guess if they did so, they wouldn't be falsely accusing consumers.

Besides, nobody said "it's ok to lie, commit fraud, whatever to get what you want". These are just more lies made up by the self-appointed CT Rep, in a feeble attempt to find some mud to sling at a consumer.

(Which amounts to a "fraud" on the CT Rep's part, according to their own definition.)

It looks like any consumer who posts the truth about the laws and CTs policies can become a target of a smear campaign. Too bad it won't work.

Interesting that consumers are debating being less than 100% honest – wouldn’t it be nice if the self-appointed CT Rep would try for even 1% honest - that would be a refreshing break.

Really, this is just another lame attempt to discredit a consumer who has consistently posted verifiable information, or to cast reflected doubt on the information that can be found at the links they provided.

It just goes to show the extremes the CT liars are willing to go to, in order to hide the truth about the laws on Ontario, and about CT's policies.

CT should examine closely their own glaring sins of daily lies, both on this site and in stores, before making false accusations about consumers.

And consumers should look closely at the laws that CT doesn't want them to know about.

The CT Rep's desperation seems to grow by the day.