Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

  1. #11
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    It's amazing how you repeatedly fail simple tests in intelligence, ethics and morality time and again; much like the CT mechanic who intentionally loosened the bolts. It must be a CT thing. Again dumb dumb, CT's worth is not based on revenue and no where close to being valued at 10 Billion. Try 5.5 Billion, or almost half of what you're claiming it to be. Wait, didn't a kid in grade school point that out to you in a past post? As for providing facts and proving that you're wrong we've done that. Others provided mountains of data to you but you're blind to the truth or too stupid and look the other way when it doesn't suit you. Much like you're doing now.
    I never discussed company net worth or claimed that value, as I do not know what the company net worth is. 10 billion is REVENUE. Annual amount of money going into Canadian Tire Corporation. Show me this MOUNTAIN of data that proves all of my facts wrong. Link the reports, show me that my profit figures are wrong, revenue figures are wrong.... show me!! You can't!



    Here's another example of how stupid you are. Example #1998 or is #2000 of how you're looking the other way again. CT garage trying to gouge seniors on a regular basis. Wow that is low. Are you saying that because he's a senior this tire fiasco never happened? That's really low. I guess he's making it all up and wanted to be interrogated by journalists, sign affidavits, legal releases and have the camera crew invade his home for the better part of the day to get the story out. Does that make sense to anyone else out there??? CT sabotages seniors car should've been the headline for this one. What? You think CBC didn't do it's job? I think it could've gone farther if it was in the US. Oh, that's right you got your ass kicked there didn't you? You want to ignore that as well? Good thing I put some links below.
    In my experience, when something like this is big news, every news network latches onto it and publicizes the hell out of it! You might note that only CBC has even referenced this story. Why is that? Why has EVERY other news network not jumped on it?? There is ZERO, proof that CT sabotaged this car. ZERO. Just a guy and a mechanic who previously had the car saying CT mechanic did this. One word against another. No facts, no evidence, no video, no proof. Anecdotal evidence only. Ditto for your claim that we target seniors. You might be interested to know that most mechanics have zero idea who owns the car they work on. They pick up a work order from the operator, get the car and go to work on it. And despite previous claims, there is not a technician or advisor that gets paid a premium on the parts they sell.

    Do your homework junior. GM's service bulletin says replace. The people who manufactured the vehicle have acknowledged problems, and suggested a repair, to which this particular mechanic adhered to. There is no way to justify CT being at fault, except that you hate CT so without proof you assume it must be.

    I don;t know what this has to do with a failed business strategy to go into the United States a few decades ago. i never turned a blind eye to that, in fact I acknowledged it clearly in a previous thread. The Corporation fucked up. They made a bad strategic move, took the financial lumps, and hey look, we are still in business, turning big profit. LOL You have seemingly glossed over some of the strategic moves since that have paid off...including the acquisition of Marks Work Wearhouse and many small auto parts stores, since rebranded as Partsource.


    Really? Yet another example of CT stupidity. You've glossed over the entire article and are stuck on CT's weak response. Since you're stuck there, lets have a look. CT corporate said the mechanic who did the work is " trusted", "experienced" ,"deeply honest" and "it is beyond belief" that he would do such a thing. Really? How did corporate know that? I bet CT didn't interrogate him or have him sign legal papers at all. I wonder just how honest that mechanic is? I wonder how he'll do if asked "has he ripped off people at the garage before?" and "Does he target seniors?" under a lie detector. How about this question " Does the store owner tell you to charge for unnecessary parts and repairs? And do you they know you're doing that?" I wonder what kind of goodies would come out with some gentle waterboarding?
    It happens because if CT and CT owners did something about it, you would lose alot of money. Isn't that right? A big part of your income is made from deceiving people about their cars and CT owners allow it to happen, isn't that true?
    No business makes money LONG TERM by ripping off customers. Plain and simple. So to believe this is the strategy we employ to make profit, well you can draw your own conclusions. I know your conclusions will be that we're crooked, but really, we'd be long out of business, there'd be a ton of lawsuits, investigations etc...
    Better yet, why don't YOU tell ME how does a company stay in business and grow their business by ripping customers off?!?!!?
    Are there dirty mechanics at some of our 480 stores.... yes. Have I ever had them.....yes (and fired them).
    What you're failing to acknowledge is that it's not a function of CT. It's a function of the industry. Dealerships have them, small garages have them, national chains have them. Same as all technical trades my friend. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, roofers, contractors.... there's dirty among them. Open your eyes to the real world.
    Again I will ask you to respond. Are there dirty mechanics at small garages and dealerships??
    Are there dirty contractors, roofers, electricians? some independant? some working for big companies??

