CT Challenger

New member
Hey, what’s the square root of 81?

Wait! Before you blurt out “9”, think about how the CT rep’s will react!

Can you prove that the answer is 9?

Do you have links to support your “opinion”? No? Then, you have no evidence. You are posting opinions as fact, so you are a liar.

Liar, liar, liar.

CT happens to know that the the square root of 81 is 8. You are not relevant. Sorry!
 

Guest-0477

Posted by an unregistered user
What’s that? You have links to a site where a math professor at York says the square root of 81 is 9? Well, that’s just his opinion. Actually, it’s really just your opinion. And since it’s not a “fact”, then you are liar. You loser loses lose. Besides, CT has a staff of top-notch mathematicians, and they make sure we know our square roots. They even know some cube roots! So, take if from us, it’s 8. Make no mistake, it’s 8. Absolutely 8. Trust us on this one.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
What’s that? You have links to a site where a math professor at York says the square root of 81 is 9? Well, that’s just his opinion. Actually, it’s really just your opinion. And since it’s not a “fact”, then you are liar. You loser loses lose. Besides, CT has a staff of top-notch mathematicians, and they make sure we know our square roots. They even know some cube roots! So, take if from us, it’s 8. Make no mistake, it’s 8. Absolutely 8. Trust us on this one.

Hopefully this will help the faker advocate:

Square root - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or

Squares and Square Roots


How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer has an illegal policy?
Got that call into the Ministry?
How about Ellen Roseman?
A media source? A lawyer?

Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 6 years. Don't forget to donate...box at the top and you can use paypal and interestingly enough, donate is US dollars!...nice touch
 

Guest-0477

Posted by an unregistered user
The logic used by the CT Rep is deeply flawed, as the example using square roots shows.

Many links have been provided to sites from reputable sources on consumer law, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they are willing to settle for that).

But the CT rep has ignored these sites by claiming there is “no evidence”, or that the statements on these sites are the “opinion” of the consumers who posted the links.

So, there is “no evidence” about square roots, and the links to the math sites are just “the opinion” of the CT rep. That’s what you end up with, if you use the logic of the CT rep.

Lately, the CT rep has requested a reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “illegal policy” in the same sentence, and implies that the absence of a reference shows that CT's policies are fine.

By the same logic, CT could also lie by saying the square root of 81 is 8. Since there’s not reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “square root of 81” in the same sentence, the CT rep could claim that they’ve shown the root of 81 is 8, and there's nothing wrong with that statement. Outrageous!

So, here’s what you get if you use “CT Logic”.

“How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer is wrong about square roots? Got that call into the Ministry of Finance? A media source? A mathematician? Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 2000 years. Don't forget to donate...at Jump Start, which has a ‘donate’ button, and therefore is a ‘Faker Advocate Site’.”

Well, consumers, you can come to their own conclusions about any topic you like, including mathematics, and the legality of CT’s policies.

And, of course, there’s lots of evidence that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they prefer).

Consumer should just check these posts:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4197

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4381

Don’t forget to check out the on-going lies and misrepresentations of the CT Rep, being tracked here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
The logic used by the CT Rep is deeply flawed, as the example using square roots shows.

Many links have been provided to sites from reputable sources on consumer law, saying that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they are willing to settle for that).

But the CT rep has ignored these sites by claiming there is “no evidence”, or that the statements on these sites are the “opinion” of the consumers who posted the links.

So, there is “no evidence” about square roots, and the links to the math sites are just “the opinion” of the CT rep. That’s what you end up with, if you use the logic of the CT rep.

Lately, the CT rep has requested a reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “illegal policy” in the same sentence, and implies that the absence of a reference shows that CT's policies are fine.

By the same logic, CT could also lie by saying the square root of 81 is 8. Since there’s not reference that puts “Canadian Tire” and “square root of 81” in the same sentence, the CT rep could claim that they’ve shown the root of 81 is 8, and there's nothing wrong with that statement. Outrageous!

So, here’s what you get if you use “CT Logic”.

“How you doing on finding even ONE example that states CT or ANY other retailer is wrong about square roots? Got that call into the Ministry of Finance? A media source? A mathematician? Nope, still nothing....but it's only been 2000 years. Don't forget to donate...at Jump Start, which has a ‘donate’ button, and therefore is a ‘Faker Advocate Site’.”

Well, consumers, you can come to their own conclusions about any topic you like, including mathematics, and the legality of CT’s policies.

And, of course, there’s lots of evidence that consumers are entitled to a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if they prefer).

