- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,224
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Sometimes small claims court delivers a big eye-opener.
Did you know, for instance, that “brand new” car you’re buying might have sustained minor damage, been repaired and put back on the showroom floor?
Diane Lefrançois sure didn’t.
It’s an older case, but it took forever to wind its way through the court, arrive on my desk, get lost on my desk, then pop up again last week. But the buyer-beware caution has not lost its currency.
In December 2011, Lefrançois spotted a Chrysler convertible at Ottawa Chrysler Dodge in the east end. “It was love at first sight,” court was later told. A week later, she was putting down $41,627 for the vehicle, including $3,435 for an extended warranty.
She was told the car was new, though it was near the end of the model season. The odometer read 242 km. It did not have a single blemish and the evidence was that she intended to keep it that way.
About nine months later, she met her partner at a Tim Hortons, where a strange thing happened. She accidentally bumped into his vehicle, leaving “knife-like” scratches on the bumper. She tried but failed to repair the scratches herself, then took the car to a body shop.
When the technician removed the bumper, he found “Bondo,” a well-known body filler. He called Lefrançois and asked what she knew about an earlier accident and a “superficial” repair job. She knew nothing: wasn’t the car brand new?
Eventually, in preparation for a compensation claim, an auto body expert was hired to do an assessment. He found structural damage, too, indicated by a cracked shock absorber hidden by the bumper. The estimate for a proper repair was $3,469. Lefrançois, to say the least, was not happy.
Turning to a paralegal, she eventually took the case to court, claiming breach of contract and seeking $25,000 in damages. She told the court, if she’d known, she never would have bought a previously damaged vehicle.
The dealership, meanwhile, admitted the car had sustained minor damage and was sent for cosmetic repairs that cost $751. (The judge was not satisfied the repair was done properly.) It also claimed it was legally entitled under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to sell as “new” any car that suffers minor damage prior to the sale.
How much damage? Anything below $2,000, the dealer testified.
Deputy Judge Ivan Whitehall elaborated. The act actually puts the figure at $3,000 but says there is a duty of disclosure to the buyer, with a statement detailing the damage and the repair costs. She received neither, nor was it her responsibility to ask.
“Silence and half-truths can amount to fraudulent misrepresentation,” the judge wrote.
“Mrs. Lefrançois was misled by the defendants’ failure to divulge the previous accident. The duty may be breached not only by positive misstatements but also by omissions, for they may be just as misleading.”
Lefrançois made a further claim. She said she tried to cancel the extended warranty during the prescribed 60-day cooling-off period after the sale, but was dissuaded and eventually refused. She also sought compensation for “mental distress.”
Well, score one for the little guy.
The judge awarded her close to $9,000 in damages: $3,496 to properly repair the car, the $3,435 cost of the extended warranty, another $1,300 in costs, plus disbursements and almost four years worth of interest.
**********
A few days ago, we brought you the story of Paul Pelletier, 51, a diabetic recovering from a leg amputation.
The limb was healing nicely thanks to a so-called VAC unit, which uses negative pressure to seal and drain large wounds and prevent infections. The vacuum unit was prescribed by his surgeon and supplied by the Community Care Access Centre, which also provided nursing visits every two days.
At the 10-week mark, however, the CCAC said it needed the unit back, against the wishes of the physician. Pelletier, a truck mechanic, began to panic a little because the wound wasn’t completely healed and a setback could result in further amputation.
He was told he could rent the device for $90 a day, money he didn’t have. Well, help arrived at the 11th hour.
Not only did three Citizen readers offer to pay the rental fee of $2,700 a month, but the surgeon was able to work out a deal with the unit manufacturer, who agreed to provide him with a device free of charge.
Pelletier is both thankful and relieved.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
Did you know, for instance, that “brand new” car you’re buying might have sustained minor damage, been repaired and put back on the showroom floor?
Diane Lefrançois sure didn’t.
It’s an older case, but it took forever to wind its way through the court, arrive on my desk, get lost on my desk, then pop up again last week. But the buyer-beware caution has not lost its currency.
In December 2011, Lefrançois spotted a Chrysler convertible at Ottawa Chrysler Dodge in the east end. “It was love at first sight,” court was later told. A week later, she was putting down $41,627 for the vehicle, including $3,435 for an extended warranty.
She was told the car was new, though it was near the end of the model season. The odometer read 242 km. It did not have a single blemish and the evidence was that she intended to keep it that way.
About nine months later, she met her partner at a Tim Hortons, where a strange thing happened. She accidentally bumped into his vehicle, leaving “knife-like” scratches on the bumper. She tried but failed to repair the scratches herself, then took the car to a body shop.
When the technician removed the bumper, he found “Bondo,” a well-known body filler. He called Lefrançois and asked what she knew about an earlier accident and a “superficial” repair job. She knew nothing: wasn’t the car brand new?
Eventually, in preparation for a compensation claim, an auto body expert was hired to do an assessment. He found structural damage, too, indicated by a cracked shock absorber hidden by the bumper. The estimate for a proper repair was $3,469. Lefrançois, to say the least, was not happy.
Turning to a paralegal, she eventually took the case to court, claiming breach of contract and seeking $25,000 in damages. She told the court, if she’d known, she never would have bought a previously damaged vehicle.
The dealership, meanwhile, admitted the car had sustained minor damage and was sent for cosmetic repairs that cost $751. (The judge was not satisfied the repair was done properly.) It also claimed it was legally entitled under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to sell as “new” any car that suffers minor damage prior to the sale.
How much damage? Anything below $2,000, the dealer testified.
Deputy Judge Ivan Whitehall elaborated. The act actually puts the figure at $3,000 but says there is a duty of disclosure to the buyer, with a statement detailing the damage and the repair costs. She received neither, nor was it her responsibility to ask.
“Silence and half-truths can amount to fraudulent misrepresentation,” the judge wrote.
“Mrs. Lefrançois was misled by the defendants’ failure to divulge the previous accident. The duty may be breached not only by positive misstatements but also by omissions, for they may be just as misleading.”
Lefrançois made a further claim. She said she tried to cancel the extended warranty during the prescribed 60-day cooling-off period after the sale, but was dissuaded and eventually refused. She also sought compensation for “mental distress.”
Well, score one for the little guy.
The judge awarded her close to $9,000 in damages: $3,496 to properly repair the car, the $3,435 cost of the extended warranty, another $1,300 in costs, plus disbursements and almost four years worth of interest.
**********
A few days ago, we brought you the story of Paul Pelletier, 51, a diabetic recovering from a leg amputation.
The limb was healing nicely thanks to a so-called VAC unit, which uses negative pressure to seal and drain large wounds and prevent infections. The vacuum unit was prescribed by his surgeon and supplied by the Community Care Access Centre, which also provided nursing visits every two days.
At the 10-week mark, however, the CCAC said it needed the unit back, against the wishes of the physician. Pelletier, a truck mechanic, began to panic a little because the wound wasn’t completely healed and a setback could result in further amputation.
He was told he could rent the device for $90 a day, money he didn’t have. Well, help arrived at the 11th hour.
Not only did three Citizen readers offer to pay the rental fee of $2,700 a month, but the surgeon was able to work out a deal with the unit manufacturer, who agreed to provide him with a device free of charge.
Pelletier is both thankful and relieved.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