    Oh yes the bike thing again. CT stonewalled and stalled that case for 7 YEARS hoping to bankrupt the family with legal bills. And yes the liability split. CT was found liable for 45%. Almost HALF wouldn't you say?
    Funny that CT didn't think of that before selling the defective bike or during the seven years that it bounced around the courts.
    I don't know a lot about that particular lawsuit except what happened, who it happened to and what the settlement was. I also know the owner of that store. Court cases take a long time, especialy personal injury suits. Lawyers are lawyers, they do what they do. The court cases don't really involve the people at the store, they are just lawyers with massive amounts of file folders and documents arguing over one or two technicalities or asterisks to figure out who's liable.
    Again, another question for which you to respond and defend your claim. Can you prove that CT tried to bankrupt the family or are you just talking through your hat?

    So let me point back to some other examples. Lead paint in kids toys, strollers with defective hinges, baby cribs with safety defects, runaway Toyotas, Ford/Firestone - tires that shred apart (See Ford Explorer), Maple Leaf Foods - Listeria outbreak KILLED 22 people, E-coli water in Walkerton - failure by Government inspection agency KILLED 7....

    Are these examples okay with you? Death and health risks.... lots of it as a result of failure by companies, people, process, procedure. So I ask you this.... why don't you attack these examples? Did you forget? do they not suit your argument? You want to argue, lets do this right.

    [quote
    Now here we are talking about CT sabotaging cars!?!? Imagine the damage that could've happened if Mr. Hanson was driving his grand kids around and lost control of the car? Nope, CT and CT owners don't think about that either not unless it happens after the fact and only after you lose the lawsuit.
    Don't trust CT with your cars, much less your lives.
    [/quote] wheel bearings do not cause you to lose control of your car. The safety issue at hand here is the two bolts that the investigative mechanic loosened AND sent an investigator on the road to drive. He then claimed by not finding the bolts, we put the drivers at risk. but HE loosened the bolts, and acknowledge and video taped it. So it's okay for him to intentionally put someone at risk, but we are the guilty ones? Answer that question. Who loosened the bolts and then claimed them to be safety related? WHO? Not CT

    Yep, Mr CT money you must be better than the average working class 9 to fiver who don't need to run a shoddy garage/ retail store and mistreat workers to make a living. Tick tick tick...retail has a high failure rate. BTW here's proof since you've asserted that CT has had "no store closings what so ever".
    I never said I was better then anyone. I was born and raised in an average family just like the majority of Canadians. I still get up in the morning, shower, get dressed and go to work just like you do. I still pick up my garbage bag and haul it to the curb, I check my mail, I grocery shop, I mow the lawn, I have family, I have friends, I have hobbies.... i'm a regular human being just like everyone else. You see me on the street or at a grocery store, I look just like everyone else. I'm just a pesron in this world. The only difference is that I have chosen a career path that affords more luxuries then the average 9 to fiver. You assume that I am a bad person because you don't like the company I choose to represent. We're not running ponzi schemes or money laundering operations you jackass. We are running retail stores, that are front and center, hiding from nobody, in every major city and town across Canada. Clearly, with no way to dispute it, this is a formula that works. Canadian Tire is a successful retailer and a successful automotive repair business. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong!!

    PS - closing an online store, is not closing a store LOL idiot
    - the Burnaby store was closed and replaced by a larger store in a different location. That's not closing down a store. That strategy is employed to allow bigger stores to be built. Some of the small land from previous stores will not accomodate newer, expanded footprints.

