Visions, a popular retail electronics outlet with locations across Canada, was taken to court by a customer in BC who suggested that the warranty they purchased was useless.
Warranties are a hot topic when buying electronics, and extended warranties often allow stores and salespeople to upsell customers.
In this BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case, Babak Sadeghvishkaei sued Visions for damages totalling $1,784.98 for the alleged failure to honour the warranty terms when a monitor he purchased stopped working correctly. It was also the amount he paid for the monitor and warranty.
- You might also like:
- Stumped BC homeowner and strata take fight over a tree to court
- BC woman takes mother to court after she refused to return Gucci the dog
- Man loses legal fight after getting punched in the mouth at Vancouver bar
Visions told the tribunal that because the LG monitor was under the one-year manufacturer warrant, LG elected to repair the monitor instead of replacing it.
The problem for Visions is that according to Sadeghivvishkaei, a salesperson referred to as EN told him that if there were any problems with the monitor, the store would replace it.
Sadeghvishkaei purchased a 49-inch LG monitor from Visions on June 28, 2022, for $1,526.99. He purchased Visions’ three-year ESP for $249.99.
The tribunal decision says that EN told Sadeghvishkaei that due to purchasing the warranty, if something happened to the monitor, he wouldn’t have to deal with the monitor’s manufacturer and that Visions would replace the monitor promptly.
After six months of smooth sailing with the monitor, on December 27, 2022, Sadeghvishkaei noticed weird lines running across the display. He went back to Visions the same day. Visions sent the monitor for repair at LG’s service depot. Repairs were completed nearly a month later, on January 26, 2023.
“It is unclear when Visions retrieved the monitor back,” the tribunal decision states.
Sadeghvishkaei claims he didn’t get word his monitor was ready until March 7.
The tribunal sided with Sadeghvishkaei and his claims that Visions misrepresented the warranty, determining that Sadeghvishkaei wouldn’t have ever bought the warranty were it not for EN’s suggestion that he would get a replacement.
Ultimately, the tribunal ordered Visions to pay Sadeghvishkaei $352.46 for damages and tribunal fees.