defendant Awarded $1,525.00 in CONSUMERS PROTECTION DISPUTE

Representing Defendant

CONSUMERS PROTECTION DISPUTE

Background:
The Plaintiff purchased a water system from the Defendant and signed a third party loan agreement of $10,500.00 for financing. The Plaintiff would make monthly payments to the third party and the Defendant would install the water system. Shortly after the Plaintiff cancelled the agreement within 10 days under the Consumers Protection Act 2002, however later rescinded the cancellation. Approximately six months later the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for the full amount of the loan and seeks and orders from the Court for the removal the water system.

Settlement Conference:
The Plaintiff alleged that it did not speak fluent English and therefore did not understand what it signed or purchased. The defendant submitted that the Plaintiff wrote its correspondence in fluent English and further submitted that the Defendants sales representative had spoke the same language of the Plaintiff and at all times the Plaintiff had not express any concerns.

The Defendant further argued that for approximately six months the Plaintiff has received the benefit of the water system and further argued that the Plaintiff ratified the agreement when it made payments further to a third party and not the defendant. In addition, the Defendant argued that the remedy to rescind is unavailable by law as it would prejudice a third party or an innocent party, therefore its claim against the defendant cannot be pursued.

After the Defendants statements the Plaintiff agree to pay for use of the water system. The Defendant agreed to make arrangements to cancel the binding agreement between the Plaintiff and the third party as long as the conditions of the settlement were met.

Terms of Settlement:
Plaintiff Shall:
a) Pay costs of $1,525.00
b) Return Water System:
a. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant cost for use of the system.
b. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant cost to uninstall the system.
c. The Defendant agreed to uninstall the water system
d. The defendant also agreed to contact the 3rd party loan agreement and have it cancelled under the conditions that amounts to the third party cannot be recovered.

Outcome of Settlement:
Defendant awarded:
a) $1,525.00

CLIENT SATISFACTION!

The Defendant had a strong case and argued that for approximately 6 months the Plaintiff had used the water system and benefited from the water system. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff has a direct agreement with the financing company and has failed to add the third party to the claim. There was no question that the Defendant had fulfilled their end of the contract and therefore, it was simply a matter or how the Defendant would like to proceed.

When the matter was brought to a settlement conference, the Plaintiff was faced with a decision going to trial and possibly facing a judgment binding the Plaintiff to a loan agreement of $10,500 or pay the Defendant $1,525 to remove the water system and have the loan canceled, the plaintiff choose to pay the defendant.

Disclaimer:past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.

Recent Posts