Thread: Returning Unwanted Goods - CT Has the Worst Policies

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Faker advocate believes that he should be able to dictate what policies he wants and doesn't. Of course, he doesn't own a business or mention any retailer that has an even more stringent return policy (take Apple as an example). Yep, he can't even be bothered to contact one of a myriad of legitimate consumer advocacy groups, media, or BBB to substantiate his ridiculous claims. Now, I wonder why that is?
Left unchallenged, I can only imagine what he'd spin next. Can't wait for the next booze filled rant! LOL!

CT dealers can't stand being busted on more lies. How they conveniently ignore and deny the existence consumer protection acts across the land, and your rights claiming that what they're doing with refunds isn't illegal. Much like what they were claiming wasn't illegal with the privacy laws when they were taking private information from the customers government ID. That is until somebody put their foot down and filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, who concluded that CT was breaking the law!!!

So there you have it. It's not illegal in CT's eyes until somebody takes them to court, sues them on the existing consumer legislation and wins. Until then they'll conveniently ignore those laws like they did with the Privacy Act.

Check the appropriate threads. Plenty of FACTs linked to the Consumer protection act and legal opinions from noted law firms.

Much more reliable than CT opinions who can't substantiate any claims.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The only items that would commonly be charged a restock fee would be special order auto parts.

Really?

Crappy Tire really only charges restocking fees on 'special order auto parts, huh?

Let's have a look-see around this site, for what customers are reporting:

12-16-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/pe....html#post2547 - an off-the-shelf air filter.

12-17-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/pe....html#post2548 - 'outrageous' fees for 'perfectly good items'.

12-17-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/pe....html#post2550 - customer was charged a fee, but got it refunded.

12-18-2010: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/pe....html#post2562 - $120 fee on an unused snow-blower. Not exactly a "special order auto part".

3-24-2011: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3021 - everybody's favourite: a dead-out-of-the-box pressure washer.

Hmm ... another Crappy Tire lie is exposed.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

According to your theory, we should add whatever we want to Walmart, Home Hardware, Lowe's etc...

Really?

You have evidence that Walmart routinely charges restocking fees on regular items? I did some searches, but didn't find anything.

How about Costco Canada? Do you think they are like Crappy Tire, too, and charge restocking fees for non-custom items, without saying so on their web site?

How about Home Depot Canada? Even if it's not a 'special order', do you think they try to 'pull a Crappy Tire', and charge a restocking fee? Where's your evidence?

We'll give you a few minutes to pull up those references of yours.

Be sure to get back to us on that!

The only items that would commonly be charged a restock fee would be special order auto parts. If something else is being charged, I don't believe for regular daily stocked items at stores they should be.

Nice try buddy, try using the whole statement not just one you can dice up to twist my words.
That's what I said above. the second part of which is that if a store is charging restocking fees for off the shelf items, i don't blieve they should be. They absolutely have the right to, but I don't think it's right.

Do you really think lying to your fellow 'consumers' and only telling half truths is earning trust? lol

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Nice try buddy, try using the whole statement not just one you can dice up to twist my words.
That's what I said above. the second part of which is that if a store is charging restocking fees for off the shelf items, i don't blieve they should be. They absolutely have the right to, but I don't think it's right.

Do you really think lying to your fellow 'consumers' and only telling half truths is earning trust? lol

No need to lie as the FACTS are usually on our side, unlike you crappy tire dealer, who usually insult and bully the customer for voicing complaints on service issues and returns. The links to bad customer experiences with restocking fees tells a more complete picture than you ever could, despite what you may think is right or wrong with what your Crappy Tire buddy dealers are doing. As we already know, and stated on many many occasions all along, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks is 'right' according to the law, including you , another CT dealer, your CT dealer buddies will do whatever they want anyways.

Thanks for confirming what a bad place Canadian Tire is to shop with this statement

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"the second part of which is that if a store is charging restocking fees for off the shelf items, i don't blieve they should be. They absolutely have the right to, but I don't think it's right."

I'll continue to do my shopping elsewhere. CT privacy violations, restocking fees and piss poor policies. No thanks.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No need to lie as the FACTS are usually on our side, unlike you crappy tire dealer, who usually insult and bully the customer for voicing complaints on service issues and returns. The links to bad customer experiences with restocking fees tells a more complete picture than you ever could, despite what you may think is right or wrong with what your Crappy Tire buddy dealers are doing. As we already know, and stated on many many occasions all along, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks is 'right' according to the law, including you , another CT dealer, your CT dealer buddies will do whatever they want anyways.