    What a ridiculous attempt to prove me wrong. I'm glad you find a sport in trying to prove me wrong, in fact thats what keeps me coming back to this gong show forum. I have no intention of trying to convince any of you to shop at Canadian Tire again, or to trust us or whatever. Clearly your mind is made up. It is also abundantly clear to me that you will choose to believe everything you hear negative about Canadian Tire, even without facts or proof. That my friend, operating with blinders on and tainted opinions will be more limiting for you then it will serve you.

    Canadian Tire to close online store as of January 29th | Robin Majumdar 2.0

    Canadian Tire # 390 - The Closing of.. | Facebook

    Here's a doozy look out for the bad '80s hair. Still think you're better than everybody? A 400 million dollar fiasco. Can it be that dealers got cleaned out on that one

    Canadian Tire's mistaken leap into the U.S. market - CBC Archives

    uh oh another US expansion failure with Auto Source. A 90 million dollar fiasco.

    Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Company Profile, Information, Business Description, History, Background Information on Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

    I don't need a shitty store to run bs personal expenses through which an owner got caught and criminally fined, or try and scam customers lease owners, employees, customers. Did I say customers twice? Maybe. Despite all your lies, ramblings and bragging of how 'made' you think you are you've got nothing.
    an owner got caught with bad expenses? Ohhhhhh wow. 480 active owners, and thousands more retired.... and all you have is one who got caught doing something shady. Come on, quit bringing a spaghetti noodle to a bat fight man.
    pS - we covered the lease thing before. Whoever claimed we cheat lease holders on building rent is WRONG. No CT owner pays rent to the building lease holder. NOT ONE!!

    *
    thank you for continuing to debate. It gets better as you attempt to claim that you know about me. That i'm crooked or that "I have nothing." Here's what i do know. I am proud of what I do. I am proud of the fact that dozens and dozens of people earn money as part of my team to put food on their table for their families. I am proud of the donations we make directly to communities, underpriveledged families and disaster relief efforts. i am proud that every day, hundreds of people come in here to purchase products and services that they want and/or need for themselves and their families, and that we are there to help them.

    I am VERY proud that I have chosen to provide for people, help people and be part of a community. Many of you continue to show your true colours in wishing that the company would go broke and their people would be unemployed. Really who wishes ill will on anybody? Are you proud of that?

  2. #12
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    CT Me:

    I must apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but your statements are piling up faster than I can compose refutations of them.

    However, since you've abruptly chosen to discuss the CPA issue on this thread, I thought I'd start with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post
    Same as your claims of Consumer Protection Acts that in your opinion force us to accept items back, which is factually incorrect.
    I certainly hope that you've taken your own advice, and in regards to Ellen Roseman's article, you by now have read it "VERY carefully". This is important, because it states:

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidLeR View Post
    Highlights: ... "a retailer is liable to a purchaser for a defective product"
    I assume you've studied it intently, but for easy reference, it can be found here:

    I especially like the closing line:

    "Remember that retailers have to sell you a product that works.If you find a dud in the package when you open it, don't let them shrug off their obligation to give your money back."

    I am deeply curious about a few things:

    1 - Is there anything specific in Ms. Roseman's article that you think is "factually incorrect"?

    2 - Is there a key fact on which Ms. Roseman's "opinion" differs from mine?

    3 - Can you provide us with the objective evidence (as oppposed to mere speculation) that you've uncovered that refutes Ms. Roseman's statements, and is the basis for the statement you've made today?

    Eagerly awaiting your insights,

    DavidLeR

  3. #13
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    With pleasure

    "Depending on the particular facts, a consumer may have the right to reject (return) the goods for a refund or keep the goods and recover damages which would be equivalent to the cost of a repair."

    right from Roseman's article. A consumer MAY have the right to return the goods or cost for repair.

    I see an absence of the words a retailer MUST offer a refund or is bound by law to give your money back.
    In fact those terms are absent EVERYWHERE, in every act, law or statement of fact. I will highlight why below

    ************

    Here is the thing to keep in mind. You are 100% correct that a seller of an item is responsible for it being fit and honouring the warranty. I have always and will always maintain this stance. The acts and laws the govern these areas of consumer sales do not dictate that a refund must be issued by law under any circumstance. The retailer responsibility is to ensure customer satisfaction through whatever method is determined or pre-determined to satisfy that customer. This points directly back to repair warranties vs. replace warranties, both of which are legal.
    So again I will re-state for simplicity sake. The retailer (in some cases me) may determine the method to remedy the situation which can absolutely include a replacement product or a repaired product. Unfortunately this is not at the customers discretion. It's at the retailers discretion.

