Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Court Sides With Dell Against Class Actions
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has just issued a new online contracting decision that removes the ability for consumers to challenge mandatory arbitration clauses found in e-commerce contracts. (Decision is here.) The case involved a lawsuit against Dell Computer, which refused to sell hundreds of mistakenly priced computers purchased on their website. Dell tried to sidetrack a class action by claiming that all consumers were required to enter arbitration due to a clause buried in its contract via a hyperlink. Geist explains why the ruling may not be as unfavorable for Canadian consumers as it seems at first, in part because some provinces have already passed laws banning e-commerce sites from blocking class-action suits."
In Australia, supermarkets (and places that bide by the supermarkets code of practice, like servos,7-11 ect) for products under $50 must give you the first item which scans at the wrong price (or labeled incorrectly) free (if you know to ask) and subsequent items at the correct price.
This decision is not very applicable to the rest of Canada because Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction (like Continental Europe and Louisiana). The court looks to the Civil Code of Quebec to decide the case.
In the rest of the provinces, the court looks to the "common law", that is to say, rulings in previous cases. This is similar to England and most of the United States.
If you read the supreme court's decision, it relies heavily on the Civil Code of Quebec.
Of course, I am not a laywer and this is not legal advice. If you want advice, pay for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard of what's referred to as "unconscionable" in Canada is lower than in the US.
IIRC (and IANAL here) but the Ontario court said basically said for "contracts of adhesion", (i.e., contracts like this where they know nobody reads it all) that, in order for a contract/clause to be enforceable, the test is, "if they had read it, is it reasonable to assume that this customer would've accepted it?".
So, it's a lesser hurdle to get over than "unconscionable = contract that no reasonable person would accept".
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Actually to be fair, in canada we have something called the consumer protection act that has this wonderful clause that companies are obligated to correct billing errors brought to their attention during the 90 days following the invoice date.
Note: BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION DURING THE 90 DAYS
This is why service providers here in canada try to keep people in the run around as much as possible as once its over 90 days, they do not HAVE TO DO A BLOODY THING....even if it was incorrect.
Now one thing i do NOT know is how much case law is out there that contests this, but i know for a fact a certain cellphone provider here banks on this as their margin inflator.
Ice Cream has no bones.
A couple of 30-somethings embark on the ultimate roadtrip
Well look, the Canadians weren't much help in WWII and they still are useless.
I dunno, for less than 10% of the US population, Canada seems to manage to hold its own. Also it looks like you've never heard of the 1st Canadian Army, consisting of over 200,000 men in 3 infantry divisions, 2 armored divisions and 2 armored brigades. Those guys only had to deal with crack SS divisions at Caen while the Americans took their sweet time capturing Cherbourg. Guess who won.
However I shouldn't expect a yankee to know much about history.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
May I also mention that the 10% of the US population captured 25% of the beaches on D-Day? :P
Also the grandparent conveniently forgets to mention WWI where the Canadians captured Vimy Ridge, where the British and French had previously failed. Yanks would also do well to remember which is the only nation to have successfully invaded their country and burn their capital city to the ground.
In Australia, stores are bound by law to give the customer the lowest price.
If they print it wrong on in a magazine or on the net then its the stores fault and the customer gets the cheaper price.
Unless new legislation has passed since I was there last, this isn't true. It's true for sundries and food below $50 or $100. It certainly does not apply to electronics at AU$1000, or to my knowledge, to electronics at all.
Websites are not responsible for pricing errors as long as it's caught prior to completion of the transaction. The key there is completion of the transaction--that's not when you click "buy" or when your card is authorized for the amount. It's when the product is invoiced and has shipped. If they don't catch it in that time, you're clear. But 99% of the time, they catch it between ordering and invoicing (most companies review invoices before issuing them for just this very reason since the process up until that point is wholly automated).
If such an error occurs after an order is placed, they will contact you. You can choose to accept the higher price and continue, cancel the order, or seek some sort of comp/freebie for the trouble. Just like you don't create a contract when you place an offer on a house or call in an order at a restaurant, clicking "buy" on a website doesn't complete a contract. It initiates one. For example, if your card is declined or if the product is out of stock, that's the end of it. A contract is not in place until your money has been taken (not merely authorized) and an irrevocable invoice for a product has been provided to you.