Thanks for confirming what a bad place Canadian Tire is to shop with this statement

I'll continue to do my shopping elsewhere. CT privacy violations, restocking fees and piss poor policies. No thanks.

LOL you call that a complete picture. Let's see how you play
One incident regarding a bicycle. One incident regarding a shop lifter. One incident regarding a plant return. Two investigations (no penalty or fine - one completely clear) for ID problems 6 years ago. A failed US expansion 30 years ago. warranty rules that are common to most retailers (repairs as an example) That's where your view comes from.

I know this because it's all you every discuss. Now lets look at the ENTIRE story, as it really is, not your version of what you want to exploit. Millions of customers spending billions of dollars year over year over year...for decades. Expanded stores, new stores in new markets every year. Proven acquisitions and major expansions of Marks Work Wearhose & PartSource. Mostly cash purchase of $700 million to buy Canada's biggest sporting goods company. (Not your claims of a billion dollar loan to buy) Perfection? Absolutely not. We make mistakes, we get things wrong, we are human running businesses with human. Your limited view and unwillingness to look at a large picture (or perhaps to understand it) is phenomenal. Seeing the big picture has landed me and my dealer cohorts where we are. Financially secure with a great lifestyle, integrated deep into the communities we serve as trusted business men... some of us in our late 30's and early 40's. I'm pretty darn proud of the role that we serve and how we do it. Your opinion ran its course many moons ago when you stopped seeing things objectively!

Fellow Consumers:

Don't be distracted by the unsubstantiated boasting of the arrogant Crappy People.

The important thing to remember is, Crappy Tire has the worst policies around:

Costco: "Overall: these policies and benefits are vastly superior to Crappy Tire, but require membership."

Walmart: "Walmart is better than Crappy Tire on almost every criteria. For other criteria, Walmart is at least as good as Crappy Tire."

Home Depot: "Home Depot is far better than Crappy Tire on almost every criteria. For other criteria, Home Depot is at least as good as Crappy Tire."

Zellers: "better policies, but for a shorter time."

Also keep in mind the attitudes we see, both on this store, and in the reports from our fellow consumers.

Choose your retailer wisely!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL you call that a complete picture. Let's see how you play
One incident regarding a bicycle. One incident regarding a shop lifter. One incident regarding a plant return. Two investigations (no penalty or fine - one completely clear) for ID problems 6 years ago. A failed US expansion 30 years ago. warranty rules that are common to most retailers (repairs as an example) That's where your view comes from....

One? Just one mistake. Sure buddy sure if only that were true as it's sounds like a growing list lol. What about the other problems that customers have posted on this site? How about all those hidden camera reports on your suspect car services and your notorious bad car garages? Sure looks like more than one to me. I guess you forgot those.Or are you forgetting that it was you and your colleagues who denied your role in any of it, the Federal Privacy Act violations as a recent example. The privacy violations would have continued if the customer hadn't filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, isn't that right? One bicycle incident you say? Lets add two more incidents to that growing list. Hmmm oh what's this? Another defective bike lawsuit?

Rough translation, the parents bought two defective bikes from Candian Tire for their boys. The first day riding it, Simon, going down a hill, applies the brakes when suddenly the rear wheel lifts off. Resulting in hospitalization and surgery for a compound broken arm. His brother almost suffers a similar fate when he brakes to avoid a dog, causing the rear wheel to lift. He came out of it with minor scrapes. Judgement for the plaintiff. All right there in the public records that anybody can look up.

SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE :
L’HONORABLE
MARIE-ANDRÉE VILLENEUVE, J.C.Q

__________________________________________________ ____________________

CLAUDE GAGNON
Partie demanderesse

c.

CANADIAN TIRE
Partie défenderesse

and here's a handy dandy translator Google Translate

SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE :


L’HONORABLE


MARIE-ANDRÉE VILLENEUVE, J.C.Q

__________________________________________________ ____________________





CLAUDE GAGNON

Partie demanderesse



c.