    *****************

    I await your response. Please provide me differing information. Show me a law or act that specifically states "A retailer of an item MUST give you your money back for a defective item"

    Not information that says a good must be fit for its intended use or product must be as advertised. We've covered those already. Those simply mean if it states 3hp, it must be 3hp inside the box not 2hp (as advertised). If its a drill, it must drill holes (fit for intended use).

  4. #14
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Well, CT Me, we have quickly returned to where we were about a month ago.

    I had hoped, for a brief moment at least, that you would be, for a change, rational and reasonable.

    I see now how foolish a hope that was.

    Instead, you have simply reverted to your old ways:

    - Refusing to acknowledge facts that you don't like.
    - Inventing claims and pretending they are "true facts".
    - Falsely accusing others who oppose you (not in your latest post, but in recent ones).

    I have given my head that shake that others have recommended, and now realize just how pointless it is to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the obvious reality that surrounds them.

    I haven't mentioned this before, but I stumbled upon this site while doing consumer-protection research after I'd seen an elderly couple being taken advantage of at a local Canadian Tire. They'd been unluky enough to buy a defective product, and were being told that they had basically thrown their money away. I would have a lot of advice for them, today.

    Oh, and the product? A Simonize pressure washer, of course.

    Maybe this is all just a big debating game to you, to see how outrageous you can be, and still get people to argue with you.

    Or, maybe you genuinely feel "proud" for making a quick buck off the backs of those you can most easily exploit, and then appease your guilt by throwing a few buck into disaster relief.

    I'm sure you haven't picked up on this yet, but the underlying theme of consumer protection, this entire forum, and the CBC story in question, is the expoitation of ordinary people, and in particular vulerable people, by large corporations.

    From where I sit, you are the personification of this evil force in our society.

    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

  5. #15
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    We have absolutely come full circle.
    Why? Because the facts and laws of a month ago are the same as they are today.

    It's as simple as this. No Law or Act states that a retailer MUST REFUND MONEY to a customer with a defective product. Are we responsible for them...yes. Is a refund the must solution. No

    It's black and white man. Clear as the paper it's printed on. If you can't see that, understand that or don't like that, which in fact is what you're accusing me of...well that's too bad.

    So your claim is that I ignore facts. Show me documented proven facts that i've ignored. Your last post that you asked me to address contains in regards to the Roseman article(s) contain exactly zero facts.


    To address your claims of exploitation, from where I sit you are ridiculous. Let's look at my store. Full of National Branded and Private Label products. Millions of dollars worth of inventory. Customers come in, shop for what they are looking for, load their carts/baskets, head to a cashier, pay and be on their way. This is a retail store. There is very little "selling" done here. We put a wide assortment of products on our shelves and customers buy them.
    We don't sell BS extended warranties. We don't peddle door to door. We aren't pushy fast talking salesman.
    Where's the mass exploitation?

    And now i'm an evil force in society.....WOW!
    You know who works in my store, and all of the stores? People. Citizens of these towns and Cities. Adults, young adults, youths (and in my store several people over the age of 70)... who's parents and elderly grandparents live here and there, and shop at CT. I can confidently say if this was a giant rip off scheme, everyone would be hearing about it and we'd have no customers left.

  6. #16
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post
    I never discussed ...or claimed that value,Show me this MOUNTAIN of data that proves all of my facts wrong. Link the reports, show me!! You can't!
    Yep done that, got the t-shirt and your response has always been " thats not proof" blah blah or some lame version of it. Long winded post from you but for the public there are a few gems in there. For those still on the fence about whether or not to trust Canadian Tire with their car...

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post
    There is ZERO, proof that CT sabotaged this car. ZERO. Just a guy and a mechanic who previously had the car saying CT mechanic did this. One word against another. No facts, no evidence, no video, no proof. Anecdotal evidence only.
    More proof of CT's indifference and lack of responsibility towards customers.

