A B.C. London Drugs customer attempted to return a TV and couldn’t, so he took legal action against the Canadian retailer.
The reason London Drugs wouldn’t take it back? The customer had accidentally broken the TV before trying to return it.
According to the Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, JG bought a floor model 65-inch TV from London Drugs. He tried to return the TV the next day, telling the tribunal it was because it didn’t fit in his preferred spot for it.
The tribunal decision said that London Drugs wouldn’t accept the return because the TV’s screen was damaged. Regardless, JG claimed $1,912.38 for a refund.
London Drugs told the tribunal that the TV was actually in working order when it was purchased and that it informed JG that he needed to protect the TV during transport, or it could be damaged.
Additionally, London Drugs said it wasn’t under any obligation to refund JG.
JG purchased the TV on Aug. 8, 2024. Because it was a floor model, there was no box available for transport. JG told the tribunal that two London Drugs employees helped him bring the TV to his truck and load it onto the truck bed. JG secured the TV himself.
The customer said that he and his wife unloaded the TV and brought it home, and that’s when he realized the TV was too big for the spot he wanted it in.
He told the tribunal that the next day, he and his wife loaded the TV back on the truck and took it back to London Drugs. Another London Drugs employee helped him unload the TV.
During the return process, another London Drugs employee plugged the TV in to discover “substantial damage” across the top third of the screen. For that reason, London Drugs refused a refund to JG.
JG wasn’t alleging that a London Drugs employee damaged the TV and agreed it was likely he or his wife did during the loading or unloading process. However, he said that London Drugs was negligent because it failed to explain proper handling techniques or the risks of transporting a TV.
London Drugs said it offered JG bubble wrap, but he refused.
The tribunal found that London Drugs owed JG a duty of care but did not breach the standard of care. The tribunal dismissed all claims against the B.C. London Drugs, and awarded JG $0.