Consumer should just check these posts:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4197

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-8.html#post4381

Don’t forget to check out the on-going lies and misrepresentations of the CT Rep, being tracked here:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

There goes the proverbial stamping of the feet again...lol. "it's the truth because I say it is"....yet, no one to corroborate the claim, no one to publicly accuse CT or ANY other retailer of having illegal policies.
Kind of like the reaction the general public had to the few trouble makers in Vancouver after the Stanley cup playoffs, they don't support that kind of behavior, they won't support losers.
If people want the truth, they should call the Ministry of Consumer Affairs....only then will they know the truth, and given the number of people that shop at CT, faker advocate certainly is not the majority, but rather one of "the few"
Don't forget to donate....they take paypal in US dollars...lol
 

CT Challenger

New member
Well, consumers, if posting the truth is "stamping feet", prepare for a whole lot more of it.

And if pointing out the lies of the self-appointed CT rep is just "stamping", well, there's going to be a bit more of that, too.

For those of you keeping track, the sites the CT rep wants you to ignore, are all the ones where reputable sources state that a consumer is entitled to a refund (or an exchange, if they are OK with that) for a defective product.

These are:

1 – Ellen Roseman, “If the product's a dud, insist on your money back"

If the product's a dud, insist on your money back - moneyville.ca Blogs

2 – Ellen Roseman, “Working to fix products that don’t work"

Roseman: Working to fix products that don

3 – Miller Tomson, “ARE YOU READY FOR THE ONTARIO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002?”

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...05 Final.pdf

4 – O’Connor MacLeod Hanna, “Ontario’s New Consumer Protection Law”

Milton, Burlington, Oakville Lawyers | O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario

5 - “is that legal”, Cpt 5: General Consumer’s Rights:
LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.5: General Consumer Rights

6 - “is that legal”, Cpt 7: General Civil Remedies:
LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)

7 – Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002

8 – Peterborough and District Labour Council
PDLC News » The New Face of Consumer Protection Law in Ontario: Consolidate, Update and Escalate

9 - MCS re: Cancelling:

Cancelling a Contract - Ministry of Consumer Services

10 - Blakes (General coverage)

http://www.blakes.com/pdf/CPA_Oct20_2005.pdf

11 - Macmillan – General

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Upload/Publi...onference - Consumer Protection Act, 2002.pdf

12 - Stutz & Associates

W.W. Stutz & Associates ~ Barristors, Solicitors and Notary Public

13 - MCA – basic info, plain language:

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/Documents/275071.pdf

14 – UWO
The University of Western Ontario

#15 - Professor Iain Ramsay:

Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers

#16 – Industry Canada
Refund and Exchange - Entire Collection | Canadian Consumer Handbook

Read those for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. They will likely not be what CT wants you to think.

The self-appointed CT rep. also doesn't want you to check the CPA itself, which is here:

Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

Give that a read, too, and then see what you think. Likely not what CT wants you to believe.

Finally, call your Ministry to hear what they have to say. Every consumer who's reported on such a call has had a MUCH different story, than what the CT Liar reports.

Now, on to the latest CT lies:

No consumers have written, "it's the truth because I say it is". That's just one more the self-appointed CT rep has made up, probably in hopes that you won't bother looking into things for yourself.

Actually, that's how the CT rep's post sound, now that I think about it.

Also, if you had any inclination to donate to "Jump Start", keep in mind that their site has a "donate" button, and the CT rep says that makes it a "Faker Advocate Site", so you might want to think twice. But, heck, if you are going to donate to either this one, or Jump Start, how about donating here???

Regading "corroboration", if you (the consumer) feel that this is needed to justify calling CT's policies "illegal", then that's the conclusion you have reached. No problem. Just don't be tricked into thinking you can't decide what to believe for yourself.

But I'm guessing you will apply CT's own definition of "against the law is illegal", and maybe decide that the "repair only", "exchange only" and "no warranty" policies are, well ... you can decide for yourselves.

Happy reading!
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.
 

CT Challenger

New member
Not too sure what the square root thing is, but it seems that if I can choose for myself then why do stores have policies at all.

As long as there's no law being broken, a store can set the policies they want.

It's a trade-off. Stores can be more generous, but their costs will be higher, and they won't be able to compete on price.

If the store have more restrictive policies, they will save on costs, but their customers won't be as happy, and will shop somewhere else.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
As long as there's no law being broken, a store can set the policies they want.

It's a trade-off. Stores can be more generous, but their costs will be higher, and they won't be able to compete on price.

If the store have more restrictive policies, they will save on costs, but their customers won't be as happy, and will shop somewhere else.

How come no one has accused Cdn. tire of breaking any laws?
 

CT Challenger

New member
How come no one has accused Cdn. tire of breaking any laws?

Lots of people have.

Read the stories from consumers on this web site, for starters.

Several of them followed up with reports of getting refunds.

You can read about the laws yourself on this thread, and see how ct is breaking those laws.

Plus, you can call the Ministry to hear more.
 

CT Challenger

New member
the ellen roseman site has a story about a man who bought a defective grocery cart from canadian tire - he got back $45

yup - lots of reports of stores not following the sale of goods act and the consumer protection act

ellen wrote about ‘as seen on tv’ and that 'Angela was entitled to a refund'

she also wrote about best by and future shop

and forever 21

she wrote ‘Under the law, manufacturers and retailers have a duty to supply products fit for the intended purpose’ and ‘If you’re stranded, go to small claims court and cite the Sale of Goods Act as an argument to get your money back.’

sale of goods act is a 'law'

so is the consumer protection act

but i’m guessing the ct people are going to keep arguing - saying none of this is true

they wouldn't want more consumers pushing for refunds – costs them too much money

better to make the customer sue - then settle out of court - then claim there are no court rulings

nice plan - discourages customers from asking for refunds

this store really does suck
 

Guest-0477

Posted by an unregistered user
Seems the Crappy People are the only ones who have a problem with this.

Lots of reports in the media, from lawyers and even a professor agreeing that consumers should get a refund.

Its the law. Against the law is illegal. Case closed.

And spare us rhetoric on these dumb questions. We can read the laws for ourselves.

I guess the Crappy People just don't want to be out a lot of money.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
the ellen roseman site has a story about a man who bought a defective grocery cart from canadian tire - he got back $45

yup - lots of reports of stores not following the sale of goods act and the consumer protection act

ellen wrote about ‘as seen on tv’ and that 'Angela was entitled to a refund'

she also wrote about best by and future shop

and forever 21

she wrote ‘Under the law, manufacturers and retailers have a duty to supply products fit for the intended purpose’ and ‘If you’re stranded, go to small claims court and cite the Sale of Goods Act as an argument to get your money back.’

sale of goods act is a 'law'

so is the consumer protection act

but i’m guessing the ct people are going to keep arguing - saying none of this is true

they wouldn't want more consumers pushing for refunds – costs them too much money

better to make the customer sue - then settle out of court - then claim there are no court rulings

nice plan - discourages customers from asking for refunds

this store really does suck

You lose credibility when you only tell your "version" of the truth and quote only snippets and not the whole story.
Not to hard to discredit a faker advocate

Your right to a refund, credit or exchange | Ellen Roseman

If you read the rest of the story, the customer was given a refund from the corporation and not the store. It was "a measure of good will" and the corporation completely backed the store in adhering to the exchange policy.
No where does Ellen Roseman say CT did anything illegal.
Yep, thanks for proving the point of your faker advocateness and lack of relevance. Nothing more than some pissed at life person spouting lies and opinions as truth. Good job.
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Seems the Crappy People are the only ones who have a problem with this.

Lots of reports in the media, from lawyers and even a professor agreeing that consumers should get a refund.

Its the law. Against the law is illegal. Case closed.

And spare us rhetoric on these dumb questions. We can read the laws for ourselves.

I guess the Crappy People just don't want to be out a lot of money.

Really? These lawyers and law professor have named CT or ANY other retailer as having an illegal policy?
There are media reports that state the same?
Please pass those along so that we can all be enlightened.
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs actually has a data base the public can access that lists all the companies that have been found in contravention to consumer laws.....how about providing even ONE reference to Canadian Tire.

Consumer Beware List

The Ministry doesn't list even ONE example....kind of ruins your theory, you moron.
 

Guest-0477

Posted by an unregistered user
You lose credibility when you only tell your "version" of the truth and quote only snippets and not the whole story.
Not to hard to discredit a faker advocate

Your right to a refund, credit or exchange | Ellen Roseman

If you read the rest of the story, the customer was given a refund from the corporation and not the store. It was "a measure of good will" and the corporation completely backed the store in adhering to the exchange policy.
No where does Ellen Roseman say CT did anything illegal.
Yep, thanks for proving the point of your faker advocateness and lack of relevance. Nothing more than some pissed at life person spouting lies and opinions as truth. Good job.

The CT liars sure do work hard to hide the obvious.

Ellen wrote, ‘Under the law, manufacturers and retailers have a duty to supply products fit for the intended purpose’.

And the CT'ers grudginly admitted, "against the law is illegal".

But the CT liars will continue to try to fool consumers.

They'll pretend that:

- Consumers won't get a refund from Company X, if there's no link to a site saying, "Company X has an illegal policy".
- Consumers won't get a refund from Company X, if Company X isn't listed on the Minstry web site.
- If a consumer was given a "good will gesture", then it's not a "refund", so other consumers can't count on the same result.
- Consumers won't get a refund from any store, if there are any stores that sell any item with a manufacture's "repair warranty".
- Consumers who post information here are only posting their own opinions.
- Consumers who post information here aren't trust-worthy.

The list of lies goes on and one.

But guess what? None of that changes the law.

There are stories from other consumers on this web site about consumers getting refunds (or at least exchanges, if they are willing to settle).

So don't believe the CT liars.

But it kind of makes you wonder: why they spend so much time trying to hide the obvious.

Could it be .... they will lose money?
 

Guest-0477

Posted by an unregistered user
And don't forget all the links that say "refund"!

1 – Ellen Roseman, “If the product's a dud, insist on your money back"

If the product's a dud, insist on your money back - moneyville.ca Blogs

2 – Ellen Roseman, “Working to fix products that don’t work"

Roseman: Working to fix products that don

3 – Miller Tomson, “ARE YOU READY FOR THE ONTARIO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002?”

http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...05 Final.pdf

4 – O’Connor MacLeod Hanna, “Ontario’s New Consumer Protection Law”

Milton, Burlington, Oakville Lawyers | O'Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP | Ontario

5 - “is that legal”, Cpt 5: General Consumer’s Rights:
LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.5: General Consumer Rights

6 - “is that legal”, Cpt 7: General Civil Remedies:
LEGAL GUIDE: CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (ONTARIO) - Ch.7: General Civil Remedies (I)

7 – Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Past & Present | 37:3 Bill 180, Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002

8 – Peterborough and District Labour Council
PDLC News » The New Face of Consumer Protection Law in Ontario: Consolidate, Update and Escalate

9 - MCS re: Cancelling:

Cancelling a Contract - Ministry of Consumer Services

10 - Blakes (General coverage)

http://www.blakes.com/pdf/CPA_Oct20_2005.pdf

11 - Macmillan – General

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Upload/Publi...onference - Consumer Protection Act, 2002.pdf

12 - Stutz & Associates

W.W. Stutz & Associates ~ Barristors, Solicitors and Notary Public

13 - MCA – basic info, plain language:

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/Documents/275071.pdf

14 – UWO
The University of Western Ontario

#15 - Professor Iain Ramsay:

Professor Iain Ramsay on Retailers' Legal Responsibility to Purchasers

#16 – Industry Canada
Refund and Exchange - Entire Collection | Canadian Consumer Handbook

And ther's the CPA itself, too:

Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
Supplying a product fit for its intended purposes...yes
That does not mean it can not break or wear out. If it does, it either gets repaired or replacd or refunded...depends no the item. This in no way contravenes the sale of goods act
 

Angry CT Guy

Posted by an unregistered user
Yep, still no mention of CT or ANY other retailer having an illegal policy. Best to contact the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for a truthful answer on this. Consumers won't be fooled into trusting a faker advocates opinion.
 

CT Challenger

New member
Some important things for consumers to remember:

In Ontario (and other jurisdictions), consumers can get a refund for a defective item (or an exchange, if you prefer):

- Even if nobody has posted a reference here to "illegal policies" for that retailer (because this doesn't change the laws).

- Even the retailer isn't listed on a Ministry's "Customer Beware List" (because this doesn't change the laws).

- Even if a retailer gave a customer a "good will gesture" gift card (because this doesn't change the laws).

- Even if there are other stores that sell items with a manufacture's "repair warranty" (because this doesn't change the laws).


Also remember:

- Consumers who post links to other web sites are not posting their own opinions.

- Consumers do not need to rely on what's posted here; they can check the links themselves, or call their Consumer's Ministry.

- Consumers have consistently reported that the Ministry says consumers don't have to settle for a repair.

- The CT Reps post so many lies about policies, laws, stores and consumers, there a thread just for their main lies: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...y-do-ct-defenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html

- According to the CT Rep, a "Faker Advocate Site" is one with a "donate button", so they defined CT's own Jump Start as a "Faker Advocate Site, too".
 
Top