The Art of Complaining. Phil Edmonston

what we see in Ford and GM vehicles today. In addition to replacing or repairing the product, the seller and manufacturer can also be held responsible for any damages arising from the defect (see the CASE SUMMARY referring to Wharton, Chapter 5). This means that loss of wages, supplementary transportation costs, and damages for personal inconvenience can be awarded.

      When a warranty claim is rejected on the pretext that the customer “altered”, failed to carry out preventive maintenance on, or damaged the product, manufacturers must prove to the court that there’s a link between their allegation and the failure (see Julien v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. [1991], 116 N.B.R. [2d] 80).

      Misrepresentation

      Misrepresentation or false advertising is illegal under federal and provincial laws and carries both civil and criminal penalties. Under the Competition Act, federal authorities regularly get multi-million dollar settlements from businesses that stretch the truth — or simply lie — to their customers. And, it doesn’t take much to start the ball rolling: a simple on-line denunciation (at www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GH%C3%89T-7TDNA5) will suffice to start an investigation that could cost a company millions.

      As can be seen in the federal court ruling against Bell Canada, Ottawa’s position is similar to Quebec’s: if qualifying information is necessary to prevent a representation from being false or misleading when read on its own, then that information should be presented clearly and conspicuously. “Fine print” won’t do.

      CASE SUMMARY

      Bell Canada found this out the hard way on June 28, 2011, when it consented to pay a $10 million settlement (the first time that the maximum penalty for misleading advertising has ever been imposed) and change its advertising after the Canadian Competition Bureau said the ads were contrary to the Competition Act’s civil prohibition against making representations that are false or misleading.

      Bell made false, misleading representations for over five years about the prices at which certain of its services were available (including home phones, Internet, satellite television, and wireless services). Bell’s representations gave the “general impression” that the advertised monthly price for the services was sufficient, when in fact Bell used a variety of “fine-print disclaimers” to “hide” additional mandatory fees which made the actual price paid by consumers higher than the advertised price (in one instance 15 percent higher than advertised). According to the Competition Act’s misleading advertising provisions, the “general impression” conveyed by the advertisement to the average consumer, as well as its literal meaning, were considered in determining that the representations made were false or misleading. The settlement between Bell and the Bureau is set out in a “consent agreement” found at www.ct-tc.gc.ca.

      As with most businesses caught scamming the public, Bell maintained it did no wrong. Nevertheless, the company paid the $10 million fine and agreed to drop all non-compliant advertising within sixty days. In particular, Bell agreed not to use small print or other ancillary disclosures that contradict the general impression of its price representations. Bell also agreed to pay the Competition Bureau $100,000 to cover the costs of [the Bureau’s] investigation.

      Abuse of Trust

      Abuse of trust is a polite way of saying to someone in authority “you lied.” Such a breach need not be intentional or malicious, but can be due to negligence, as was likely the case with Texaco and the Alberta Motor Association, below.

      CASE SUMMARY

      We are the Men from Texaco

      We wear the Texaco Star

      We like to think at Texaco

      We’ve got everything for your car

      We’ve got wipers for your windshield

      Plugs ’n’ belts ’n’ tires, too

      Lubricants and batteries and polishes for you

      All the things to keep your engine up to par

      We’ve got everything for your car

      That’s why you can trust you car to the man who wears the Star

      for the finest products that can take care of you car

      At every Texaco station, clean across the nation

      You can trust your car to the man who wears the Star

      The big, bright Texaco Star!

      In 1961, Texaco came up with the above jingle, which not only was hugely successful in promoting the company’s products but also won lawsuits for motorists who say they were ripped off by Texaco gas station repairs. Apparently, Texaco’s ad created a higher expectation of trust and that trust was abused by its franchisees. The jingle also figured in a $170 million racial discrimination lawsuit filed by black employees and settled by the company. It was the largest racial discrimination lawsuit settlement in the United States at the time, and was particularly damaging to Texaco’s public relations when tapes were released containing alleged ethnic slurs used repeatedly by company officers at high-level corporate meetings. The officers insisted they did not use the N-word, but were only referring to one of the black employees, “Nicholas.”

      Over the years the company had also been accused of damaging the environment, cheating its franchisees, and overpricing its products. In 1987 Texaco filed for bankruptcy.

      CASE SUMMARY