Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

[CT Challenger]

I find it fascinating that those who appoint themselves as defenders of Canadian Tire on this site post so many bald-faced lies.

What could their intention be?

Are they simply being argumentative, and like to stir up controversy (tolls)?

Do they think their bogus claims will convince future customers that CT is actually not such a bad store?

Entice form customers to come back?

I wonder if they realize how this only further diminishes the already tarnished image that Canadian Tire has in the marketplace.

I also wonder if they've realized they can't win any debates with the truth, because Canadian Tire really does suck.

Maybe all these false claims are really just a form of confession.

I hear confession is good for the soul.

And those souls need all the help they can get.

[CT Challenger]

Sorry - "trolls".

[Guest-0367]

i still vote that they are morons

to be a liar you have to be smart enough to know you are wrong

clearly not the case here

yup - morons, all of them

[Angry CT Guy]

I find it fascinating that those who appoint themselves as defenders of Canadian Tire on this site post so many bald-faced lies.

What could their intention be?

Are they simply being argumentative, and like to stir up controversy (tolls)?

Do they think their bogus claims will convince future customers that CT is actually not such a bad store?

Entice form customers to come back?

I wonder if they realize how this only further diminishes the already tarnished image that Canadian Tire has in the marketplace.

I also wonder if they've realized they can't win any debates with the truth, because Canadian Tire really does suck.

Maybe all these false claims are really just a form of confession.

I hear confession is good for the soul.

And those souls need all the help they can get.

The CT defenders only seem to be responding to the many lies and crap that you have posted. I'm sure you would like them to go away, rather than be challenged on whatever you feel like posting here, especially the faker advocate posts. Not gonna happen....I don't like assholes and I'm going to expose your bullshit and lack of credibility every chance I get.

[CT Challenger]

The CT defenders only seem to be responding to the many lies and crap that you have posted.

Care to back up your claims? Any examples of "lies and crap" that I have personally posted? Do you have any evidence to go with those accusations?

Otherwise, this is just another example of a lie by a CT defender.

I'm sure you would like them to go away,

Actually, I'd be happier if they (and you) would just starting telling fewer lies. At least the lies are easy to spot.

... rather than be challenged on whatever you feel like posting here, especially the faker advocate posts.

You are suggesting that I've made a post here, and been challenged on it, and then avoided that challenge. Please provide examples to back up your claim.

Otherwise, it's just another lie by a CT defender.

Your phrase, "whatever you feel like" suggests that there is no evidence to support the posts you think I made. Please provide some examples of things you think I posted that aren't supported by evidence.

Otherwise, this is just another example of a lie by a CT defender.

"Faker advocate", huh? On what basis do you make that accusation? Do you have a widely accepted definition of this term? What evidence do you have that I, or anyone else here, meet this definition? Please provide this evidence.

Otherwise, this is just one more example. You get the idea.

I'm sure you would like them to go away ... Not gonna happen....

You are sure, are you? Well, that's just your opinion, so it's safe to ignore.

I agree the defenders won't go away any time soon. It would just be nice if they told fewer lies. Just my preference.

I don't like assholes

I would define an a-hole as someone who tried to cheat innocent customers for personal gain. From the lies I've seen posted on this site, that's exactly what you and your fellow CT defenders are attempting to do. Just my opinion, though.

... and I'm going to expose your bullshit and lack of credibility every chance I get.

What is this bs you refer to? What evidence do you have that it is bs? What evidence do you have that I, personally, lack credibility?

You've made the accusations: now back them up.

My prediction? You'll just post a bunch of lies, as the CT defenders have been doing so much on this site.

You've suggested that I've made posts, then avoided challenges. Now I'm challenging you to back up that claim.

Let's see what you've got.

"Bring it on".

[CT Challenger]

Well, yesterday was a busy day for the lying CT Defenders, with some of their posts to the "Stupid Return Policy" thread having almost no truthful content whatsoever.

However, one particular post, despite the lies, was actually enlightening:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/pe....html#post3680"

When they were called on the many lies they posted, their response was:

"You post your opinion as fact.....that in itself is a lie."

I gather the logic works like this:

1 - Someone posts a fact, but doesn't suitable qualify it with "In my opinion".
2- The CT Defender uses this to justify telling a wide assortment of ridiculous lies.

And, maybe they are ticked off that nobody's doing research for them, to prove some weird theory about case law.

So, are they using the perceived transgressions of another to justify their own bad actions? That's so "Grade 4", I think.

And how about the sheer hypocricy? "Oh, I hate lies so much, I'm going to punish your lies .... by telling lies about you".

Not to mention their flawed theory that 'posting an opinion as fact is a lie'. That's not even logical.

This is the same poster who's off on some tangent about sucks.com, and how anybody who opposes the practices of Canadian Tire is apparently a "Faker Advocate", whatever that means.

Not to mention that the logic behind the 'illegal' claim has already been explained a couple of times.

At least we are finally drilling down into the strange thinking of one CT Defender.

[CT Challenger]

I see the CT representatives have resumed their habit of posting the same, long-disproven lies, over and over again. Lately it's been mostly on the "Repair Only Warranty" thread.

As was suggested before, I have decided to stream-line things by assigning a unique number to each standard lie, along with the standard refutations. This will help the interested reader to quickly dismiss these repetitive lies with a minimum of wasted time.

This may be useful to the self-declared CT Representatives, too. Instead of spending valuable time laboriously re-typing these lies every few days, they can simply refer to them by number.

For example, “Oh, yeah? You are just a lazy Unionist bum. And Lie #6!”

(Although I suspect that it is the sheer joy of the lying process that they enjoy, and that efficiency is not their priority.)

I humbly offer the following list:

-----

The Repair-Only Lies List:

#1 – Canadian Tire’s policy is to give a refund for a defective item.

Canadian Tire does not have a policy to provide refunds for any defective items. Instead, they have designated some items as “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only”, and consider these items to be “Non-Refundable” if they are defective.

Numerous examples are available of self-appointed CT representatives describing (and even defending) these policies.

No evidence has been presented that Canadian Tire has other policies for defective items, although some stores claim to offer refunds in some cases.

#2 – Only a few items at Canadian Tire are “Non-Refundable” – about 98% have a refund 'option'.

A random survey of products on CanadianTire.ca found about 80% of the items were clearly non-refundable. The policies on other 20% were less clear, but do not appear to be refundable, either.

See this post for details: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3747"

No other evidence has been presented regarding these statistics.

#3 – All other retailers have the “same damn” policy (i.e., no refund for defective items) as Canadian Tire.

There are no other major Canadian retailers who have a general policy against providing refunds for defective items.

Although other stores may carry items for which the manufacturer provides only a repair-only warranty, the other stores do not set their refund policies based on the manufacturer’s warranty; the stores stand behind the products they sell, and offer refunds for at least 30 days.

See the following posts for details on outdoor power equipment:

Costco: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3166" and "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3179"

Walmart: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3238" and "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3268"

Home Depot: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3445"

No evidence has been presented that these stores have policies other than those described above.

#4 – Other stores sell products that have a manufacturer’s warranty saying, “repair only”, which proves other stores have “the same damn policy” as Canadian Tire.

All other major retailers allow refunds for at least 30 days. No other major retailer reverts to the manufacturer's warranty immediately.

#5 – A repair is only a minor inconvenience, compared to a refund or exchange.

See the following post for a vivid description of the costs in time and money, and risk for a customer how agrees to settle for a repair:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge....html#post3745"

#6 – Other stores have just as many complaints as Canadian Tire for refunds on defective items.

See the links under #3 to compare the complaints that can be easily found online.

#7 – Customers are to blame for Canadian Tire’s implementation of the “No Refund” policy.

This is clearly false because all other retailers operate in the same marketplace, yet no other retailer has a similar policy for similar defective goods.

#8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.

Most provinces have a Ministry for consumer affairs or protection, whom you can contact for details in your specific case.

See the Sale of Goods Act thread: "https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...goods-act.html"

#9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.

According to numerous experts in the field of consumer law, an Ontario customer is entitled to a refund for a defective product. For links to these resources, see the Sale of Goods thread, located here:

"https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...goods-act.html"

Should you wish to dispute any of these experts’ opinions, feel free to contact them directly. Thank you.

#10 - Didn’t Dick Smythe have a problem with a pressure washer he bought from Home Depot and tried to return?

No, Dick Smyth (not “Smythe”) bought a pressure washer from Canadian Tire. It stopped working, and he bought another one from Canadian Tire. There are no reports on how long the second washer lasted before it, too, failed.

It is true, however, that Dick reported a problem with a warrant on a “Moffat range” he bought from Home Depot.

You can read about it for yourself here:

"Calling Home Depot…. | Ellen Roseman"

[CT Challenger]

Missed one:

#11 – There’s a BBB site that references the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund.

The site in question references out-dated information. The BPA was replaced by the CPA in 2005.

See CanLII - Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18 for details.

(And the site is not clear on whether, under the old laws, the customer used to be able to can choose the remedy, or the store used to be able to choose.)

[CT Challenger]

the most common lies don't seem to really be about facts regarding stores or policies or laws

they seem to be lies about what other posters have written

the ct defenders - if there's more than one - like to claim that other people said things when they didn't

can they not tell the difference?

or do they not care that there's a difference?

this seems to be very transparent - anybody can easily see for themselves what was previously written

mostly its just annoying

[CT Challenger]

First, some catching up on older lies that belong on the list:

#12 – A manufacturer’s warranty is the same thing as a return policy.

A return policy is provided by the store, and says what the store will do if there is a problem with a product during an initial period of time, such as providing a refund or exchange.

A manufacturer’s warranty is provided by the manufacturer, and says what the manufacturer will do if there is a problem after the initial period that is covered by the store.

Canadian Tire is the only major retailer that does not have a general policy regarding refund or exchanges of defective products, and instead directs customers immediately to the warranty (i.e., many items they sell are ‘non returnable’, even if they are defective).

#13 – Canadian Tire has a policy that items will be refunded within 90 days, so there isn’t any problem.

According to the web site and the statement on the back of the receipt, this policy only applies for an item “in its original condition and packaging”. In addition, many stores will also insist that the package be “unopened” or “sealed”, and that the item be “unused”.

However, many defects can only be discovered by opening the package, or by using it (which makes it no longer in its original condition). This makes the policy irrelevant for many defects.

Finally, the 90 day rule is only 30 days for some items, and does not even apply to many others.

#14 – Refunds don’t cost the store anything, so there is no incentive to refuse a refund for a genuinely defective item.

Simple logic dictates that the processing of a refund to the customer and obtaining a refund from the manufacturer is going to require time and money to accomplish. Also, if the store gives the customer a refund, but the manufacturer has only agreed to repair the product, then the store will lose money by selling the item as refurbished or used.

Finally, if there were no incentive to refuse a refund, then there would be no need to implement a “repair only” policy in the first place, and no reason to risk upsetting loyal customers. Make no mistake. Absolutely, a refund for an exchange- or repair-only item will be costly for the store.