CANADIAN TIRE

Partie défenderesse





__________________________________________________ ____________________



JUGEMENT

__________________________________________________ ____________________




[1] Le demandeur, personnellement et à titre de tuteur à ses deux fils mineurs, réclame 661,54$ à la défenderesse car celle-ci lui a vendu 2 bicyclettes qui se sont avérées dangereuses tant au niveau de la conception que de l'utilisation.

[2] La défenderesse plaide qu'elle a vendu plusieurs modèles semblables et qu'elle n'a eu connaissance d'aucune autre plainte. Cependant, malgré cela, elle offre de reprendre les bicyclettes et de rembourser au demandeur le prix payé lors de l'achat soit 299.04$ offre que le demandeur déclare insatisfaisante.

LES FAITS:

[3] Le 24 mai 2003, le demandeur achète 2 bicyclettes régulières (18 vitesses) neuves chez la défenderesse pour le bénéfice de ses deux fils mineurs Patrick et Simon âgés respectivement de 14 et 12 ans.

[4] Le 27 mai 2003, Simon utilise sa bicyclette pour la première fois. En voulant ralentir alors qu'il descend une rue, il freine mais la roue arrière se soulève subitement effectue une pirouette ce qui provoque la chute brutale de Simon vers l'avant. Celui-ci subit une fracture ouverte du bras qui nécessite une intervention chirurgicale et une hospitalisation de quelques jours de même que la mise en place d'un plâtre.

[5] Le ou vers le 19 juin 2003, Patrick utilise sa bicyclette pour la cinquième journée. En voulant éviter un chien, il se voit dans l'obligation de freiner mais là encore la roue arrière de la bicyclette se soulève brusquement. Patrick est pratiquement éjecté de sa bicyclette mais heureusement, il s'en sort avec quelques égratignures.

[6] Lors de l'audience, le Tribunal a examiné les 2 vélos. Comme le souligne le demandeur, les roues tournent mal, le pédalier est lâche et un des pneus arrière peut éclater à l'utilisation parce qu'il est pratiquement hors de la jante. Nul doute que les bicyclettes qui n'ont presque pas servi sont dans un mauvais état et qu'ils n'ont pas servi à un usage normal pendant une durée raisonnable. Le demandeur a donc le droit d'offrir de remettre les bicyclettes à la défenderesse et d'être remboursé du prix payé.

[7] Comme le mentionne le demandeur, il ne s'agit pas de vélos de montagne qui demande une manipulation particulière pour éviter des accidents. Il est vrai comme le souligne le représentant de la défenderesse que l'application des freins avant uniquement peut être dangereuse.

[8] Or, dans le cas soumis, le demandeur affirme que lui-même a appuyé légèrement sur le frein avant de façon prudente et que la roue arrière a soulevé instantanément. Les freins seraient trop puissants pour le poids et la grandeur des vélos.

[9] Le Tribunal conclut donc, vu ces circonstances, que les 2 vélos étaient dangereux et ont causé un préjudice plus particulièrement à Simon qui a été hospitalisé. Le Tribunal alloue la somme de 135,50$ de frais d'ambulance, 7,00$ de frais d'entrée à la plage dont Simon n'a pu bénéficier, 20,00$ en frais de stationnement.

[10] Le demandeur réclame 200,00$ à titre de salaire perdu à cause des rendez-vous médicaux. Il n'a cependant pas produit aucun document à l'appui de cette réclamation.

[11] Le Tribunal lui alloue par ailleurs une somme de 150,00$ à titre de troubles et inconvénients.



PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :

ACCUEILLE partiellement la demande de la partie demanderesse ;

ENTÉRINE l'offre du demandeur de remettre les 2 bicyclettes à la défenderesse et lui ordonne de s'y conformer;

CONDAMNE la partie défenderesse à payer à la partie demanderesse la somme de 611,94$, avec intérêt au taux légal à compter de l'assignation, soit le 15 août 2003, plus l'indemnité additionnelle prévue à l'article 1619 du Code Civil du Québec et les frais judiciaires ;

LE TOUT avec dépens.

CT got off light in that defective bike case compared to the 3.5 million the 6 person jury awarded to Nathan Resch. Oh looky looky, they even have a reference to the Sale of Goods Act. Just do a quick search on Resch v. Canadian Tire et voila!

Toronto Car Accident Lawyer | Class Action Lawyer Toronto | Thomson Rogers

Did someone from Canadian Tire mention Ellen Roseman ?

How to get a refund from Canadian Tire - moneyville.ca Blogs