Caps Plus-Sackville Service Centre v. Hickey

Caps Plus-Sackville Service Centre v. Hickey

The rear axle with low mileage failed after minimal use; the claimant's arbitrary three-month time limit was inconsistent with the statutory implied warranty of durability under s.26(3)(j) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore the claimant could not enforce the limited warranty and the defendant was not liable for the invoiced parts and labour.

Citation
2004 NSSM 29
Parties
Claimant: Clyde Cooper carrying on business as Caps Plus-Sackville Service Centre; Defendant: Michael Hickey
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Consumer Sale / Hearing Decision (adjudicator)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Warranties, Durability of Goods, Consumer Protection Act S.26(3), Breach of Implied Conditions, Evidence Evaluation
Source Language
English
Consumer Protection Contract Law Commercial Law Warranty Law Implied Warranties Durability of Goods Consumer Protection Act S.26(3) Breach of Implied Conditions +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clyde Cooper carrying on business as Caps Plus-Sackville Service Centre

Claimant

Michael Hickey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Consumer Sale / Hearing Decision (adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can enforce a three-month warranty for a used rear axle
  2. 2 Whether implied statutory warranties under s.26(3) of the Consumer Protection Act apply
  3. 3 Whether the axle failure resulted from abuse by the defendant or from lack of durability

Ratio Decidendi

The rear axle with low mileage failed after minimal use; the claimant's arbitrary three-month time limit was inconsistent with the statutory implied warranty of durability under s.26(3)(j) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore the claimant could not enforce the limited warranty and the defendant was not liable for the invoiced parts and labour.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.