I will admit it: I was wrong.
I heaped much derision upon CT's "repair only" policy, calling it "despicable", and an attempt to "side-step" consumer protection laws.
Now that I've done some more research, I must confess my mistake.
It's actually Crappy Tire's
ENTIRE POLICY on defective items that is despicable, and is contrary to the CPA of 2002 (among other legislation).
DavidLeR apologized for the error.
The Crappy site "
Returns, Refunds & Exchanges | Canadian Tire" has this to say: "If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply".
Yes: if it is defective, they claim they don't have to take it back. Or, in the words of confessed-store-owner CT Me, "too bad so sad".
As I posted earlier, some provinces have Consumer Protection legislation that makes it illegal to misrepresent an item on a store shelf as performing in a certain way. If the item doesn't work, the SELLER is responsible for an exchange or refund, and NOT soley the manufacturer.
Some legistation includes the option to get satisfaction through a your credit card company. See my earlier posting.
So, what the heck
IS this bizzare "Repair Only" policy, if there's already an over-arching policy for any defective item on any shelf in the store (i.e, the customer gets screwed)?
I believe this is just another name for a "No Return" item. Nothing special.
Typical "No returns" items are: gift cards, underwear (thank God!), clearance and "as-is" items, ammunition, and customized items. These are usually well-marked.
So, why did CT
invent the term "Repair Only"? Why would they want to confuse customers (and store owners, too, apparently)?
Why not just call it a "No Return" item? They do it for ammo and underwear!
I have no idea.
-----
As customers, CT's hair-splitting rules for defective vs. change-of-mind returns seem to be completely backwards. If the darn thing doesn't even work, I can't get a refund/exchange; but, if I just randomly change my mind, I can a refund? It seems illogical.
But if we look at it from CT's point of view, it's perfectly rational.
If an unwanted item is resellable, they only have to pay an employee to process the refund and put it back on the shelf. Cheap and easy (but it is clearly untrue when CT Me wrote, "Refunds for unused items … don't cost money". Can somebody explain to him/her the difference between an "asset" and an "expense"?).
Now consider CT's view of a defective product - that's a whole other can of worms.
The process that stores have to follow to return a defective item to a supplier is probably onerous. As some employees have told us, they need permission from the supplier/manufacturer to return some defective items. I assume the store has to contact someone, get a credit for the item, arrange a pick-up, and so forth. I've heard that, for some items, the store will simply throw the item into the dumpster, rather than try to get the money back for the supplier. Ouch!
Even CT Me wrote (in posting #9), "For too long retailers have shouldered the burden of bad products".
(Strangely, CT Me then wrote in posting #20, "Refunds for defective products do not cost the business money". Which is the truth, and which is the lie? I suspect that CT Me got ticked off and carelessly blurted out the truth in his/her anti-customer diatribe in #9. But maybe that was the lie, and posting #20 was the truth? It gets hard to tell after a while.)
-----
You might now be asking yourself, "Is the Repair-Only policy still despicable?"
Yes!
One problem is, it's often not clear that this is a "no-returns" type of item. You might not find out until AFTER you paid, when it's printed on the receipt. By then it's too late.
To make things even worse, CT has begun stocking many products that are prone to have defects, right out of the box. Like those crapola Simoniz pressure washers.
So ….
Are you still considering buying that sale-priced pressure washer from Crappy Tire?
Bend over - you're about to get "Simonized".