    Mr.Hanson had the power of the media to try to help him and Canadian Tire make sense of this and right some wrongs and even then it went no where with CT. To the average joe out there, you've got no chance if you take your car to CT! Get stuck with a bill for hundreds of dollars higher or drive away with some parts loosened and risk your life. Remember, he took the car in for new wheels and this is how he was treated. CT see's nothing wrong with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post

    Ditto for your claim that we target seniors. You might be interested to know that most mechanics have zero idea who owns the car they work on...there is not a technician or advisor that gets paid a premium on the parts they sell.
    Really? So the operators and mechanics don't talk to each other in that small space working on a few cars at a time. Wow. And the profit sharing plan, stock purchasing plan and store bonus isn't incentive?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post

    So let me point back to some other examples. Lead paint in kids toys, strollers with defective hinges, baby cribs with safety defects, runaway Toyotas, Ford/Firestone - tires that shred apart (See Ford Explorer), Maple Leaf Foods - Listeria outbreak KILLED 22 people, E-coli water in Walkerton - failure by Government inspection agency KILLED 7....

    Are these examples okay with you? Death and health risks.... lots of it as a result of failure by companies, people, process, procedure. So I ask you this.... You want to argue, lets do this right.
    Stacked only against the worst examples of consumer safety you don't look so bad. Bravo.

  7. #17
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0276's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    So CT Me, if I have concerns about the work done to my car by crappy tire are you saying I'm out of luck? Do I have ZERO chance of getting my car fixed properly or getting my money back? And that I should just take their word for it?

  8. #18
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    So CT Me, if I have concerns about the work done to my car by crappy tire are you saying I'm out of luck? Do I have ZERO chance of getting my car fixed properly or getting my money back? And that I should just take their word for it?
    Absolutely not what I would say at all! My suggestion is simple. If you're unsatisfied, take the vehicle back to the store it was worked on. Speak only to the Service Manager and explain to him what the vehicle was brought in for and what it is doing now. Then INSIST that the vehicle be put up on the hoist (or in the bay with hood open) depending why it was there for repair, or a test drive if it's a driveability problem and walk through it with them.
    You will likely discover one of three things. 1) there may be something not correct (misdiagnosed or not repaired correctly), 2) a failed part 3) that your vehicle may not be in the shape that you think and that additional work/parts may be required to satisfy whatever the problem(s) is.

    Either way, i've always said to my customers and to my Service Managers that the best way to solve automobile problems/disputes is not over a counter or in an office, it's in the shop with the Technician, the Manager, the customer and of course the automobile in question.

    It's a little hard to give the best answer not knowing why the car went in, what was done and how it is now, but that's my best advice. All i know is that when i've had a dispute, before I do anything, I say lets look at the car together.

  9. #19
    Posted by an unregistered user CT Me / Lawguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post

    More proof of CT's indifference and lack of responsibility towards customers.
    Mr.Hanson had the power of the media to try to help him and Canadian Tire make sense of this and right some wrongs and even then it went no where with CT. To the average joe out there, you've got no chance if you take your car to CT! Get stuck with a bill for hundreds of dollars higher or drive away with some parts loosened and risk your life. Remember, he took the car in for new wheels and this is how he was treated. CT see's nothing wrong with that.
    If a technician did something to a car intentionally, absolutely not acceptable. I don't think you'll find anyone (not a Manager, owner or technician) that will stand behind shitty work and say it's okay. In the first shop I ran, I had a log book of every vehicle/customer that ever came back after being worked on with a detailed log. I tracked all technicians and questioned or disciplined those with unacceptable come back rates.
    Now back to this CBC report. Here's whY i don't believe the bearing was loosened by the guy at CT. It's about 40 minutes to get that car down to the bearing assembly, loosen it up and re-assemble it. I can't foresee a technician investing 40 minutes to sabotage something when he is only going to make 1.5 hours labour money if the repair is completed. Techs are smart. if they are going to do it, they are going to loosen a bolt that's right there, pop off a belt, cut something etc.... somethign that takes them less then 2 minutes but can earn them a much bigger pay to repair. 40 minutes to sabotage something to earn 1.5hrs not only doesn't make sense, but it also would take him out of the possibility to work on another vehicle where he could earn money. Crooks are lazy... they want the easy way out.

