MacKinnon v. Gillis

MacKinnon v. Gillis

Defendant was not a 'seller' under the Consumer Protection Act so the statutory implied warranty of durability did not apply; claimant failed to prove any express or binding oral warranty or representation that induced the purchase; therefore caveat emptor governs and the claim must be dismissed.

Citation
2002 NSSM 5
Parties
Claimant: Carolyn A. MacKinnon; Defendant: A.P. Gillis
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Small Claims — Consumer Sale Dispute / Trial Decision (adjudicator's Reserved Written Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Implied Warranty of Durability, Definition of Seller, Caveat Emptor, Rescission, Oral Representation/warranty
Source Language
English
Consumer Protection Contract Law Sale of Goods Small Claims Procedure Implied Warranty of Durability Definition of Seller Caveat Emptor Rescission +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn A. MacKinnon

Claimant

A.P. Gillis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims — Consumer Sale Dispute / Trial Decision (adjudicator's Reserved Written Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the implied warranty of durability under s.26(3)(j) of the Consumer Protection Act applies
  2. 2 Whether the defendant qualifies as a 'seller' under s.2(n) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether any express or oral warranty or representation induced the purchase

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant was not a 'seller' under the Consumer Protection Act so the statutory implied warranty of durability did not apply; claimant failed to prove any express or binding oral warranty or representation that induced the purchase; therefore caveat emptor governs and the claim must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against the Defendant.