[BC/Canada] Sale of Goods Act

I realize the majority of members here are not from BC, but some of the regulations that apply in BC, Canada also apply to other provinces across Canada.

After some discussion, a certain part of the Sale of Goods Act of British Columbia was brought to my attention. Found here.

The main part I want to bring to everybody's attention is Section 18 ©.

 Spoiler

Implied conditions as to quality or fitness
18 Subject to this and any other Act, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale or lease, except as follows:

(a) if the buyer or lessee, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller or lessor the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer or lessee relies on the seller's or lessor's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller's or lessor's business to supply, whether the seller or lessor is the manufacturer or not, there is an implied condition that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose; except that in the case of a contract for the sale or lease of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose;
(b) if goods are bought by description from a seller or lessor who deals in goods of that description, whether the seller or lessor is the manufacturer or not, there is an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality; but if the buyer or lessee has examined the goods there is no implied condition as regards defects that the examination ought to have revealed;
© there is an implied condition that the goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale or lease;
(d) an implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade;
(e) an express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent with it.

So apparently, according to this, it is the seller's (not manufacturer's) responsibility to provide goods that are durable for a reasonable amount of time. This brings up the situation we are all too familiar with... We go to Future Shop, buy our TVs or iPods and the salesperson always asks if we want to purchase their extended "warranty".

According to Section 18 ©, the seller (eg. Future Shop) is bound by the Sale of Goods Act to provide the consumer with protection of the product free of charge, for a reasonable amount of time, otherwise there is a breach of contract. I'd assume a reasonable amount of time would be the maximum amount of coverage the seller normally provides.

So all this time, we've been offered "warranties" and protection programs for a price (not illegal) when we are supposed to have these for free, with the contract being binding at the time of purchase. So, Costco has apparently done a good job turning regulation into a selling point for them as the typical consumer doesn't know about the Sale of Goods act.

The person who told me about this (a lawyer, but never mentions it) actually brings a copy of the Sale of Goods Act to whatever store, and after a fuss is usually successful in replacing the defective product.

So what Canadians think about this? I found this to be interesting and thought I'd share

They do provide the buyer with a warranty for a reasonable amount of time. I know Future Shop has a 30 day return policy (could be 60) on most things. I think electronics are actually covered up to 3 months. That seems plenty reasonable to me.

It's much longer than just 30 days. There's no way people will be returning to buy new cameras every 30/60 days. The Act refers to a reasonable lifetime of the product. I think a reasonable time is a few years at best.

Say if my non-existent iPod gets a crack in it after a year, based on our Sale of Goods Act, Future Shop needs to replace it completely free of charge. A year is more than reasonable considering their own "warranties" can last years.

Another example would be Costco. I had a flat tire recently, and it is under contract / the Sale of Goods Act for Costco to replace the tire (I bought my tires from Costco) free of charge within a tire's reasonable lifetime. I did get my tire replaced for free in the end! If the tire became faulty due to regular wear and tear then I would have to buy a new tire.

In the sad case something like this needs to go to court, the Judge would most likely determine what the good's lifetime is.

That is an absolutely ridiculous expectation. Future Shop isn't responsible for your negligence and shouldn't be expected to replace all of your items whenever you treat them poorly, or even when something unexpected happens. The reasonable lifetime of a product, let's say electronics, is around 5 years. They would go out of business if they replaced every broken item free-of-charge under warranty in that period.

I'm just saying. That's what the Act says and corporations bank on the fact consumers don't know this.

It is pretty crazy and I can imagine stores losing a ton of money. On the flip side, they're making loads of money off "warranties" when these services are supposed to be supplied to us for free regardless of the way the good was damaged such as negligence.

When I mean "warranty", I mean the add-ons the salespeople try to impose on us. Like, for $5 bucks a month we'll replace your iPod if there's any damage to it.

The only reason why I bring up this whole thing is because it's pretty crazy :o

Personally, I think your lawyer friend is misinterpreting the law. I mean, that's what a lawyers job is. (my friend just said this so I've got to give him credit. I'm not funny enough to think of something like that)