    Really? So the operators and mechanics don't talk to each other in that small space working on a few cars at a time. Wow. And the profit sharing plan, stock purchasing plan and store bonus isn't incentive?
    There's less interaction then you might think. Most verbal interaction is service advisor to customer. advisor makes work order and puts it in "the tray" for the next available tech. He/she grabs the keys and work order and heads to the car. does the diagnosis or repair, turns back the paperwork and grabs the next one.
    The profit sharing plan varies from store to store and there are caps to what is given. A few crooked jobs here or there won't pad the bottom line enough to actually show up as a bonus. They would just benefit from the units they made on that job.

    Stacked only against the worst examples of consumer safety you don't look so bad. Bravo.
    [/quote]

    If you want to call a company bad as you have, in this case CT, then absolutely i'm going to show some facts that prove otherwise. If we can come under attack here, why can't they? They fucked up on a GRAND scale. We don't have such a record. how bad are we?

  10. #20
    Active Member DavidLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    211
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: CBC's "Go Public" reports on Canadian Tire.

    Oh, yes, isn't the lovely CT Me just SO NICE!!?

    Isn't she just radiantly pleasant and helpful?

    My, it would be such a joy to take one's vehichle to her for some of her deeply-felt TLC!

    I bet she personally vacuums and hand-waxes each vehicle before returning the sparkling, newly-cut keys to the lucky owner for whom she rolled out the red carpet.

    Well, I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of visiting her illustrious repair shop, so I can't really say how it would be.

    But I am now fully confident that it would be NOTHING like that poor Vancouver man's experienced, LOL.

    Simply a DISGRACE! Tsk-tsk-tsk!

    ---

    But I CAN tell you what would happen if one dared to attempt to obtain a refund on a defective item, fresh out of the box from a store run by our charming Ms. CT Me.

    Do you suppose for one second her actions would be even influenced by the laws of the province in which she has chosen to do business?

    Of course not! Her corporate lawyers (does she hate them or love them? She can't seem to decide) have, in their supreme arrogance, elected to simply ignore these laws. Instead, they have a web site that clevery says, "If a product is defective, the manufacturer's warranty will apply".

    As if THEY get to decide. The arrogance is chilling.

    Take, for example, Ontario. The CPA of 2002 addresses this specifically. It says that the CPA (and not the retailer's desires) take precedence.

    The link is here: "Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A)"

    "9. (3) Any term or acknowledgement, whether part of the consumer agreement or not, that purports to negate or vary any implied condition or warranty under the Sale of Goods Act or any deemed condition or warranty under this Act is void."

    Yes, there is a manufacture's warranty. But the consumer doesn't have to be limited by it - they can insist on their rights under the law.

    So, upon arrival at the gleaming Returns counter at CT Me lustrous store, defunct piece of junk in hand, how might one imagine they would be greeted?

    Would it be, "Yes, sir, your purchase is covered by the CPA of 2002. Would you like an exchange, or a full refund? The choice is entirely up to you."

    Hah!

    Actually, you don't need to imagine. You just need to read Post #9 on the "Sale of Goods Act" thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Me View Post
    Canadian Tire is WELL WITHIN THE LAW

    if a few customers are too lazy to use the warranty supplied with those purchases that are defective then too bad so sad.

    This the new reality of retail and it's working.

    It may take a bad product or two to educate them to read the fine print but it's the cost of their education.

    For too long retailers have shouldered the burden of bad products.

    I consider this issue closed.
    Yikes! Who is this dragon lady, and what has she done with the pleasant CT Me we've all come to know and love???

    Oh, wait. This is the REAL "CT Me", who's recently decided to start pretending she can be reasonable.

Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last

Similar Threads

  1. CTC CEO Stephen Wetmore: "Canadian Tire Sucks"
    By DavidLeR in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 11:42 PM
  2. "Do you work here??"
    By CT_MANAGER in forum Employees Speak Out
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2011, 01:19 AM
  3. Can't return "Powerbuilt 42-in. Professional Creeper"
    By unhappyctccustomer in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 28th, 2010, 04:48 PM
  4. Jobmate 4 1/2" Grinder 54-7234-4
    By jimdd in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 15th, 2009, 04:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions