Dear Unregistered:
Please don’t be offended, but I have to let you know something. I have to admit that, for a while, I was finding you a bit, well … annoying.
I’m sure that nobody in ‘real life’ would ever find you grating or droning, but that’s how it was for me. Reading (well, skimming, really) post after post of the same, unsubstantiated claims.
(It was almost as if you believe that, if you repeated the same old speculations enough times, people would forget that you had no back-up for your claims whatsoever.)
But here’s the good news: you’ll be relieved to know that I now find you highly amusing!!!!
Isn’t that awesome???
I think the tipping point for me was the recent ‘exchange’ exchange.
(Get it?)
Yes, you set out to prove that CT’s policies aren’t in violation of any laws. In particular, that the law doesn’t require a refund for a defective item. (Which it does; did I happen to mention that?)
But here’s what’s so entertaining:
The
only thing you managed to find any evidence for
at all, is that CT’s policy on
exchanges is
illegal!
“LOL Hilarious”, as your cohort ‘CT Me’ used to phrase it.
(Posters type ‘LOL’ all the time, but you can be sure I really
am!)
do you think that these large corporations, with a multitude of lawyers in their employ …
Well, now. Here’s a real head-scratcher of a conundrum, don’t you think?
How can it be, that the “multitude of lawyers” failed to find something, that you were able to Google up in just a day or two, with basically no legal training whatsoever?
Beginners luck, perhaps?
Are there just too many of them? Or perhaps too few?
do you think that these large corporations … don't have their asses covered every which way and sideways? I know that they do.
Talk about an epic fail! Somehow, they clearly don’t have their behinds covered, at least not in this way.
What's spectacularly funny is how you started out saying you “know that they do”, and just a few blundering days later, you proved that they
don’t!
This will especially hit them on their precious “Repair Only” policy, which Crappy Tire has invented for notoriously faulty products like the Simonize pressure washers. That’s the policy that says it can’t be returned, even if it’s kaput, right out of the box.
Now that you’ve discovered this non-compliant policy on CT’s, I’m sure you’ll agree they’ll want to have this glaring gap closed ‘toot sweet’, right? Because, as you said:
Smart businesses will try and accommodate their good customers
And, I know you will want to set them straight on this, ASAP.
So. Have you given the CT head office a call? I’m sure if they knew of your dedicated efforts on their behalf, they’d be glad to hear from you.
In fact, maybe they are in need of a good legal researcher, such as yourself (LOL). I bet there’s even an opening or two coming up in their legal staff!
Maybe they’ll throw in a free pressure washer, as an extra ‘thank-you’ gift. (Too bad it won’t work, LOL!)
So, when are the “repair only” policy signs coming down? Have they given you an expected roll-out date?
Do you think they’ll feel bad enough over their past wrong-doings to hunt down that elderly couple, and give them a replacement pressure washer, rather than make them wait for the brand-new-but-dead-out-of-the-box unit to get fixed?
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for your back-up material on that claim that there are lots of web sites on your "no law requiring refunds" theory. Because I sure can't find them.
Oh, and the list of sites from other retailers that have “some variation" of CT’s “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” statements. Because I sure can’t find that, either.
And, of course, don't forget to get back to us on CT's valiant efforts to become fully compliant (at least with the exchange issue), and on your new job prospects!