Page 1 of 3 123 Last
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: advice needed please

  1. #1

    advice needed please

    hi guys.im new to this site,but like many others im having a problem with our favourite super store.my issue is current,there is a lawsuit in place,and i dont really want to go into too many details,because there are many spies here.....
    anyway the upshot of my case is that i sued our friends.they defaulted,by not replying to the claim within the time period.i went to court,and the judge ruled in my favour.however i just learned within the last few days that they have conveniently attempted to sidestep the issue.the manufacturor has signed an agreement(without my knowledge) with CT that THEY accept full responsibility for the crappy product.
    so my question is this.
    under the sale of goods act british columbia i sued CT under the IMPLIED warranty that states that a product must function for a reasonable period of time.is this implied warranty always a condition between seller(CT) and the buyer(myself),or will they be able to argue that because the manufacturor(which i honestly believe they deliberately cooked this up between themselves in order to avoid having to pay up)agreed to take full responsibility for the goods in question?its kinda despicable is it not?
    also because they didnt respond to my original claim within the legal timeframe,is this matter irrelevent?
    i value your opinions on this subject.
    thanks in advance

  2. #2

    Re: advice needed please

    wow can noone help with this?i would have thought that mr CT owner would love to get his teeth into this one.as it happens the lawyer responded to my email and was no help whatsoever.it seems i must continue to tread this path alone.

  3. #3

    Re: advice needed please

    I am only familiar with the Ontario laws, but I found this pretty easily:

    Sale of Goods Act

    Seems pretty similar to Ontario, where anybody can be the Buyer, and the Seller can be anybody, not just the manufacturer. The standard seems to be higher for those who are in the "ordinary course of business" (so not just re-selling their personal property, like at a yard sale).

    I see no reason to think that Crappy Tire wouldn't fall under this law.

    However, the Ontario Consumer Protection Act is broader in scope, clearly applies to ordinary consumers buying from a retailer, and provides greater protection to consumers that the SOGA. It just references the SOGA for the definition of "merchantable".

    Hope that helps - I might be able to find out more later this week.

  4. #4

    Re: advice needed please

    ok.my confusion is that i was under the impression that 'the seller' is canadian tire,and that the implied warranty was in effect between me(the buyer) and CT. however the manufacturor(who arent even based in canada) signed a waiver between themselves and CT saying that they took full responsibility for the goods,and any and all such claims for damages in respect of the goods etc etc.i cannot see anything under the sale of goods act where it actually says that the manufacturor is the seller(i didnt buy the crappy thing from them DIRECTLY).obviously i wasnt made aware of this little private deal cooked up between themselves until a couple of days ago.no part of my claim deviates from the sale of goods act(i havent claimed for mental stress or any of that stuff,im merely attempting to get a refund plus the costs involved relating to the crappy thing not working.)im still not sure how the manufacturor even comes into this,my contract of purchase was with CT NOT the manu,and im presuming that this means that CT is the seller no matter what they cooked up between themselves(or am i wrong?).this is the whole crux of the matter.seems like noone legally ive contacted will give me a straight fukkin answer.i appreciate your help,and any further light you can shed on this will be very much appreciated.id seriously like to back to court and be able to KICK CT LAWYERS BUTT

  5. #5

    Re: advice needed please

    actually thinking it through a little more,doesnt it say somewhere that if there are other conditions(like for example the manu taking direct responsibility for their crappy product),that these conditions/warranties have to be made clear AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SALE?and so this idea that they can sidestep the whole thing is yet another example of BULLSHIT?

  6. #6

    Re: advice needed please

    cmon folks get involved here,my brain is aching from the depth of thought,and ill soon need a beer!!

  7. #7

    Re: advice needed please

    i seem to remember reading through earlier posts that CT guy or whatever his name was was boasting about how the courtrooms were littered with the bones of those who had dared to challenge the might of the great CTs corporate lawyers,as if that was something to be proud about.i mean how reprehensible.i can only imagine that the vast majority of people who felt so disgruntled with the way that CT had treated them that the only recourse was though the court system only to be shot down in flames werent a bunch of thieves or wrongdoers,but rather simple law abiding folk like myself.this is totally an awesome way to build up a loyal consumer base.NOT.well i must admit im a little scared by the idea of going up against the might of yourselves,and it will probably end in tears,but those tears wont last long,i certainly wont be losing too much sleep over my course of actions,because i KNOW i have been shamefully treated by your horrible company,but what i will do is LEARN from the experience and pass on all acquired wisdom gained from this to people like us(the innocent rabbits caught in the glare of your crappy headlamps),in the hope that others wont make the same mistakes that i have probably made.
    however there is a chance that i may actually WIN,lets face it the judge has already ruled in my favour,and it will take a very convincing argument from your horrible little people.i hope some of you actually read this stuff,and remember what HUMANITY is about because obviously you have no idea about it and i hope you all crawl back under your rocks and die horribly.

  8. #8

    Re: advice needed please

    oh and if i lose i will probably ask the judge for time to pay,like maybe 5 cents a month(maybe he will even grant me the option of using CT money to pay this)

  9. #9

    Re: advice needed please

    Like I said, I'd rely more on the CPA, rather than the SOGA.

    You can sue the manufacturer if you want, but you'll likely be better off the sue the retailer (as "seller").

    When you purchase something, you are forming a contract with the seller, and it falls under the CPA.

    There has been some debate on various sites about the terms in that contract, and whether the pre-defined policies of the store are actually terms of the contract. Generally, it's not how stores operate anyway - it seems you can't sue them in order to force them to adhere to their own policies, and the policies usually have a statement about "at our discretion", so they leave themselves a big loop hole.

    But clearly some 3rd party can't just come along later & trying to change the terms of YOUR contract with the retailer - that's just B.S.

    Nobody else can make some agreement that takes away any of your rights - that's spelled out clearly in the CPA (Ontario, anyway). Even you can't sign away your own rights, let alone someone else the store deals with.

    But it's still not clear to me why, if "the judge has already ruled in my favour", you aren't able to get compensation from CT immediately? Can't you just use your court order to seize the assets of the store, if you choose?

    (But I like you idea to pay in CT Money!)

  10. #10

    Re: advice needed please

    i had a look through the CPA,and to be honest i forund it a little confusing.i dont spose you could point me to where exactly it says that when i buy something it forms the contract with the seller please?that will be EXTREMELY helpful.
    i feel like a guy going into a gunfight armed only with a ping pong ball lol

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions