2,553
edits
Difference between revisions of "Unfair or Deceptive Practices"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Unfair or Deceptive Practices (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, 3 September 2018
, 23:16, 3 September 2018no edit summary
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[http://canlii.ca/t/gbmfq ''Findlay v. Couldwell''] was an early case decided under the old ''Trade Practices Act''. A salesperson for a used car dealership represented one of the used cars as a vehicle in good running order. Five days after purchase, the engine blew up while the buyer was driving on a highway. The court held that the representation of the car’s quality was a “deceptive act or practice” within the meaning of the ''Trade Practices Act''. (The court also held that the buyer was entitled to succeed in common law on the basis that there had been a fundamental breach of the sales contract; the dealer was not entitled to rely on an “as is — where is” term in the sales contract to exempt itself from liability.) | [http://canlii.ca/t/gbmfq ''Findlay v. Couldwell''] was an early case decided under the old ''Trade Practices Act''. A salesperson for a used car dealership represented one of the used cars as a vehicle in good running order. Five days after purchase, the engine blew up while the buyer was driving on a highway. The court held that the representation of the car’s quality was a “deceptive act or practice” within the meaning of the ''Trade Practices Act''. (The court also held that the buyer was entitled to succeed in common law on the basis that there had been a fundamental breach of the sales contract; the dealer was not entitled to rely on an “as is — where is” term in the sales contract to exempt itself from liability.) | ||
In ''Steiner v. Personal Motors Ltd.'', the court found that a salesperson had made statements “grossly exaggerating” the condition of a car, and that the statements were deceptive within the meaning of the ''Trade Practices Act''. The buyer was awarded exemplary damages of $500 as well as specific and general damages. [http://canlii.ca/t/1d8t6 ''Rushak v. Henneken''] is a 1991 Court of Appeal decision dealing with representations made about a car that summarizes the relevant legal principles and case law. In Casillan v. 565204 B.C. Ltd., the BC Supreme Court applied the principles in ''Rushak v. Henneken'' and found that a used car salesperson engaged in a deceptive act or practice under the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'' when a salesperson told a potential buyer that the powertrain of a car was under warranty without confirming if that was in fact the case. In fact, there was no powertrain warranty and the car engine needed to be replaced within five months of purchase, due to a major powertrain malfunction. The court awarded the buyer statutory damages of $13,512.61 under section 171 of the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'', which was the cost of the engine replacement. In ''Simpsons-Sears Limited v. Paddock'', the court awarded damages under the ''Trade Practices Act'' where a lower quality of roofing shingle than was represented in the sales contract was used. | In ''Steiner v. Personal Motors Ltd.'', the court found that a salesperson had made statements “grossly exaggerating” the condition of a car, and that the statements were deceptive within the meaning of the ''Trade Practices Act''. The buyer was awarded exemplary damages of $500 as well as specific and general damages. [http://canlii.ca/t/1d8t6 ''Rushak v. Henneken''] is a 1991 Court of Appeal decision dealing with representations made about a car that summarizes the relevant legal principles and case law. In ''Casillan v. 565204 B.C. Ltd.'', the BC Supreme Court applied the principles in ''Rushak v. Henneken'' and found that a used car salesperson engaged in a deceptive act or practice under the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'' when a salesperson told a potential buyer that the powertrain of a car was under warranty without confirming if that was in fact the case. In fact, there was no powertrain warranty and the car engine needed to be replaced within five months of purchase, due to a major powertrain malfunction. The court awarded the buyer statutory damages of $13,512.61 under section 171 of the ''Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act'', which was the cost of the engine replacement. In ''Simpsons-Sears Limited v. Paddock'', the court awarded damages under the ''Trade Practices Act'' where a lower quality of roofing shingle than was represented in the sales contract was used. | ||
=== Unconscionability=== | === Unconscionability=== | ||