Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Defective part causes engine damage

  1. #1
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0517's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Defective part causes engine damage

    I built a new engine with my truck, I replaced the water pump with one bought from canadian tire. The water pump
    failed after two days and in the process milled 4-5mm off the engine block water pump cavity. I've received quotes
    ranging from 5000-7000$ to have the damage repaired.

    Now the issue is that the engine still works and a representative from CT is saying since I'm still able to drive there is
    no harm done. They have offered 1000$ in canadian tire money for the water pump that failed, a new water pump and for a new radiator since so many metal shavings passed through the engine and are stuck in the rad. I need much more
    from them. my engine was 100% mint prior to the defective part with all the pictures to prove a new un-used engine.
    Can anyone tell me where the law stands on this matter ? I feel I may have to file a small claims case. Or any advise on getting canadian tire to settle. thanks

  2. #2
    Posted by an unregistered user Guest-0517's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    please guys any input is helpful everyone feel free to leave your $0.02

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

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    in my experience with NAPA and CarQuest, unless you're a licensed technician or an auto shop, you will not get compensation.

  4. #4
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    in my experience with NAPA and CarQuest, unless you're a licensed technician or an auto shop, you will not get compensation.
    Yep, beyond my expertise as well. I would call the customer relations number at CT (they have a special department for automotive) and get their opinion. They will mediate between a store and you, and try to find a resolution. If the store is in the wrong, they will be adamant that you are compensated....all stores have insurance for major muck ups.
    Hope this helps.

  5. #5

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    I'm sure that anyone affiliated with CT would be very happy if the customer just called their 1-800, were told, "No, you can't get any money from us", and the customer just ate the loss themselves.

    However, customers might want to look into options for recovering damages from the seller of the defective product.

    For instance, have a look at this article regarding Ontario's Sale of Goods Act:

    "Using Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act to Recover Damages caused by Defective Products in a Subrogated Action"

    http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/pub...ronto12507.pdf

    I realize it's only written by a lawyer, who clearly won't know as much about legalities as the pimply teenager at the parts counter, but what do you have to lose by checking?

  6. #6
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I'm sure that anyone affiliated with CT would be very happy if the customer just called their 1-800, were told, "No, you can't get any money from us", and the customer just ate the loss themselves.

    However, customers might want to look into options for recovering damages from the seller of the defective product.

    For instance, have a look at this article regarding Ontario's Sale of Goods Act:

    "Using Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act to Recover Damages caused by Defective Products in a Subrogated Action"

    http://www.cozen.com/admin/files/pub...ronto12507.pdf

    I realize it's only written by a lawyer, who clearly won't know as much about legalities as the pimply teenager at the parts counter, but what do you have to lose by checking?
    Nice theory. Any examples where it actually worked? Probably not given the conclusion at the end of the article.

    I like how lawyers use the word "may" a lot in their theories. I'm sure the will have no problem taking a retainer on the hopes they "may" win their argument in court....lol. Probably why lawyers are one notch below real estate agents on the totem pole of beloved professions.

  7. #7

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    It's interesting to see some information here that may be useful to consumers.

    But as a bonus, we get all this free entertainment, watching the CT'er try to dodge and weave, grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to convince consumers not to look into their rights.

    Lots of tactics are at work here:

    - Well, it's only a "theory", so don't bother checking.

    - Oh, look, the word "may" was used, so it's not a sure thing - it's won't be worth looking into.

    - Gee, those lawyers will take you money and do nothing for you - yes, fear the lawyers!

    - There are no examples of the SOGA being applies to defective products, so don't waste your time.

    (Actually there are plenty of cases of liability for defective products. Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation is just one example ... no wonder the CT'er doesn't like lawyers, LOL!)

    Speaking of 'theories', the CT'er sure does have a lot of them - and all of them are wrong.

    Like this b.s. about "lawyers are one notch below real estate agents".

    Not according to the study I turned up after 0.22 seconds with Google. Canadians placed lawyers a full four notches above Realtors, and higher than Politicians, Car Salespeople, Unionists, Publicists, Insurance Brokers and Journalists.

    http://www.legermarketing.com/docume.../020225eng.pdf

    Maybe someone can find a more recent study, but you get the idea.

    Yes, the CT'er just makes up crap, because the facts are stacked against them.

    And, of course, one can't help but wonder just how useful this information must be to consumers, if the CT'er are spending so much time and effort, trying to convince consumers to not even look into it.

    But one will find quite quickly that there is plenty of useful information out there. Informaton that the CT'er clearly doesn't like.

    Don't forget to check out the growing list of the most commonly told lies by the CT'er:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...lies-here.html

  8. #8
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    It's interesting to see some information here that may be useful to consumers.

    But as a bonus, we get all this free entertainment, watching the CT'er try to dodge and weave, grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to convince consumers not to look into their rights.

    Lots of tactics are at work here:

    - Well, it's only a "theory", so don't bother checking.

    - Oh, look, the word "may" was used, so it's not a sure thing - it's won't be worth looking into.

    - Gee, those lawyers will take you money and do nothing for you - yes, fear the lawyers!

    - There are no examples of the SOGA being applies to defective products, so don't waste your time.

    (Actually there are plenty of cases of liability for defective products. Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation is just one example ... no wonder the CT'er doesn't like lawyers, LOL!)

    Speaking of 'theories', the CT'er sure does have a lot of them - and all of them are wrong.

    Like this b.s. about "lawyers are one notch below real estate agents".

    Not according to the study I turned up after 0.22 seconds with Google. Canadians placed lawyers a full four notches above Realtors, and higher than Politicians, Car Salespeople, Unionists, Publicists, Insurance Brokers and Journalists.

    http://www.legermarketing.com/docume.../020225eng.pdf

    Maybe someone can find a more recent study, but you get the idea.

    Yes, the CT'er just makes up crap, because the facts are stacked against them.

    And, of course, one can't help but wonder just how useful this information must be to consumers, if the CT'er are spending so much time and effort, trying to convince consumers to not even look into it.

    But one will find quite quickly that there is plenty of useful information out there. Informaton that the CT'er clearly doesn't like.

    Don't forget to check out the growing list of the most commonly told lies by the CT'er:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...lies-here.html
    No one said consumers don't have rights, liar faker advocate. It's just your opinion of them that is misleading. How you making out with even one example that CT or ANY other retailer has illegal policies?....LOL. Must be taking a lot longer than 22 seconds on google. Faker advocates, so easy to disprove their opinion. And once you supported fraud, you can place yourself on the list below politicians...lmao.

  9. #9

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    Boy, the CT'er sure doesn't like being proven wrong - again, LOL.

    Proven wrong on the SOGA and liability.

    Proven wrong on ratings of professions.

    Now, we get another amusing round of denials and lies, all easily disproven.

    - Regarding "No one said consumers don't have rights, liar", that's absolutely correct. But there is the implication that a consumer was a "liar" in this regard, and that's not true at all.

    - The opinions given here regarding SOGA are found at the lawyer's web site (and are not those of a consumer posting here).

    - The survey results aren't the opinion of a consumer, either.

    - Nothing has been shown where a consumer posting here has supported fraud - just another incorrect "opinion" of the CT'er.

    Really, it's all just more dodging and weaving, trying to distract consumers from the laws that give them rights, and hoping to discourage consumers from looking further.

    It all makes for another fun read, but on a serious note, it really does reinforce the need to do one's own research before taking a CT'ers word on anything.

    For liability issues, check out all the case law (plenty of it), including Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation here:

    CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

    Regarding credibility, check out more commonly posted lies of the CT'er here:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...lies-here.html

  10. #10
    Posted by an unregistered user Angry CT Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    933
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Defective part causes engine damage

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Boy, the CT'er sure doesn't like being proven wrong - again, LOL.

    Proven wrong on the SOGA and liability.

    Proven wrong on ratings of professions.

    Now, we get another amusing round of denials and lies, all easily disproven.

    - Regarding "No one said consumers don't have rights, liar", that's absolutely correct. But there is the implication that a consumer was a "liar" in this regard, and that's not true at all.

    - The opinions given here regarding SOGA are found at the lawyer's web site (and are not those of a consumer posting here).

    - The survey results aren't the opinion of a consumer, either.

    - Nothing has been shown where a consumer posting here has supported fraud - just another incorrect "opinion" of the CT'er.

    Really, it's all just more dodging and weaving, trying to distract consumers from the laws that give them rights, and hoping to discourage consumers from looking further.

    It all makes for another fun read, but on a serious note, it really does reinforce the need to do one's own research before taking a CT'ers word on anything.

    For liability issues, check out all the case law (plenty of it), including Resch v. Canadian Tire Corporation here:

    CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute

    Regarding credibility, check out more commonly posted lies of the CT'er here:

    https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...lies-here.html
    Lol...the lawyers article was from 2007....surely in 4 years there would be an example where he won even one case, or maybe from another lawyer, or maybe the Ministry would post it on it's site, or a BBB would report it. But not even one. Nothing in CanLii about SOGA or CPA. Nothing on illegalities of a policy. Resch liability claim was not about SOGA, it was about liability in not dealing with a known defective bike.
    Faker advocate sure likes to spin the lies....I'm assuming he doesn't like the ZERO examples of illegal policies by CT or ANY other retailer.....and of course there is that supporting of Fraud when he posted as DavidLer on redflags.
    Tsk, Tsk.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Similar Threads

  1. Seized engine UPDATE
    By Daisy2112 in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: April 10th, 2011, 11:28 AM
  2. Ceased engine
    By Daisy2112 in forum General Canadian Tire Complaints / Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: March 31st, 2011, 09:30 PM
  3. Auto center sold me defective tires
    By joeyr in forum Personal Stories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 4th, 2010, 03:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions